It’s possible that by rediscovering, utilising and empowering its membership; restating its unique place within the Labour movement and becoming a dynamic and transparent organisation; the Fabian Society could play a central role in helping Labour on its journey back to power.
The Fabian Society has been at the heart of the Labour movement since its creation in 1884. Founded on the principles of active democracy, equality of opportunity, and just distribution of wealth and power, the Fabians have arguably played a vital part in laying the foundations of the Labour party. Indeed they developed some of the cornerstone policies of every Labour government since 1924.
The Society is not only a thinktank, often referred to as the brains of the Labour party, but it also a democratic membership organisation which elects its own executive every year, and, unlike its competitor thinktanks, it is officially affiliated to the Labour party.
Yet the Society has faced three challenges in recent years which have threatened to reduce its vibrancy, internal activism, and its relevance to rank-and-file members of the Labour party. These challenges raise big and difficult questions for the Society’s next general secretary about what it means to be a Fabian in 2011.
Firstly, the three successful elections which Labour won with Tony Blair as leader offered the Fabians exceptional influence over policy development inside government. The Fabians’ strength has been rigorous investigation of facts and figures which reveal the inequality of individualist policies – intended or otherwise. Through well-timed and well-argued research and policy pamphlets the Society has been able to help shape New Labour’s legislative and policy priorities on many issues, including influencing the Labour government’s decision to increase National Insurance to raise £8 billion for the NHS in 2003.
Given the openness of Labour ministers to innovative Fabian ideas this approach is understandable, but easy access to cabinet ministers at the centre of government shouldn’t stop the Society seizing new opportunities to engage its grassroots members as well. For example, Blair’s constitutional reform which created new centres of power in the Welsh assembly and the Scottish parliament could have been a moment to set up Fabian Society operations in Cardiff and Edinburgh. Equally, the recent increase in Fabian membership to over 6500 is an opportunity for the Society to have a bigger footprint outside of Westminster.
The second challenge to the Fabians is a new phase of Labour party internal factionalism, inherited no doubt from old battles but with new faces. The founding of Progress in 1996 to promote progressive centrist policies within Labour, and then of Compass in 2003 explicitly to provide a ‘different path’ from the Blair government are evidence of polarisation within the party between left and right, new and old, and sometimes Blairite and Brownite. This trend is a direct result of the success of the New Labour project and the shifts in political positioning which it prompted.
Yet the challenge for Fabians is that they explicitly do not adopt collective political positions; Rule Two of the Society’s constitution forbids it. Instead the Fabians are a forum for debate and discussion, where differing views can be aired and challenged within the Labour movement, and at a short but very safe distance from the party itself.
Fabians have been stuck in the middle by the growth of factions within the party, and by the success of Progress and Compass. While being Fabian means you share a commitment to equality and democratic institutions (as embodied by the Society’s internal arrangements and elections), it doesn’t mean that you all support a particular leadership candidate, or mayoral candidate, or even necessarily a political and policy direction.
Labour’s current breadth of political opinion and the presence of differing factions within the party makes Rule Two of the Fabians’ constitution and the open and unique space for debate that it creates more important now than at any time since the birth of New Labour in the 1990s. It’s not a weakness that the Fabian Society doesn’t take collective positions, it’s a strength, and the new general secretary has a challenge and opportunity to make this clear.
The third challenge is not as easy to pinpoint, but in broad terms it is a problem of political attractiveness. There are parts of the Society which are very attractive to new members and to Labour party activists and policy-makers. For example the Young Fabians actively welcome new members and support them where possible to become more active, engaged, and ultimately more influential within the Society and the Labour party.
This is reflected not only in the growth of the Young Fabians membership (contributing over 190 of the Society’s 320 new members in 2010), but also in the high number of people standing in the Young Fabian executive elections, over 40 last year. Contrast this to the Fabian Executive which received slightly fewer nominations for election last year, despite there being more positions to fill, and arguably it being a more important and prestigious body to be elected to.
The challenge here is to make involvement in the Fabian Society’s activity more attractive for Labour people across the UK. At its most simplistic this means increasing the number of people (including minorities) standing for the Executive, as that is a vitally important test of the institution’s health. This could also be complemented’ for example, by embracing new membership-led ideas where the Fabians haven’t traditionally ventured and partnering more proactively with groups such as Movement for Change, or other community organising initiatives.
All these challenges underline the need for the Society’s executive and its new general secretary to decide what the purpose of the organisation now is. What does it mean to be a member of the Fabian Society, and how should the Society reform itself to survive in the new political reality? In particular, how should it capitalise on the unique link that the Society has with its membership, and how should members be encouraged, cultivated, and expanded to regenerate grass-roots policy-making within Labour?
The Young Fabians are inviting comments on the future of the Society from Fabian members and non-members alike, go here to take part.
David Chaplin is a member of the Fabian Society Executive and a former chair of the Young Fabians
but when Capitalism has us all by the short and hairys ,active democracy,equality of opportunity and just distribution of wealth and power are not possible because competition means the ‘ dog eat dog’ rules. Lets be honest. There are no clear intellectual voices to explain how virulent Capitalism can be curtailed ,and now we as a country need to ‘grow’ blah blah .Sod the country, we know the players say, I’m here to make MY money.Where is the voice that leads us to offset this, in law? If it is ‘socialism’ lets hear a definition for our times,words of one syllable, so we can all understand.
David, Thanks for the piece. It is good to open up these debates, and I am glad the Young Fabians are also trying to do so. But “reform or die” – unless it is is just a Progress nod to Blairite tribute band nostalgia circa 1996/97- does seem to me to be rather overwrought. The Fabian membership was just over 6950 at the end of the year, which is a record in the last 126 years, which is a good basis for further revisionism and reform, which is the one constant in the Fabian tradition. On transparency, I think the Fabians must surely on structure be at or near the top of the league of Westminster think-tanks and pressure groups, given the democratic structure, open all member AGMs with the ability to propose motions and reforms, election of the board and Young Fabian board annually by the membership, publication of accounts and accurate membership figures to all members, and opportunitiies for voluntary-led activity. I will be interested to find out how many of these democratic features Progress emulate, so have asked them that. On point 1, I broadly agree on Scotland and Wales, in terms of think-tanks generally as well as the Fabians. Readers may not know that the Society’s members do annually elect a Scottish and Welsh convenor. Most, but not all, activity is voluntary-led. Establishing offices in Edinburgh or Cardiff would require quite a bit of financial resource, but I there are probably other ways to engage with non-Westminster centres of power. On point 2, you argue for the status quo. There appears to be a lot of support for that. A proposal to change it at the AGM got 3 votes. The self-denying ordinance on collective positions ought to liberate the Society to publish and platform important interventions. I don’t think it has diminished the Society’s voice on inequality, tax, universalism, etc – and clearly it facilitates challenging and heretical interventions. Gisela Stuart’s polemical broadside on the EU constitution was one of the most interesting pamphlets I have published. I am not sure what evidence there is that Compass and Progress have marginalised the Fabians. As you imply, both find some political energy in mobilising factionally, but lead to a large group of party members being glad of a non-factional space. That is as true in the PLP as it is among party members. Compass have done well to have a very vocal presence from part of the party’s left in just a few years. On point 3, there is certainly as much and probably more local activity than before. The network of 60+ regular local groups are valued as local discussion groups, and certainly give the Fabians more regular voluntary-led activity than any comparable think-tank or pressure group. The challenge of linking that to policy development is a tricky area to devise effective models. The Young Fabian policy networks are working well. Fabian members have rejected many times at AGMs a proposal for member-based voluntary policy groups, sensibly in my view. Among other things would be smaller replicas of our sister socialist societies. I would have thought greater online engagement could well develop over time, supplementing the active network of local groups. On “minorities”, is there evidence of under-representation in Fabian EC candidates? The current and the previous Chair, the current General Secretary and the current Fabian Women’s Network coordinator happen to be BME or mixed race, simply by chance. I am personally a bit sceptical about a boxing in approach to minorities, and I think the party’s discourse is often quite outdated in this area, and potentially unintentionally marginalising, as I tried to suggest in evidence to the speaker’s conference and during the leadership contest. Gender may be more of an issue in terms of voice and participation. The Fabian Women’s Network have been increasingly active as a voluntary-led network, with some joint activities with the staff team.
The present Fabian Society logo is pretty uninspiring. How about going back to the old ‘Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing’ Fabian Society logo which is on Bernard Shaw’s Fabian Window recently unveiled by Tony Blair at the LSE?
wolf in sheep’s clothing (were you having an pun punny pun pun pun ) nah mate, call a spade a spade so how about : A Spade ,a golden spade .Spades are jolly useful, you can dig ,move muck & aggregates, hit rats on the head,earn a living,put them on the wall to decorate your pub ooooh all sorts !
I have only just noticed this article on the Internet. Might I suggest it is reprinted in Fabian Review As a Fabian oldie, I have long felt the need for change in the Society. For instance, there are fourteen other Societies affiliated to the Labour Party; should the Society not work more closely with them, as well with other non-party relevant organisations? At the 2008 AGM I moved the folllowing resolution, which was overwhelmingly carried: ‘In view of the increasing complexity of world conditions, this AGM urges the Executive Committee to initiate a wide ranging debate, involving all sections of the Society, to discuss it’s future and the ways to make it fit-for-purpose, in the 21st century.’ Being just ahead of a general election period, when Executive Committee members had other priorities, it is not surprising that not much occurred to impliment this resolution. It is presumably still Fabian policy, so I suggested at the 2010 AGM that a sub-committee be set up, consisting of Executive and ordinary members, to examine ways in which the resolution could be implimented, and it was agreed that the Exective would discuss this. As a member of the Exective, perhaps David could now take this up.