Fabian Society hustings: are you a socialist?

The five candidates for the Labour leadership were grilled on their definitions of socialism and the

Are you now, or have you ever been, a socialist? The Labour leadership candidates all pleaded guilty to quietly harbouring ideological convictions when asked what socialism meant to them, though they may well have anticipated some inquiry of a philosophical kind given that last night's hustings event at the Institute of Education in London was organised by the Fabian Society in partnership with a "broad front of the mind" (namely Progress, Compass, LabourList, Left Foot Forward and the Young Fabians).

Only David Miliband hinted that the question offered an old shibboleth, before showing that he was prepared to genuflect before it anyway in being "happy to sign up to" the assertion that "Labour is a democratic socialist party", a statement left in new Labour's new Clause Four in 1995.

This was clearly judged not quite the moment for Miliband the Elder to identify social democracy as the main live ideological strand of the socialist traditions, and to stake his claim that its political future now depends on a plural progressive fusion with the liberal tradition. Perhaps there will be other occasions and platforms for that argument, but a leadership hustings wasn't the place.

Miliband the Younger struck a Compassite note in arguing that socialism was about a critique of capitalism, or it was nothing: "being a socialist for me is about being willing to criticise capitalism and the injustices it creates". There is a significant difference of tone and rhetoric here, though "It is not about abolishing capitalism, but it is about changing it" was also essentially an argument for social-democratic reform, proposed as the viable means to meet socialist ends.

Andy Burnham quoted a popular socialist, saying that Billy Bragg's line "I've got a socialism of the heart" was the ethical socialist tradition rooted in the idea of community. For Burnham, socialism is about looking out for each other -- his best line of the night had been: "All of the things we criticise in the American health system are present in the way we fund care for older people in this country." But reciprocity has a hard edge in demanding a contribution, too: "Everybody looks out for each other, and everybody who is able to does their bit and makes a contribution."

Ed Balls wanted to make clear that he had been taking flak long before the contest for declaring himself "proud to be a democratic socialist" -- in the New Statesman, no less, during the New Labour high tide. The distinctive idea was collectivism in breaking down barriers.

But the substantive shift in "party ideology after New Labour" was not demonstrated by how they dealt with the S-word. That was a question Tony Blair could answer, too: hyphenating social-ism to argue it is essentially a "we're in this together" creed. (Indeed, Blair devoted a very short Fabian pamphlet to fleshing that thought out.)

What Blair the Social-ist had been unable to say, interviewed by Jeremy Paxman during the 2001 election, was that narrowing the gap between rich and poor mattered. Each of the "next-generation New Labour" candidates found ways to directly reference and reject his approach to what became known as "the David Beckham question", showing that Diane Abbott's claim that "there was a period when it seemed as though equality was a dirty word in the party" was now about the New Labour past and not the future.

Ed Miliband stated clearly: "It must be a central objective of policy to narrow the gap between rich and poor. It is so hard to do, that unless you make it a central objective, it isn't going to happen."

Ed Balls repudiated Mandelsonism, too, stating: "We aren't intensely relaxed about the filthy rich and it is important we say that." However, he wanted to stress the important commitments the previous government had made on redistribution and poverty, while attacking its "pandering" on inheritance tax in 2007 as a major political mistake.

"The gap does matter: it is not just about the floor, it is about inequality, too," said David Miliband, wanting to give equal priority to inequalities of wealth and power. As did Andy Burnham, who spoke about his background having informed his belief in a society where "health, wealth and life chances were more equal", presenting this as his defining mission and the cause of the party.

So Labour is clearly once again a pro-equality party. Yet, on the socialism question, it was Diane Abbott of the Campaign Group who suggested that a commitment to socialism need not be rooted in an intellectual framework.

"I am a socialist. What's it about? Well, I've never been a special adviser, I'm not an intellectual. For me, it's about: if you draw a line in the sand, what side are you on? If you come from a minority working-class background, you are acutely aware of what it is to feel marginalised in society. I've always chosen to stand with the voiceless and the powerless."

That hint of disdain for the usefulness of ideological speculation may be a rather more authentic Labourist tradition than any theory of socialism has ever been (the trade unions would never have founded the party if it had really wanted to be a socialist one).

The Fabian intellectual G D H Cole had written, somewhat approvingly, of Labour having a "socialism so undefined in its doctrinal basis as to make recruits readily among people of different types".

With the candidate of the left suggesting she was the least interested in the question of ideology, Cole's description of Labour as "a broad movement on behalf of the bottom dog" would seem to be the idea of socialism around which all five leadership candidates can easily converge.

Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and former general secretary of the Fabian Society.

HEINZ BAUMANN/GALLERY STOCK
Show Hide image

With the BBC Food’s collection under threat, here's how to make the most of online recipes

Do a bit of digging, trust your instincts – and always read the comments.

I don’t think John Humphrys is much of a chef. Recently, as his Today co-presenter Mishal Husain was discussing the implications of the BBC’s decision to axe its Food website (since commuted to transportation to the Good Food platform, run by its commercial arm), sharp-eared listeners heard the Humph claim that fewer recipes on the web could only be a good thing. “It would make it easier!” he bellowed in the background. “We wouldn’t have to choose between so many!”

Husain also seemed puzzled as to why anyone would need more than one recipe for spaghetti bolognese – but, as any keen cook knows, you can never have too many different takes on a dish. Just as you wouldn’t want to get all your news from a single source, it would be a sad thing to eat the same bolognese for the rest of your life. Sometimes only a molto autentico version, as laid down by a fierce Italian donna, rich with tradition and chopped liver, will do – and sometimes, though you would never admit it in a national magazine, you crave the comfort of your mum’s spag bol with grated cheddar.

The world wouldn’t starve without BBC Food’s collection but, given that an online search for “spaghetti bolognese recipe” turns up about a million results, it would have been sad to have lost one of the internet’s more trustworthy sources of information. As someone who spends a large part of each week researching and testing recipes, I can assure you that genuinely reliable ones are rarer than decent chips after closing time. But although it is certainly the only place you’ll find the Most Haunted host Yvette Fielding’s kedgeree alongside Heston Blumenthal’s snail porridge, the BBC website is not the only one that is worth your time.

The good thing about newspaper, magazine and other commercial platforms is that most still have just enough budget to ensure that their recipes will have been made at least twice – once by the writer and once for the accompanying photographs – though sadly the days when everyone employed an independent recipe tester are long gone. Such sites also often have sufficient traffic to generate a useful volume of comments. I never make a recipe without scrolling down to see what other people have said about it. Get past the “Can’t wait to make this!” brigade; ignore the annoying people who swap baked beans for lentils and then complain, “This is nothing like dhal”; and there’s usually some sensible advice in there, too.

But what about when you leave the safety of the big boys and venture into the no man’s land of the personal blog? How do you separate the wheat from the chaff and find a recipe that actually works? You can often tell how much work a writer has put in by the level of detail they go into: if they have indicated how many people it serves, or where to find unusual ingredients, suggested possible tweaks and credited their original sources, they have probably made the dish more than once. The photography is another handy clue. You don’t have to be Annie Leibovitz to provide a good idea of what the finished dish ought to look like.

Do a bit of digging as part of your prep. If you like the look of the rest of the site, the author’s tastes will probably chime with your own. And always, always, wherever the recipe is from, read it all the way through, even before you order the shopping. There is nothing more annoying than getting halfway through and then realising that you need a hand blender to finish the dish, just as the first guest arrives.

Above all, trust your instincts. If the cooking time seems far too short, or the salt content ridiculously high, it probably is, so keep an eye on that oven, check that casserole, keep tasting that sauce. As someone who once published a magic mince pie recipe without any sugar, I’m living proof that, occasionally, even the very best of us make mistakes. 

Felicity Cloake is the New Statesman’s food columnist. Her latest book is The A-Z of Eating: a Flavour Map for Adventurous Cooks.

This article first appeared in the 26 May 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Brexit odd squad