Beyond Westminster, Labour is rebuilding itself as a movement

In constituencies across the country, Labour is turning itself from a declining party of the twentieth century into a vital movement of the 21st.

If you believe the press, Labour has been hobbling toward its conference. So let me put the record straight: we have had a good year building a politics of One Nation, and we are in a strong position to win in 2015. Three years out of a serious defeat, five years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers signalled the end of an economic era, Labour under Ed Miliband’s leadership is renewing itself in deep and profound ways. We have an intellectual project - One Nation. We have an organisational project – the party as a movement. We are building the political project – One Nation Labour.

Ed Miliband describes One Nation as a country in which everyone has a stake, where prosperity is fairly shared and we make a common life together. That is the goal of our policy review.

Our immediate task is to deal with the crisis in living standards. Not since the nineteenth century have we experienced a decade in which we are poorer at the end than we were at the beginning. Wages are falling, jobs are chopped and diced and poorly paid, prices go up. Whole regions of the country lack a vibrant private sector. Too much of our economy has been about extracting wealth rather than creating it. Too many corporations have put their shareholders before their customers; worrying about the short-term rather than planning for the long-term. And there are too many sectors underperforming and relying on low skill, low waged jobs. Our tax base has been over-dependent on finance and property. As the economy begins to recover, David Cameron’s government is replacing police and nurses with an army of estate agents.

Labour has a real alternative. Not big increases in day-to-day spending; nor simply copying the Tories salami slicing. Our alternative is reform.

We will begin by dealing with the cost of living crisis and tackling the deficit. We will stop household bills rising so fast. We will cap the cost of payday loans, and work to provide people on low incomes with alternative sources of affordable credit. We will introduce workers on renumeration boards to ensure a fairer distribution of reward. There are no magic answers to rebuilding the British economy. Reforming our economy so that it works for working people will require everyone to play a part. Government alone cannot galvanise the creative energy and ambitions of millions of people.

Our state is over-centralised and unable to build the trust we need to develop the economy. It needs fundamental change. We will push down power and resources to combined authorities so that they can begin the task of renewing their regional economies.

In a time of fiscal constraint we will be guided by three principles of government. First, we will support local people taking on the power and responsibility to shape their services and communities. We will help people to help themselves and each other. Second, we will invest for prevention, in order to avoid the costs of failure. For example, we need to be building homes, not wasting money paying for our failure to do so through a rising housing benefit bill. And third, our policy will prioritise collaboration between the public, private and voluntary sectors to avoid silo thinking, silo services, duplication and waste.

Over the last year, the policy review has been making the One Nation political project a reality. We have organised conferences and scores of debates and round table discussion. We’ve published an ebook and at conference on Sunday we will be launching the new book One Nation: Power, Hope, Community edited by Owen Smith and Rachel Reeves.

Effective policy making has to be part of a larger story and movement that gives it meaning and purpose. In the party there is a growing energy to build a new political movement that creates real change in people’s everyday lives. Politics is alive and thriving, it's just not happening around political parties. In the past we drove people away with our inward looking, controlling political culture. We championed innovation and entrepreneurs in society and business but we neglected to encourage them in our own organisation. But Labour is changing.

We are connecting once again with people. In constituencies across the country, Labour is turning itself from a declining party of the twentieth century into a vital movement of the 21st. We are rediscovering our traditions; those periods in our national history when working people joined together to build a better life for themselves, to win political representation and to secure for themselves a just share of national prosperity. The democracy and greater equality they created have been deeply civilising influences on our country. That is Labour’s heritage and we are now modernising our traditions for the digital age. Iain McNicol is embedding these reforms in our organisation.

During the last year, Arnie Graf has been up and down the country meeting hundreds of people. Hundreds have been trained to organise in local communities. Movement for Change are organising campaigns like the community network Home Sweet Home in Cardiff, working with tenants and landlords to improve housing standards. Parties can no longer simply be vote harvesting machines. To attract people’s active support they need also to be social and cultural movements. When people are reduced to votes and votes become transactions people drift away. The thousands of conversations in people’s living rooms, the meetings, the social media based campaigns, the friendships and solidarities that develop around neighbourhood campaigning are not about jolting the old machine politics back into life. They are about creating a different kind of politics; people winning power and building the self-confidence to create real change.

People organising together to agree a common good gives society the power to stand up to the centralising market and bureaucratic state. We need to achieve a balance of interest in the governing of our institutions, in which no one interest dominates over the others. Our politics is about the renewal and conserving of our common life and it is about a deepening of democracy which gives people more control over their lives. Policy grows out of this position and establishes permanent change.

Those who worry about Ed Miliband's determination to change the relationship between the party and the trade unions need to understand that he is right. The millions of working people who are part of the labour movement are our life blood. Without them we are nothing. But we cannot treat them as if they are the Dead Souls out of Gogol's novel. We need a fundamental change in our relationship with them.

Both the Labour Party and the unions have to face a hard truth about our historic relationship. We stopped talking to one another. We need to rebuild our relationship and that means changing it. Working people have everything to gain from a confident union movement contributing to rebuilding the economy. The country has everything to gain from a Labour Party with deep roots in our cities, town and villages.

In the year ahead, the policy review will be focusing on what really matters to people: work, family and place. Work that is fairly paid to support our families. Family because nothing is more important in life, and the place where we live that gives us a sense of belonging. This is the political centre ground: families, where they live and the work they do. Our answers to the cost of living crisis are part of our longer term goal to build an economy that works for all working people and not just the few at the top. That is the task ahead, a new political economy for One Nation.

Ed Miliband delivers his speech on reforming the Labour-trade union link at The St Bride Foundation in London on 9 July 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

Jon Cruddas is Labour's policy review coordinator and MP for Dagenham

A small dose of facts could transform Britain's immigration debate

While "myth-busting" doesn't always work, there is an appetite for a better informed conversation than the one we're having now. 

For some time opinion polls have shown that the public sees immigration as one of the most important issues facing Britain. At the same time, public understanding of the economic and social impacts of immigration is poor and strongly influenced by the media: people consistently over-estimate the proportion of the population born outside the UK and know little about policy measures such as the cap on skilled non-EU migration. The public gets it wrong on other issues too - on teenage pregnancy, the Muslim population of the UK and benefit fraud to name just three. However, in the case of immigration, the strength of public opinion has led governments and political parties to reformulate policies and rules. Theresa May said she was cracking down on “health tourists” not because of any evidence they exist but because of public “feeling”. Immigration was of course a key factor in David Cameron’s decision to call a referendum on the UK’s membership with the EU and has been central to his current renegotiations.  

Do immigration facts always make us more stubborn and confused?

The question of how to both improve public understanding and raise the low quality of the immigration debate has been exercising the minds of those with a policy and research interest in the issue. Could the use of facts address misconceptions, improve the abysmally low quality of the debate and bring evidence to policy making? The respected think tank British Future rightly warns of the dangers associated with excessive reliance on statistical and economic evidence. Their own research finds that it leaves people hardened and confused. Where does that leave those of us who believe in informed debate and evidence based policy? Can a more limited use of facts help improve understandings and raise the quality of the debate?

My colleagues Jonathan Portes and Nathan Hudson-Sharp and I set out to look at whether attitudes towards immigration can be influenced by evidence, presented in a simple and straightforward way. We scripted a short video animation in a cartoon format conveying some statistics and simple messages taken from research findings on the economic and social impacts of immigration.

Targeted at a wide audience, we framed the video within a ‘cost-benefit’ narrative, showing the economic benefits through migrants’ skills and taxes and the (limited) impact on services. A pilot was shown to focus groups attended separately by the general public, school pupils studying ‘A’ level economics and employers.

Some statistics are useful

To some extent our findings confirm that the public is not very interested in big statistics, such as the number of migrants in the UK. But our respondents did find some statistics useful. These included rates of benefit claims among migrants, effects on wages, effects on jobs and the economic contribution of migrants through taxes. They also wanted more information from which to answer their own questions about immigration. These related to a number of current narratives around selective migration versus free movement, ‘welfare tourism’ and the idea that our services are under strain.

Our research suggests that statistics can play a useful role in the immigration debate when linked closely to specific issues that are of direct concern to the public. There is a role for careful and accurate explanation of the evidence, and indeed there is considerable demand for this among people who are interested in immigration but do not have strong preconceptions. At the same time, there was a clear message from the focus groups that statistics should be kept simple. Participants also wanted to be sure that the statistics they were given were from credible and unbiased sources.

The public is ready for a more sophisticated public debate on immigration

The appetite for facts and interest in having an informed debate was clear, but can views be changed through fact-based evidence? We found that when situated within a facts-based discussion, our participants questioned some common misconceptions about the impact of immigration on jobs, pay and services. Participants saw the ‘costs and benefits’ narrative of the video as meaningful, responding particularly to the message that immigrants contribute to their costs through paying taxes. They also talked of a range of other economic, social and cultural contributions. But they also felt that those impacts were not the full story. They were also concerned about the perceived impact of immigration on communities, where issues become more complex, subjective and intangible for statistics to be used in a meaningful way.

Opinion poll findings are often taken as proof that the public cannot have a sensible discussion on immigration and the debate is frequently described as ‘toxic’. But our research suggests that behind headline figures showing concern for its scale there may be both a more nuanced set of views and a real appetite for informed discussion. A small dose of statistics might just help to detoxify the debate. With immigration a deciding factor in how people cast their vote in the forthcoming referendum there can be no better time to try.