| political writing by and for young people |

AnticipationsVolume 14, Issue 1 | Autumn 2010

WHAT’S THE BIG IDEA? Matthew Taylor argues that the enlightenment holds the

key to Labour’s renewal

INTERVIEW NEIL KINNOCKLabour’s former leader speaks to Anticipations Editor James Green about what Labour must do to regain power.

OPINION YOUNG FABIAN IDEASYoung Fabian members share their ideas on a wide range of policy issues, from penal reform to the future of education.

FEATURE MY POLITICAL HEROAs Labour elects its new leader Adam Boulton, Gordon Brown and many others discuss their inspirations.

YOUNG FABIANS© YOUNG FABIANS 2010

The best fiver you’ll ever spendBy joining the Young Fabians you become a member of the only think tank in the country

run by and for young people. For over fifty years we have been at the forefront of the Left,

agitating for change through our pamphlets, magazines and events. You can become

part of that rich tradition by joining the Young Fabians today. What’s more it only costs

a fiver. That’s it. For that price you’ll receive the full edition of Anticipations delivered to

your door. It gets even better. You’ll also receive the Fabian Society’s quarterly magazine,

Fabian Review, and the latest editions of their policy books and pamphlets. So what are

you waiting for?

YOUNG FABIANS

Join the Young Fabians todayat www.youngfabians.org.uk

| 3 |

| from the editor |

Thinking bigTo defeat Cameron, Labour must accept that ideology and electability

need not be mutually exclusive

— JAMES GREEN —

It has almost become cliché to talk about Labour’s need to change. After a ‘change election’ we’ve had a four-month ‘turn the page’ leadership contest. Since May 6th change has been the operative word as the Party dissects where New Labour went wrong and deliberates over who is best placed to lead the Party’s renewal. However, while both these issues are vital to Labour’s future, there is a more fundamental question that the Left needs to ask. It’s a question that Matthew Taylor poses in this edition’s essay - what shape should social democracy take in the 21st century? This isn’t about policy, rebuttal or plans for government. It’s more fundamental than that. Put simply, it’s about big ideas.

These ideas must be rooted in the political and economic landscape of today. It’s no good reverting to the stale old debate about old vs. New Labour when the world has moved on since 1997. That doesn’t mean we have to abandon our core ideas. But it does mean that we have to reimagine them for a changed world. Neil Kinnock, one of Labour’s great reformers, put it best in this edition’s interview when he described this process as, “rediscovering what we’ve been about all the time.” As the wealth of ideas discussed in Anticipations by Young Fabian members shows, Labour has a rich philosophical tradition to tap into. The challenge is not whether we have big

ideas. It’s whether we have the courage to explore them in a meaningful way.

This is something that the Tories have been willing to do. While some on the Left scoff at Cameron’s new big idea, others recognise it for the dangerous intellectual framework it has the potential to be. Francis Maude, the Tories’ moderniser in chief, is right to argue that the coalition’s first hundred days have been more radical than Thatcher’s. Far reaching reforms have seen the state rolled back in a range of key policy areas. Yet Labour would be wrong to caricature Cameron as an unapologetic Thatcherite individualist. He has staked his reputation on the belief that a strong society and small state need not be mutually exclusive. While his views remain half-baked, the Big Society is far from superficial spin. Much worse. It has the makings of a post-Thatcher Tory ideology.

And here lies the key to beating Cameron; you can’t fight ideology with policy. To defeat the modern Tories, Labour must win a fundamental ideological debate about the rightful role of the state. This requires a powerful set of ideas that reflect the political and economic realities of today. As we face what Patrick Diamond describes in Anticipations as the three structural crises of our time - the fall out from the financial crisis, the emergence of competition from the East and

the pressing threat of climate change - winning this debate could not be more important. Yet to engage in it, Labour must escape the spectre of its past and accept that it is possible to be both ideological and electable. Ideology isn’t about swinging to the left or reverting to unworkable dogma. Rather, it’s about developing an intellectual road map that can be used to navigate a complex and interdependent world.

Some will argue that such a debate is self-indulgent, distracting us from the real task at hand - opposing the Tories’ cuts agenda. But if we are to be seen as a future government we must offer more than blanket opposition to the coalition’s cuts. The public have real concerns about the deficit and, as Allen Simpson highlights in our new economics column, there are structural issues within the UK economy that need to be addressed. Indulgence doesn’t come from ideology. Rather, it comes from dogma and clinging to outdated ideas.

It is often said that the greatest challenge in politics is not having the right answers but asking the right questions. As it elects its new leader, Labour must ask what social democracy means in the 21st century. It’s a question that goes to the heart of what the Labour Party stands for; and surely that is what renewal is all about.

James Green is Anticipations Editor

mattthomasillustration.com

| 4 |

| starters |

This edition of Anticipations comes at a key moment in Labour’s fight to return to power. The new party leader will set the tone and pace of British politics over the coming months. A weakening coalition has failed to get to grips with power since May 6th and Labour now has a once in a lifetime opportunity to halt the coalition in its tracks.

Our first elected leader since 1994, a closely fought but at times quiet and unengaging contest - but the end of this four month marathon signals that it’s time for a change in our party, from top to bottom. We’ve passed the point of talking about triangulation and new new Labour. The change that Labour campaigners and activists will be part of is a reconnection of Labour with people and communities from all across the country. The method will depend on who wins the leadership race but whoever that is, they will all need to reach the same goal of making Labour relevant again as a political and social force.

Our new leader faces a formidable challenge almost immediately - how to respond to the coalition’s cuts and what to say in October when the full extent of the reduction in spending is unveiled by George Osborne. The easy option would be to use Labour’s off the shelf pre-election policy which translates as opposition to any cuts to spending on this scale and offers only £15 billion worth of cuts in 2010-11. This is the easy option, but it’s not the right one.

Recent research from Demos and YouGov proved what many people had felt since the election, that Labour’s message on tackling the

deficit was simplistic and shortsighted. Labour’s unwillingness to offer a transparent answer to voters before May 6th on how we would have reduced the deficit was wrong, and according to the research it did cost us votes.

The change in our leader will also help us change the way we offer our policies to voters and will allow us to reassess our response to the deficit and the challenge of reducing public spending in the short term. Some new Labour MPs have argued that being transparent and honest with voters about where we would cut public spending is wrong as it engages the opposition on its own terms, but I disagree. One of Labour’s biggest challenges is proving in a very short space of time that our new leader and shadow cabinet are a credible government in waiting. To do this we need a credible solution to deficit reduction and one that is understood by voters as easily as the coalition’s promise to slash budgets by 25 per cent.

This isn’t the only change that the Party’s new leader will have to manage. The change in our politics since the election and the formation of the coalition has highlighted the weakness of Labour as an election-fighting machine. The new leader will face the challenge of reshaping the Party’s structure and organisational ethos. We need to be more open and welcoming to supporters and new members. We need a process for debating policy within the Party which isn’t symbolic and alienating like Partnership in Power was. We also need to consider how we select our candidates for Parliamentary elections to

stem the view amongst many Labour activists that the trade unions, party hacks and Party power-brokers hold the key to winning selection contests in Labour-held seats - even if this is more a perception than a reality.

Finally the new leader will have to initiate a shift in gear from Labour’s shadow ministers. It’s time to start holding the coalition to account and challenging them not only on the impact of their indiscriminate cuts, but also on their policies on schools, restructuring the health service and capping housing benefit for larger families. A new energy on the shadow front bench and an end to the distraction of the leadership contest will help Labour rebuild itself as an effective opposition.

The Young Fabians have an exciting role to play in generating ideas and offering a forum for policy debate both within and without the Labour Party. I hope all Young Fabian members are excited by this opportunity and that you will all read the ballot papers for elections to the Young Fabian and the Fabian Society Executives which are sent out with this edition of Anticipations. I have been on the Young Fabian executive for four years, and it’s been a very rewarding experience.

The Young Fabians are fifty years old this year and I hope that more of our members than ever before take part in this year’s elections. I’d encourage you to do so by casting your vote today!

For further information about the Young Fabians and to join the debate

on our blog visit www.youngfabians.org.uk.

Note from the ChairLabour’s new leader must be bold, open and offer real change

— DAVID CHAPLIN —

| 5 |

| starters |

There is something rather satisfying about seeing middle class white men feeling a little insecure about their identity. It’s a feeling that women – and indeed all other under represented groups – feel in Westminster on a regular basis. Placed on a podium in a neat, homogenous line, Ed Miliband, David Miliband, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham looked around, nervously loosened their starched collars and asked, ‘What kind of party have we become?’ Diane Abbott simply drew attention to the problem. Whoever becomes leader; they will know things need to change.

During the leadership campaign, diversity pressure groups made the most of the rare opportunity elections offer to make top party dogs listen to the base. Lead4Women was one entirely autonomous coalition that sprang up during the race, writing an open letter to all candidates that asked what they would do to support women’s involvement in the party.

All the candidates have now replied. Ed Balls and Ed Miliband offered the strongest commitments, both saying that they would support the policy of giving women equal representation in the shadow cabinet and continuing with women short lists. Andy Burnham committed to having the number of women in the parliamentary party reflected in the shadow cabinet and across all departmental teams. Interestingly, Diane Abbott provided the shortest response – we have to hope she felt she’d already been leading on this issue, rather than assuming that being a female candidate was enough.

David Miliband’s response was also unimpressive. Although he committed to making one third of his shadow cabinet women, he believes that softer methods are required such as training workshops for under-represented groups. While this has value, it implies that women are underrepresented because of some weakness in themselves, rather than a direct result of the subtle forms of discrimination that still exist within the party.

This certainly seems to be the message coming from rank and file female members. Talk to them, and they’ll tell you it’s not themselves they want to change – it’s the Party. The problems they have are the little things that appear everywhere but are difficult to explain. It’s the bemused feeling you’re left with when you put forward an idea in a male-dominated room, receive a blank expression and then hear your male colleague next to you suggest the same thing and get a hearty response. Or the extra anxiety that

comes from speaking in a room - not because you’re under-confident - but because you know as a woman you can’t afford to fumble. Women aren’t whining for the sake of it or because it’s just unfair. We know that there are at least three serious strategic reasons for supporting greater women’s equality.

First, we know that if you want to win elections, you have to win over the women’s vote. For some evidence of how much women’s ballot papers matter, check this out for a fact: if women hadn’t been given the vote, then the Conservatives would not have won a single election in the post war period. To win again, Labour will have to speak more directly to women, and the best way to do that is to get more women in it.

Secondly, having more women in top positions doesn’t just look better – it also produces better policy. Professor Sarah Childs at the University of Bristol has traced the difference 100 women MPs have made to party policy, documenting their input into the emergence of Sure Start policies, flexible working and extended maternity and paternity leave. Although men played a role in these policies too, the evidence shows that it’s women who have experience of these issues that bring them to the table.

Finally, women need to be represented at the top to help keep crucial women at the grassroots engaged and inspired. Women might have been invisible in the May election, but our influence was tangible. Out of loyalty, we kept quiet about our under-representation, and focused our efforts working hard behind the scenes, knocking on doors, coordinating meetings and arranging leaflet drops. It would be good to have some recognition.

Even now, Labour women are carrying on the fight. Autonomous groups are helping to organise women’s leadership hustings, mentoring schemes and networking events. They know that they’re not just working for the good of women, but for a broader fight about the nature of the Party. Labour cannot claim to be the party of fairness, equality and justice if it cannot get these qualities sorted in its own ranks. The sooner women and other unrepresented groups can feel more comfortable in their own skin in this party, the sooner our white middle class male candidates can feel comfortable in theirs.

Rowenna Davis is a Young Fabian member and journalist specialising in comment and features on political and social affairs.

Political PulseLabour must do more to value its women if it is to win again

— ROWENNA DAVIS —

| 6 |

| cover story |

So far the key questions in the Labour leadership battle seem to be about the past – ‘who is to blame for what New Labour got wrong?’ – and the present – ‘how best should we oppose the Coalition?’. Sure, there have been new phrases, lists of issues, a scattering of policy but unless I have missed something, none of the candidates have managed to communicate a compelling narrative about the shape social democracy should take in the future. It is easy to scorn big ideas like the Third Way or the Big Society, but they provide an intellectual foundation for the development of a broad policy programme.

These new ideas are often ways of returning to deeper political and philosophical traditions. In this spirit, the organisation I now run, the fiercely politically independent, Royal Society of Arts has a new motto - 21st century enlightenment. We have been asking how enlightenment principles have come to be interpreted and whether they should be rethought in the light both of today’s social and environmental challenges and important new insights into human nature. While this may sound a long way from the more prosaic debates in Labour’s leadership campaign, perhaps that process might benefit too from imagining a project which seeks not merely to respond to modern values, but to shape them.

To think about the core ideas of the

enlightenment, and how they gave rise to modern values, norms and lifestyles, is a process of cultural psychotherapy, delving into the collective consciousness of modern people. The rise of science and technology, the growth of market capitalism, the expansion of social tolerance and personal freedom – all these drew on the impetus of enlightenment thought.

Self-aware autonomyIn his recent book In Defence of the Enlightenment, Tzvetan Todorov suggests three ideas were at the core of the enlightenment project - autonomy, universalism and what he calls the ‘human end purpose of our acts’.

The principle of autonomy holds that human beings should be free to use their reason to create self-authored, valuable lives. Ever since the enlightenment, debate has raged about the implications of the ideal. But by the end of the 20th century, a combination of ideas (notably free-market economics) and changes in society (including the perceived failure of the postwar settlement and the rise of consumer capitalism) had led to the apparent triumph of an individualistic conception of autonomy and a highly rationalist view of human nature.

This ideology of possessive individualism

has shaped the way we think about democracy. With the decline of deference and class-based politics, the principle that the customer is always right has been imported into the political sphere. But the voter is not always right. The pollster Ben Page has summed up voters’ preferences in the phrase ‘we demand Swedish welfare on American tax rates’. But the preferences people express in polls are different to those they have after a process of group deliberation. When politicians and commentators genuflect to public opinion, it is generally to superficial individual preferences, not the outcomes of informed collective deliberation. The Labour leadership candidates constantly promise to listen to the voters, but what are they listening to?

Individualism has been subject to a variety of philosophical, sociological and political critiques. Meanwhile, public opinion and public policy have moved to and fro on the individualist/collectivist spectrum. But in recent years, research in areas as disparate as economics, evolutionary psychology and neuroscience have provided new grounds for questioning our interpretation of autonomy. The 21st century enlightenment should involve a more self-aware, socially embedded model of autonomy. This does not mean repudiating the rights of the individual. Nor does it underestimate our ability deliberately

WHAT’S THE BIG IDEA?Labour needs new ideas. It should look to the enlightenment for inspiration

— MATTHEW TAYLOR —

| 7 |

| cover story |

to shape our own destinies. Indeed, it is by understanding that our conscious thought is only a part of what drives our behaviour that we can become better able to exercise self-control.

Most of what we do is the result of automatic responses to the world around us rather than the outcome of conscious decision-making. Practically, it turns out that changing our context is a more powerful way of shaping our behaviour than trying to change our minds. If you want to be a more virtuous person, don’t buy a book of sermons – choose better friends.

The brain uses a whole set of shortcuts to make sense of the world and sometimes these mislead. For example, we tend not to be very good at making decisions for the long term and are better at understanding relative than absolute values. The panic of the credit crunch was a reminder of how we are in thrall to what John Maynard Keynes referred to as our ‘animal spirits’. We are poor at estimating our own capacities, predicting what will make us happy or even describing accurately what made us happy in the past. The moral and political critique of an individualist, rational choice model of autonomy now has an evidence base.

Empathic universalismBuilding on the idea of natural rights, which can be traced back to the ancient Stoics, Todorov’s second enlightenment principle, universalism, is generally taken to mean that all human beings are born with inalienable rights and equally deserving of dignity. It is a principle Labour politicians claim to be the well-spring of their beliefs. But what is it that drives us to act on the principle of universalism? It is one thing to sign up to the ideal, another to put it into practice. The emotional foundation for universalism is empathy.

In Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, people deemed to have reached the highest level, self-actualisation, are interested in problem solving, are accepting of themselves and – most significantly for universalism – lacking in prejudice. The developmental psychologist Robert Kegan goes further, arguing that a higher, more empathic level of functioning is essential to meet the practical demands of 21st century citizenship. This, “requires us to have a relationship to our own reactions, rather than be captive of them.”

The good news is that there is every reason to believe we can expand empathy’s reach. Despite major departures from the trend, the history of the human race has been one of diminishing person-to-person violence. Since the advent of modern civil rights, we have seen a transformation in social attitudes based on race,

gender and sexuality. Immigration, emigration, foreign travel, global culture and communication all provide us with reasons and opportunities to appreciate our similarities and respect our differences.

But are there reasons to fear that the process of widening human empathy has stalled, and just when we need it to accelerate? Levels of inequality have risen across the rich world. Tensions between different ethnic groups have taken on new dimensions. Anti-immigrant sentiment has grown, arguably reflecting a failure by policy-makers to balance the imperatives of globalisation with the empathic capacity of the (usually disadvantaged) communities most affected by change. There is concern about gang culture and about young people living more in the virtual world than the face-to-face one.

Despite the growing interdependence of the world, the national frame for political interests which became dominant around the time of the enlightenment shows little sign of weakening. The stock of global empathy upon which democratic leaders can draw has to grow if the long-term needs of the human race are to be put ahead of

short-term national interests. It is reasonable to presume that those most

relaxed about outsiders in their midst would also be those most inclined to be sympathetic to the plight of strangers far away. But the chain linking inter-personal, communal and global-scale empathy is complex. We need to understand better what enhances and what diminishes our empathic capacity. The policy implications range from child rearing to popular culture.

Ethical humanism Todorov describes the third enlightenment principle as ‘the human end purpose of our acts’. In other words, the basis for social arrangements should be what increases human happiness and welfare. There is little doubt we have succeeded in this area. The poorest citizens of the developed world now have better health, longer lifespans and many more resources and opportunities than those who would have been considered well-off two centuries ago.

But sometimes it feels as though it is taken for granted that the very act of pursuing progress is the same as improving human welfare and happiness. The success of the western post-enlightenment project has resulted in societies such as ours being dominated by three logics - of scientific and technological progress, markets and bureaucracy.

Sometimes these logics clash, often they reinforce each other. In politics and in the media, the abandonment of principle is excused by pressure to compete for power, votes or audience share. The voluntary sector (in which I work) might be thought of as a haven from competitive values. Not a bit of it. Charities compete for philanthropy, government contracts and media profile. And we all know how easy it is for day to day politics to drift away from ethical purpose and ethical methods.

A utilitarian approach to human progress leaves us without a framework through which we can inquire more deeply into what kind of future we want. Surveys suggest the Danes are the happiest people in the world not only because of their material circumstances, but because they say what matters most in life is good relationships. The most miserable nationality, the Bulgarians, say money is the key to happiness. Living the good life may be as much about what you aim for as what you achieve.

Ethical thinking is also part of our human nature. In a recent Yale University experiment, babies between six and twelve months old watched a simple coloured geometric shape ascend a slope. When other shapes intervened, apparently either helping or blocking the circle, the children’s responses showed a clear preference

Labour needs to find a way back to its radical roots, but its message

must be relevant to voters. The original

enlightenment sowed the seeds

for modern social democratic politics. Might the renewal of the progressive

project benefit from imagining a 21st century version?

| 8 |

| cover story |

for the helping shapes. The evolutionary biologist Marc Hauser has conducted a huge global online survey of moral judgements. He argues that subtle, but from a modern perspective idiosyncratic, moral distinctions appear to be ‘hard-wired’ in humans.

The logics of progress are themselves dependent on an often unrecognised ethical framework. Markets rely on trust, bureaucracies on duty and scientific progress on collaboration. Indeed, as life becomes more complex and fast moving, and using external regulation to shape behaviour is consequently more onerous and less effective, our reliance on benign motivation becomes greater. But is it becoming harder to acknowledge our ethical nature or find ways of talking about substantive differences in aims and values? Just as sexual repression spawned hypocrisy and vice in the 19th century, so the suppression of ethical discourse leads to the strange coincidence of an era that combines social tolerance and cultural relativism alongside an almost continuous drum-beat of public indignation against everyone from bankers and celebrities to welfare cheats and immigrants.

As we face tough policy dilemmas, recognition of legitimate ethical differences is necessary for an authentic and engaging politics – an enlightenment politics of human ends rather than a technocratic politics of regulatory means.

Moral reform The historian Peter Clarke first made the distinction between the ‘mechanical’ model of state-led change in Fabian socialism and the ‘moral’ model advocated by social Liberals such as Leonard Hobhouse and T.H. Green. It is an idea often referred to by David Miliband, among whose favourite books is The Progressive

Dilemma, in which David Marquand makes the case for reintegrating the two traditions.

If Labour does have a debate about moral reform, it may involve asking why recently the Conservatives have been more willing to discuss how people, not just government, have to change. This, after all, is one of the themes of David Cameron’s Big Society; as the state recedes, individuals and communities must be more willing to meet their own and each other’s needs. At a recent Number Ten reception Cameron said that, “giving back to society…is the route to a happier more fulfilled life.” This is a long way from the unapologetic individualist ideology of Thatcherism.

There are some searching questions to be asked about the thinking behind Tory rhetoric. Strong services and good local government are more often the foundation for civic action than its antithesis. And what of Labour’s own account of good citizenship? Tony Blair sought to re-moralise the Labour message with the emphasis on responsibilities as well as rights, along with a tough stance on crime and antisocial behaviour. But the tone of New Labour’s rhetoric often seemed punitive and populist, while the underlying account of human nature, in this and broader economic policy, was hard to distinguish from the self-interested rational man of economic orthodoxy.

In the 1970s and 80s, when feminists were asserting that ‘the personal is the political’, there was much talk of consciousness-raising. People were invited to reconsider their beliefs, social identity and most deeply held assumptions. Some of this may have been self-indulgent and even silly (I should know, I was chairperson of a men’s group in Leamington Spa), yet this approach contributed to major advances in social attitudes on gender, ethnicity, sexuality and disability.

Is it time for another consciousness-raising mission? There has been a greater emphasis in recent policy debate on what is called ‘behaviour change’. The focus is on the contribution we, the people, must make to social progress. What I have called the ‘social aspiration gap’ can be seen to have three aspects.

First, as citizens, we need to be more politically engaged and self-aware, acknowledging the dilemmas policy-makers face, giving permission for the right long-term decisions and recognising how our own behaviour shapes policy options. Second, with the cost of labour-intensive public services bound to rise, citizens need to be more self-sufficient and resourceful; looking after our health, investing in our education and saving for our retirement. Creativity and risk-taking are also vital. Third, we need to be more pro-social, contributing to what David Halpern calls the hidden wealth of nations, our capacity for trust, caring and co-operation.

To get noticed and mobilise activists, Labour needs to find a way back to its radical roots, but its message must also be relevant and attractive to voters. The idea that people can change, need to change and, through changing, would be able to live more fulfilling lives should be part of the story. It is an idea that builds from political values and science-based accounts of human nature and provides the foundation for new policy priorities and models of governance. The original enlightenment sowed the seeds for modern social democratic politics. Might a renewal of the progressive project benefit from imagining a 21st century version?

Matthew Taylor is Chief Executive of the RSA. He writes here in a personal capacity. His pamphlet on 21st century enlightenment is available on the RSA’s website.

The scientific revolution started byCopernicus led to the enlightenment.

| 9 |

| endnotes |

It was a moment that was foreseeable if not destined. But for me the day that my grandmother, Afaf Hanim Saleh, or as I called her ‘Nana’, passed away at the University of Alexandria Hospital, Egypt, came too soon.

She had been diagnosed with liver cancer, probably a result of the Hepatatis C she had contracted during a hysterectomy in the 1980s. Nana had been in and out of hospital so often that it had almost become routine. So while I knew that the end would come soon, it came sooner than I expected and certainly earlier than I was ready for. At the time I was studying in Cairo, but I would travel to Alexandria most weekends hoping to spend as much precious time with my grandmother as possible.

That moment and the hours before had a huge impact both on me as a person and my politics. Until then I had always been interested in politics, perhaps you could have called me a politics geek. However, I hadn’t yet made in my mind such a strong and direct link between politics and my life.

Most of all it provoked anger at a system that had let my grandmother down in her last hours. I was angry that the hospital was dirty and disorganised with poor record keeping and seemingly uncaring staff. I was angry that blood wasn’t available at the hospital for the blood transfusion she needed. I later found out that my grandmother had been prescribed a painkiller that might have eased her pain in her final hours, but instead she was allowed to die from organ failure in what looked to me like horrific pain. It all added up to an undignified and painful death – one that my grandmother did not deserve.

The flip side of my anger was a greater appreciation of the values, institutions and politics that ensure the most vulnerable in society are cared for. Values that mean everyone should have a right to health care, especially in old age, delivered with dignity. Institutions such as the NHS that embody these values, staffed by people committed to the work they do to help others.

It was then, almost ten years ago, that I chose to join the Labour Party. Looking around at Britain today, with a revitalised NHS, more funding and support for education and initiatives like the winter fuel payment to help elderly people live a dignified life, I know my choice was the right one. When it comes to the things that really matter, only Labour can deliver.

Omar Salem is a Young Fabian member

Inequality has always bothered me. As a fourteen year old at secondary school I watched smart kids from difficult backgrounds slowly disappearing off the educational map, and I questioned why something wasn’t being done about it. Growing up with stories of Swaziland and Iraq, where my parents had lived before I was born, I was aware from an early age that we live in a world where inequality and exploitation are often the status quo. Labour, to me, is the party that cares about inequality. And a party where people care about more than just their own backyard.

It is also the party that champions the opportunity to fulfil potential, whatever your background. This is what my grandad, a tailor and a trade unionist, fought every bit of his life to achieve for my dad and aunt. The days that his children graduated from top universities were, I’m sure, the proudest of his life. It’s what my other grandpa, who had to leave school at 14 to earn money for his family, went searching for in evening classes and finally found in RAF training during the war, which enabled him to become a teacher.

My family’s story, like many others, is about fighting for a better life, and making a difference to others. Because of my grandparent’s fights, my parents had more freedom and more opportunity. My parents taught me to invest these things beyond our family. By observing my parents use their spare time to set up a charity which resources local development initiatives in East Africa, and by building friendships with international students far from home, I’ve learnt that life and society are better when we reach out.

I finally found my way to politics at the age of 25, having had no introduction to it at school or home, to find out that politics encapsulated all that I loved about striving to build a better society. I’m Labour because I believe that Labour’s vision of how to do this doesn’t leave anyone behind.

I’m not proud of Labour’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, of control orders, or of the decision to go to war in Iraq. I’m extremely proud of the NHS, the minimum wage and Sure Start. There is more to do and there’s a new vision to capture - the future ahead is exciting, but the values are enduring. They are values that I’ve held since I was a little girl and values that I will grow old with. That’s why I am Labour.

Anna-Joy Rickard is Young Fabian Web Officer

Why I’m LabourFamily experiences and a belief in fairness drive our passion for Labour

— OMAR SALEM & ANNA-JOY RICKARD —

| 10 |

| endnotes |

Why did you join the Labour Party? Because I was painfully aware from my own background of the gross injustice, lack of power and exploitation being experienced by those around me. I wanted to change the world - but I wanted above all to ensure that the people who I grew up with and lived alongside had a chance to make a difference for themselves and to be properly rewarded for their hard work and commitment to one another. I realised that no political party exactly reflects your own feelings and attitudes at any given moment in time. But the values and principles which led to the creation of Labour and the interests it sought to represent were the nearest thing I could find - and would clearly be a vehicle for bringing about progressive and radical change.

What are you most proud of?I am proud of the changes in the way in which services were protected, developed and delivered in the teeth of Thatcherism by Sheffield City Council when I was its leader in the 1980s. I am deeply proud of the changes in the lives of the people I represent made by the government as a whole from 1997. But I am particularly personally grateful for the chance to introduce Sure Start, nursery education for all, primary school literacy and numeracy programmes and the New Deal, the major initiative to reduce unemployment. In addition, the difficult work of the Home Office was crucial to providing security, stability and the protection of the nation from terrorism.

What is your top policy priority? In addition to mobilising against the draconian and massively over-the-top cuts in public expenditure being undertaken by the coalition government, I see the task as explaining firstly, what it is they are endeavouring to do in ideological terms; and secondly, an imaginative and innovative way of trying to cope, at the same time as oppose. Quite simply, we need to explain the ‘scorched earth’ programme that the government are adopting - and the new structures, based on private self-interest, which they are seeking

to construct. We need to avoid simply being a good opposition and make sure that we offer a progressive alternative - based on empowering people in their own lives, rebuilding reciprocity and mutuality, and developing a sense of shared values.

Who is your political inspiration?My political inspiration has not been heard of outside Sheffield. Ron Ironmonger, now long dead, was the leader of the City Council when I was first elected to it; and then leader of the short-lived South Yorkshire Metropolitan County, on which I also served. His ability to teach me the hard lessons of politics, whilst still managing to give me confidence and encourage me to make my mark, was

quite remarkable. He had no formal further or higher education, but was self-taught; and he would be at work at the crack of dawn in order to be able to be in his town hall office in the afternoon and evening. His connection with the people he sought to represent, his maintenance of his values and his ability to speak a language that people understood was for me an exemplar to be followed in my own career.

What must Labour do to win the next election? It goes without saying that we need to be a vigorous, imaginative and responsible opposition. But if we are seen, as in the past, as being simply ‘a good opposition’, we will miss the point. People need to hear what we are saying; to understand our critique of the coalition, but to grasp in clear language what we stand for, who we stand for and how, not just whether, we will represent their interests. The task is to have a radical, relevant agenda that is rooted in the concerns and aspirations of people for whom politics is not a daily theatre, but a distant vision which they know can affect their lives, but with which they have very little truck. We must root ourselves in the community from which we grew, at the same time as grasping the challenges of a rapidly changing world. Helping people through change and reassessing the role of government in the 21st century is a prerequisite to being able to present ourselves as a government-in-waiting.

DAVID BLUNKETTThe former cabinet minister on his inspirations, motivations and

what Labour must do to win again

| 11 |

IN THE FULL EDITIONJoin the Young Fabians today for only £5 and get Anticipations in full delivered

to your door. For further information visit www.youngfabians.org.uk.

Join the Young Fabians atwww.youngfabians.org.uk

INTERVIEW

NEIL KINNOCKby james green

Labour’s former leader speaks to Anticipations editor James Green about

what Labour must do to regain power.

FEATURES

WHERE ARE THE NEW IDEAS?by patr ick d iamond

Oxford Research Fellow Patrick Diamond explores the big ideas that

should drive Labour’s renewal.

FEATURES

MY POLITICAL HEROby var ious

As Labour elects its new leader Adam Boulton, Gordon Brown, Ray Collins

and many others share their inspirations.

FEATURES

BIG IDEAS FOR THE FUTUREby var ious

Young Fabian Policy Development Group members pitch their big ideas

to Labour’s new leader.

OPINION

YOUNG FABIAN IDEASby var ious

Young Fabian members share their ideas on a wide range of policy issues,

from penal reform to the future of education.

STARTERS

ECONOMICS EYEby al len s impson

In our new economics column Young Fabian Allen Simpson argues that

Labour must face up to the cuts required.

and much more....

STARTERS

LETTERS TO THE EDITORby var ious

Young Fabian members have their say on the summer edition of the

magazine, Where now for Labour?

ENDNOTES

MY DAY JOBby dan ie l bamford

In our new column Young Fabian Daniel Bamford shares his experiences

creating and running a social enterprise.

YOUNG FABIANS