Loading... Please wait...

The change we need in the Labour Party

By Will Strawthe change we need

The Change We Need: What Britain Can Learn from Obama’s Victory, published today by the Fabian Society, is a book about culture, not technology. I moved to the United States two years ago - first to study in New York and then to work for a think tank and advocacy organisation in Washington, D.C. During this time I have been fortunate to have a window seat – first volunteering for Hillary Clinton and then for Barack Obama – as America had its most important election in a generation.

I was struck by the contrast between Clinton’s traditional, top-down organisation and Obama’s grassroots, bottom-up campaign that fully embraced the network potential of Web 2.0: Facebook, You Tube, and blogging. The main goal at Clinton’s New York fundraising office was squeezing wealthy Wall Street types for the federal limit of 2,300 dollars. When volunteers phoned up to get involved, their name and contact details were written down and added to a pile to be sifted through at a later point when spare hands were needed for an event.

By comparison, Obama’s campaign entered all this information into a database so that people were instantly thanked for volunteering, invited to training sessions, and asked what role they wanted to play in the campaign. Instead of focusing purely on high-end donors, they were asking for 5, 10 or 25 dollars from as many people as they could find. As we all know, the latter approach prevailed.

The aim of our book has been to show how the evolution of American politics over the last four years has been driven by changes in society, rather than because of Obama’s unique candidacy. In the networked society, citizens do not require the institutional scaffolding offered by political parties to engage in political activity. Anyone can set up a simple campaigning group on an issue with a few clicks of a mouse.

Obama’s genius was to understand these changes and embed them into his campaign from the start. The book brings together 16 authors who worked on the 2008 election or observed it at close quarters. Ben Brandzel and Faiz Shakir are to grassroots mobilisation and blogging what Obama was to community organisation. Marcus Roberts and Karin Christiansen – despite being British – spent weeks pounding the streets of Ohio, New York and Florida because they believed in Obama’s cause. Glenn Nye stood (and won) for the Democrats in a previously safe Republican seat because of his opposition to the Iraq War, where he had served. There are chapters on fundraising, the use of data, and Obama’s message of "hope" and "change."

My co-editor, Nick Anstead, and I have attempted to distil all this in our conclusion by explaining these changes in the context of Labour’s history. We chart the progression from a grassroots movement which has – partly in response to the internecine warfare of the 1980s and the advent of the 24/7 mainstream media – come to adopt a successful top-down structure. We contend that this model will lead the party towards irrelevance if it does not respond to these changes in society. As an attempt to start a debate, we have set out five principles that all political parties should consider:

•    Remove all barriers to participation, for example, by scrapping party membership fees and instead allowing members to set their own subscription level.

•    Create a cultural glasnost by enabling channels for dissent and debate.

•    Give supporters the tools to self-organise as the Labour Party has already done by letting supporters phone canvass from their homes by accessing the voter file online.

•    Keep supporters better informed by establishing individualised links with its activists.

•    Reward hard work and entrepreneurialism, for example, by considering a move towards open primaries for candidate selection.

Among these ideas there is no single silver bullet, no technological patch that can save the party from electoral defeat. Indeed, without a clear vision and corresponding set of policies, all other reforms are cosmetic. But we hope our book shows that the decline of political movements is not an inevitability and, in many ways, modern society is more suited to it than any previous generation.

Nick Anstead and Will Straw are the co-editors of The Change We Need: What Britain can learn from Obama’s Victory, published today by the Fabian Society.

Posted on Mar 23, 2009 at 10:42am


18 Comments · Show / Hide
Leave a comment »   show trash comments ·
Some replies:

Charlie R - I agree with every word. We go over more of what you talk about (but perhaps not enough) in the conclusion of our book. Not least in criticising the "walled garden" approach that the party uses in order to maintain discipline. Your argument also cuts to the heart of the "cultural glasnost" that we call for. In retrospect, I wish our book had said more specifically about policy making but there are others who have been making that point for years and I defer to them.

Matthew - thanks for your review. Give me a couple of days and I'll comment on your blog.

Godfrey - I'm afraid you're plain wrong. Let me quote from a recent article by Sunder Katwala which quotes data from their "Facing Out" pamphlet from a couple of years ago: "On a restrictive definition - counting only those actively engaged in a dozen NGOs - [there] is a pool of 2.5 million politically and civically active Labour people who we have not worked out how to engage. 9% of the group of politically engaged never-members were attracted by the idea of party membership, yet 64% were interested in becoming involved in local campaigns, 59% in national campaigns and 51% in campaigning against Conservative policy."

Billy - I think Charlie R is right here. In any case, I've been living, studying and working in the US for two years (but not a citizen) so subject to "taxation without representation." I got involved because (a) Bush's policies impacted on me negatively and I didn't want McCain to do the same, and (b) because I have solidarity with Americans whose lives were being screwed over by their government. Much to my surprise, I was welcomed everywhere I went canvassing whether in the campaign HQ or on the doorstep. Where I differ from Charlie R is that if a Republican turned up on my doorstep in the UK to campaign for the Tories I would respect his commitment to what he believed in but give him the hardest time possible for those views.
Will Straw @ 75 weeks and 5 days ago
Cheers for the reply, but I'm not sure about it. It just seems murky. All elections affect non-citizens in some way, but that's not enough to get involved, welcome or not. I'm sure some here would welcome those from any foreign party mentionable. To take it to extremes, what about Hamas or Nazi youth campaigning on behalf of 'sister' parties here? There are obviously more people outside of the UK than inside, so well-organised groups could flood the place.

Plus, no-one forced you to be an ex-pat. When I lived in the States, I was happy to live without a vote for a while. I considered it part of the deal. If I didn't like it, I could leave. Bush was a twonk alright, but it ain't up to me to decide if US citizens wanted him.
Billy Bob @ 75 weeks and 1 day ago
The change that Labour needs is banishment to the wilderness for all eternity.

Well, maybe Labour doesn't need it, but Britain certainly does.
Obnoxio The Clown @ 75 weeks and 6 days ago
I've reviewed the pamphlet here. http://blog.matthewcain.co.uk/the-change-we-need-revie/

I thought there were lots of good things in it and it's a really important contribution but the conclusions were weak because they failed to compare properly the similarities and differences
Matthew Cain @ 75 weeks and 6 days ago
This is a surprisingly unannoying article, Will. I'll offer you the congrats you almost deserve if you reply to these comments. Fair?

I have to take issue with one of your points and call you for being limited on it.

'Give supporters the tools to self-organise as the Labour Party has already done by letting supporters phone canvass from their homes by accessing the voter file online.'

This is not 'self-organise' by any currently-known definition. This is opening up the source code, as it were, to activists to do the enthusing and persuading of the public by more decentralised means. I think this comes to the heart of what I felt nagged about this article, and about the book (which I have already read) in general. Activists will not be enthused, or enthusing, about a party leadership that continually disappoints them, lets so many of the best ideas go to rot, makes so many concessions to ineffective leaders and governing institutions that the room for manouevre becomes artificially constrained and democratic choice limited.

Proper self-organisation should mean exactly that. Forming richer, more accessible, and more influential online spaces that enable Labour activists and potential recruits to gather around particular causes and policy options. Of course, this runs the risk that any political party poses - give the activists freedom, and they take away the party's discipline. I think you would be surprised though at just how beneficial such a process would be. Ed Miliband's LabourSpace has had a go, but again, goes too far in confining what can actually be said, and subsequently hasn't taken off as I think he would have hoped for. Real self-organisation would not only engender a relationship of real trust, and make the party more relaxed with itself. It would provide the NEC and ministerial corps with the best possible barometer of how the grass-roots perceive them, what policies would elevate them, inspire them, and get them sufficiently enthused for fighting on their behalf. I like to think that such online politics would be the most effective reality check for the leadership (see Laurie Penny's excellent article on Mr McNulty's expenses claim) and the most fertile ground for recalling the scope and passion for Labour politics that resides among the grass-roots. The real cultural shift is the shift away from deferential command-and-control hierarchical structures in management systems, and I think it's *this* that Labour really needs to catch on to. (see Gary Hammel's excellent book from last year, which was highly influential on Obama himself, 'The Future of Management' HUP.) Obama didn't patronise and condescend to his supporters, and his supporters responded in turn. This is the most fundamental lesson to be learnt from his politics, in my view.

Please do respond to this. This place becomes a talking shop, becomes a marketing gimick if you do not. (charliesteadyrainbow@gmail.com)
Charlie Rainbow @ 75 weeks and 6 days ago
The change you need in the Labour Party.

1. The removal of the current 'labour' government.
2. The removal of the current 'labour' parliamentary party.
3. The removal of most current members of current 'labour' constituency associations etc.
4. The removal of 'labours' head from Unite's arse.
5. The return of the Labour Movement from greedy self serving parasites, to the people it was meant to represent.

Just a five step plan. Work away.
Phil Free @ 76 weeks and 2 days ago
An extended period of enforced unemployment – as demanded by the British electorate, soon to be granted - would provide ample opportunity for Labour ex-MPs and their small army of paid advisors and hangers-on to engage in beneficial self-reflection.
Max Sceptic @ 76 weeks and 2 days ago
SMALL army; what've you been reading?

Crazy Carrot @ 76 weeks and 2 days ago
It will be a bit difficult to generate a bottom-up campaign for this government. There is very little grass roots enthusiasm for Brown and his government, just a rather tired resignation to the appalling economic condition we find ourselves in and the likelyhood of a couple of years of Tory government.

The only positive comments I hear is that at least the really difficult decisions after the next general election will hit the Tories and Labour can regroup. I suppose we can then possibly try something along the lines of the Obama campaign.

Godfrey Richards @ 76 weeks and 2 days ago
"The Change We Need" - is the removal of Gordon Brown.
Jonathan Cook @ 76 weeks and 2 days ago
and the labour government
Brian Allsdeep @ 76 weeks and 2 days ago
Sorry but is LabourList just becoming a portal for people to advertise their books?

The site appeared to be closed all weekend. A post I wrote on Friday evening appeared this morning.

To return to Mr Straw, I am sure you hope NuLabour will win again just to keep your dad in work but as you no longer live here perhaps you shouldn't worry about it?. Us poor mugs have to put up with the prospect of a real Tory or ToryLite, "Nu Labour" victory.
Alan Giles @ 76 weeks and 2 days ago
Its called socialist work ethic.



Actually I think that might be an oxymoron.


Crazy Carrot @ 76 weeks and 2 days ago
All very interesting, but do you really think people listen to this kind of thing when they hear of the scams y0u lot are up to. what is today 60 grand for a renting a room at Mums house.


You guys need to clean up your act bloody fast.



Crazy Carrot @ 76 weeks and 2 days ago
I think you'll find everyone is sick and tired of databases, you'd only leave it on the train. The problem is simple, you can't polish a t*rd.
Charlie Farley @ 76 weeks and 2 days ago
Assuming you do not have a U.S. passport, apologies if that is not the case:

I find it odd that you are happy to campaign in an election for which you have no potential liabilities wrt taxation, spending, new laws etc.
Frankly, I'd be pretty cheesed off if a bunch of Republican youth came over here knocking on doors for the Tories, or SDP supporters doing likewise for Labour, knowing that they would not be subject to the administration they were promoting.

I'd be interested to hear why you think that is acceptable.
Billy Bob @ 76 weeks and 2 days ago
Billy Bob, as someone who drunkenly gatecrashed the Democrats Abroad caucus and argued for Obama over ... that woman, I think I can answer this. It's to do with the reach of power, and the democratic engagement with the outcomes of that power. If you are affected by the policies of an overseas government (and by George, have our politics not been so dramatically affected by the policies of the GOP Administration in the past 8 years!) then do you think it's fair game to campaign? The days when all that affected one's life and community were confined to the representative government of the nation state are long long over (they arguably never really existed, in the purest sense), and my deliberation was that it was alright for me to push for a US president who I felt represented the only chance to claw back the costly military adventures we always tag along with, who could prepare the ground properly for a serious effective agreement on climate change, who wouldn't give so much sway to those queasifying cultural elements that seem to seep their way in the British body politic and public sphere, and so on, and so on.

So yeah, Republicans campaigning here, very much not okay. Progressive, well-meaning people with a global perspective campaigning in a critical US presidential election that affects us all, very much okay in my book.

(also, when I caucused for Obama, I spent a good drunken afternoon with my accomplice practicising American accents. don't knock it!)
Charlie Rainbow @ 75 weeks and 6 days ago
'So yeah, Republicans campaigning here, very much not okay. Progressive, well-meaning people with a global perspective campaigning in a critical US presidential election that affects us all, very much okay in my book.'

Therein lies the problem.
Billy Bob @ 75 weeks and 1 day ago