Right now, the Movement for Change is wrong for Labour

David Miliband has much to offer. But not this.

By Dan Hodges Published 26 January 2011 11:11

There are two ways of viewing the announcement that Labour is about open its ranks to "an army of 10,000 community activists" managed by the Movement for Change. One is that it may create tensions within the party. The other is that it will be a total, unmitigated catastrophe.

I lean towards the latter. I have huge respect for David Miliband. I voted for him in the leadership election and assisted his campaign behind the scenes. It's a campaign that, despite the result, was a model of professionalism and probity.

Movement for Change was its Achilles heel.

"It was a disaster," says a key aide. "We had these guys sitting down with constituency chairs who had just fought off the Tories and Lib Dems by a couple of hundred votes, and they're saying, 'Right, we're going to teach you how to organise a campaign.' "

"I'd die in a ditch for David," says another member of his team, "but to be honest, Movement for Change turned out to be a real problem. It took a lot of time, a lot of energy, and it just rubbed up a lot of potential supporters the wrong way."

Movement for Change grew out of Citizens UK, the community action group established by Neil Jameson, former director of Save the Children and the Children's Society, and Lord Maurice Glasman, dubbed "Ed Miliband's de facto chief of staff" by one Labour insider.

Citizens UK describes itself as "an experiment in democracy and the exercise of civic power". According to its website, "Ordinary people feel powerless to influence the decisions which affect their lives. This is dangerous for democracy. It is dangerous for politics. When politics fail, violence is the resort of the desperate."

The organisation has a strong base among a diverse range of faith communities, which in turn has a strong influence over its culture and agenda: "The power and influence that we seek is tempered by our religious teachings and moral values and is exercised in the fluid and ever-changing relationship with our fellow leaders, allies and adversaries."

According to a prominent Labour adviser who has worked closely with the party on its organisational structures: "They're relatively new on the UK political scene. I didn't know much about them except the media hype. Then Movement for Change had a big meeting at party conference which started full and ended up with less than half that number. They had one activist shouting at Ed Miliband across the room, there was a lot of singing, and there were a lot of people demanding Ed provide them with pledges on this and that. I'd question whether it's possible to integrate their culture with that of the party."

According to another Labour activist who has attended one of the events: "Citizens UK are very strongly based around religion. When I was there you'd have some dragon dancers, then a priest, then some songs. There were always points where people were asked or encouraged to express some form of affirmation for the cause."

Nevertheless, Citizens UK, and its subsidiary London Citizens, can point to some significant political successes. It was instrumental in promoting the idea of the living wage, led the fight for the abolition of detention of child refugees and secured the presence of all three political leaders at its conference in the middle of last May's general election campaign.

But there is a political ambiguity to its aims which many in the Labour Party find troubling.

One very senior organiser who is closely associated with Movement for Change and Citizens UK admitted to me that, despite claims to the contrary, "We have had no real success in developing our relationship with the trade unions."

Maurice Glasman told the Guardian on Monday, "The unions are the great silent, awful fact in all this. They are the self-organised wing of the Labour movement. They are dominated by a narrow crust of progressive activists, they are disengaged from their members. And what Labour's got to understand is that we've lost the art of leadership and organising, so Labour's got to set up its own organising academy."

According to the Guardian, it is envisaged that Movement for Change will be "autonomous, controlled by its members, and affiliated to the Labour Party as a socialist society".

There is the added issue of the relationship between Citizens UK and David Cameron's "big society" agenda. Citizens UK claims that it intends to "play a key role" in building the "big society". According to the organisation, "In the Conservatives' 'big society' paper and manifesto, Citizens UK is mentioned as the main resource for the training of community organisers, which the Prime Minister repeated."

In the wake of Labour's election defeat, it is only right that people look afresh at all aspects of the party's infrastructure and organisation. But the new politics appears to be advancing on the party not in single spies, but in battalions. What is needed is a professional, root-and-branch reorganisation. What we appear to be getting is the establishment of a people's militia.

David Miliband still has much to offer his party. Movement for Change is not the vehicle for delivering it.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Dan Hodges

20 comments

Thu, 2011-01-27 00:10 — Giuseppe (not verified)

I really wish M4C was as successful in practise as it was in theory - and in the training I have attended. I am reading rules for radicals, a great book, and the training was interesting also. But when it comes down to it, I found it overtly religious, with "testimonies" and cringeworthy singing and performances. I'm afraid it is not a serious political movement - especially in the eyes of the cynical British public - and ends up being a pseudo-religious and very cheesy affair because those types of people are the only ones attracted to it.

It is also the quickest way to alienate the white working class which Labour so desperately needs to defend once again. I cannot help but see it as a shameful pandering to religious communities in exchange for votes at the cost of the more cynical, harder to reach, harder to help but most in need in our society. Too harsh, perhaps, but theres some truth in it no doubt.

Thu, 2011-01-27 00:13 — kenny jenkins

"The Unions are the great silent, awful fact in all this. They are the self-organised wing of the Labour movement."
Self-organisation!
We can't have that!

Thu, 2011-01-27 05:14 — JeremyP

Lets take a look at Miliband D's record in office shall we? I'm doing this because the author states that he has enormous respect for the man.

1.DEFRA

Presided over the Foot and Mouth shoot-in-the-foot episode, in which DEFRA, refusing to pay for the upgrade of the waste facilities at one of their labs, themselves released the F&M virus.

Add to that the Rural Payments scheme for CAP payments to farmers. Beckett made a total Horlicks of this, leaving a number of farmers bankrupt. Miliband continued in this vein. One wonders if he has ever set foot on a farm in his life?

2. FCO.

Unmitigated disaster. Utterly pissed off the following coutries

Russia
Sri Lanka
India
One other I can't remember.

India he pissed off so badly Mandelson had to be sent out their to soothe the Indian's furrowed brows.

Conclusion. The man is an idiot and should not be allowed the reins of power again.

Thu, 2011-01-27 05:15 — JeremyP

No we can't...

Thu, 2011-01-27 10:52 — Kathy (not verified)

Why is it that people are ascribing to Ed Milliband what he is & what he has done? That was the mantra labour party members were sold on.

Ed Millibad I have found out is just an empty vessel & yes the union man. Ed Milliband in my opinion will follow in the footsteps of his mentors Neil Kinnock & Gordon Brown and will NEVER win a general election as leader of the Labour Party.

I am disregarding the opinion polls; lets face itLabour consistently had higher poll rating under Neil Kinnock and yet lost general elections.

It is not too late for the Labour Party to get another Labour Leader in place.

The fact that Lord Sainsbury decided to give a large sum of money to M4C and not thelabour Party under Ed Milliband is in my opinion a VOTE of no Confidence in Ed's wishy washy leadership of Labour Party.

To JeremyP writing rubbish articles on D Milliband I say grow up; he is 100% better than Ed Milliband and should be the leader.

I am a Labour Party member and I'll tell you this I hate the present way it is organised. Every branch is akin a clique with outdated motions that only ppl who have been Labour Party members for years understand.

Lord Sainsbury gave the money to M4C and if ppl don't like it; he should take his money back.

Thu, 2011-01-27 23:28 — Sue Davies (not verified)

For once, I actually agree with Dan Hodges. If people want to be active within the LP, let them join their local branch and work together with the membership. I know that many will be very offended and repelled by some newly trained organiser coming in trying to 'teach their grandmother to suck eggs'!

I do not share David Miliband's politics and I suspect that this will be a force for disunity... Ed Miliband may rue the day that he allows this potential party within a party. The economic situation is too serious for this distraction.

Wed, 2011-01-26 12:03 — Isla Dowds (not verified)

This paints a very distorted and superficial picture of Movement for Change and what is described bears little resemblance to my experience of it. The description of the party conference meeting in particular is very distorted and has a really quite unpleasant smell to it. I agree that the training that occurred during the leadership campaign needs refining in a number of ways, but the basic premise of it has validity. The need for Movement For Change is in itself a huge challenge to how the Labour Party functions, and the failure to realise that, and respond positively to that, is, ironically , given clear voice here.

Wed, 2011-01-26 12:09 — Praguetory (not verified)

I hate to be churlish but whilst Maurice Glasman might have some interesting ideas but has absolutely no communication skills. When your policy stance is a blank piece of paper, blurring the edges of what the party is may not be a good idea.

Thu, 2011-01-27 11:41 — JeremyP

Kathy
27 January 2011 at 09:52

Kathy,

Listing someone's failures as a politician is not a "rubbish article". You may disagree with me, but the history is there, and again - that you disagree with me does not make it a "rubbish article". Get over your prejudice, and look at the facts. Miliband D was a DISASTER

Wed, 2011-01-26 12:45 — One Party, one movement (not verified)

If these people want to help Labour, why not just do it through the Party?

Instead, a slightly-nutty campaign idea by an otherwise excellent candidate (I also voted for David) gets a zombie-like life of its own.

Creating an unnecessary affiliated socialist society with extra bureaucracy, factionalism, rules, membership, blah, blah, blah... complete waste of energy.

Tue, 2011-02-01 10:59 — Jos Bell (not verified)

Having spent quite a significant amount of time with the M4C team, I find the notion ~ or dare I say, the accusation, of there being a religious element to their work to be deeply puzzling.......just because people stand up and talk of their own experience and a couple of songs are sung here and there (not that I've heard any myself!) does not make for a false god ~ it simply speaks of the human condition through the human voice.

The M4C negotiating approach taken to mending community discord has indeed shown some specific success and offers models for further work ~ albeit I do agree that care does need to be taken in ensuring that the experiences of those with existing community development expertise are not dismissed as an irrelevance.

Also btw Jeremy P - David making 'inconvenient' waves in Sri Lanka proved to be a literal life saver for the Tamil community who had been so brutally corralled at the end of the war. I think had you found yourself in their position you would have been very grateful to find a Foreign Sec who stood firmly against a genocidal govt. Yes?

Wed, 2011-02-02 15:05 — Margaret Thatcher's rent boy (not verified)

Build and maintain your own independent community protest groups, linking up with others you trust. Movement for Whatever will just sap your energy, resources, and direct it into the goals of Miliband's Tory/Lib B Team and their politicos' careers.

Thu, 2011-01-27 13:35 — cuffleyburgers (not verified)

Anything that is bad for The Labour Party is good for Great Britain

Tue, 2011-02-01 12:41 — Union Steve

I wish I erned a bosses wage. Idiots who spout this should look at the facts try a comparison with bankers, the CEO's of the top 500 companies, Ex state owned utility bosses, lawyers,Local government Cx's Health Cx's and many many more. The unions are needed more today than ever. As for David Miliband he lost and it's up to him when or if to return. The Labour party is adopting the right strategy at present thats why thre are so many right wing attacks comming his way. Keep up the good work Ed and Ed.

Fri, 2011-01-28 13:46 — Luddite (not verified)

The real problem for the workers party is, the maggots have crawled back in and are happily chewing at the very body politics of the workers party. The same is true of the trade union movement. We have union leaders on bosses wages, more interested in politics then the economies of their industries.

Wed, 2011-01-26 17:02 — Nilsey105

Sounds like the old problem of a party within a party. Most would only be jumping on the bandwagon of growing dislike or even hatred of the coalition parties and government.
Keep them at arms length.

Tue, 2011-02-01 19:36 — MikeH (not verified)

Community Organising has a great deal to offer in the UK but not if it is hostage to a political party. The raison d'etre of community organizing is to hold all in power accountable irrespective of their political colour. The Movement for Change tried to compress community organising into a one day course led by those who had done yesterday's one day course. As a result the presentations were lightweight but still sufficient to engage an audience of younger activists. Movement for Change also ignored the fact that community organizing (other than that run by London Citizens) actually exists in other parts of England & Wales and trampled into their areas without even a phone call.

Thu, 2011-01-27 12:27 — Kathy (not verified)

I disagree with you. David Milliband was NOT A DISASTER.

He should have been the leader of the Labour Party; but for the unions who gave the votes to Ed Milliband.

Ed Milliband will always be known to British people as the unions man.

Wed, 2011-01-26 18:53 — AlBevan (not verified)

I think there is a danger here of disregarding Movement for Change as a group of outside of actors seeking to undermine the Party.

While that characterisation is wrong, I can understand why cynicism exists. However, the people driving this are party activists who have fought, and are fighting, elections for candidates in many regions across the UK. In the same way, they are volunteering here to help the Party reach out in a way it hasn't done for decades so it would be a pity to stigmatise those activists putting even more time into helping the party right from the off. Furthermore, I don't accept that claiming to reach out in a more relational way is the same as rubbishing our current structures. What it does is recognise the limits of those structures with a construcive solution.

I don't know where the 10,000 figure came from but I wuold imagine that is a distant target. None of the statements from the organisation even hint at re-organising the Party.

I hope most members would agree that when peolpe feel powerless in their community they shuold see the Labour party as a creative force that will act in their interests. If this to happen the party needs to react to towns and cities as they are and not as we want them to be. If that means embracing churches and using actions that people enjoy, then so be it. Its what the Party did in the 1920s through bizarres and tea dances and its what helped us hit the 1 million membership milestone that we've failed to surpass in recent years.

Rather than being a new fad, I'd argue that this small but (hopefully) growing project is an expression of the early incarnation of the Party as a movement where means has significance as well as ends.

From what I've seen so far, no one has denounced our campaigning techniques and anyone that tells good campaigners that 'I will teach you proper' is out of order. However, if sceptics set their sights against Movement for Change without giving it a chance they should take up the responsibility of re-enthusing those members with specific ideas that go beyond calling for a 'professional root and branch re-organisation'. Ironically I would argue that such an approach is more of an affront to our current structures.

Wed, 2011-02-02 03:07 — steve (not verified)

Hey, now that we see people taking it to the streets why don't we create some group that can channel their anger and frustration down a dead end road. Let's call it BOWEL MOVEMENT FOR CHANGE. Wouldn't want things to change too much and our party to also be sidelined, would we?

Shysters!!!