As part of the Fabian Society's work during the Labour Leadership contest, we commissioned all five candidates to write Fabian Essays. We then asked each of them five short questions which were submitted by Fabian members and contributors online.

To read the pamphlet in full, click on the pamphlet cover on the left. Then click on the printed page to make it full screen and use your left and right arrow keys to scroll between the pages.

To view indididual essays, follow the relevent link below. If you have any problems with viewing the essays, please email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . If you would rather, you can download the full pamphlet as a PDF here .

Labour front bench 'freelance management consultants', says Abbott

Diane Abbott writes that ideology is crucial if Labour shadow ministers are to take part in rebuilding the party.

"Without ideology, shadow ministers run the risk of being just a bunch of freelance management consultants. It is unsurprising that in the closing months of the New Labour administration some former government ministers jumped ship the better to amass directorships. In the absence of ideology, management is all the same, whether you are doing it in government or in the private sector. If you do not believe in anything, there is no question of sticking with your party to rebuild it in opposition." 

2010 voters thought we no longer 'championed a fair society', says Balls

Ed Balls argues that during the recent election campaign the party was lacking in courage and that voters sensed it.

"By 2010 the clear message from the electorate was that, while people still supported our values, they thought we were unclear about them, that we were sometimes out of touch and that we no longer championed a fair society... It was also a failure of communication and courage. In the desire to be credible - in the eyes of some in the press - the Government lost its radical edge." 

"We seemed dazzled by power, glamour and big business", says Andy Burnham

Andy Burnham criticises the 'upper echelons' of new Labour, saying "I do have a problem with people being filthy rich, and contrasts this with his own "aspirational socialism".

"We seemed dazzled by power, glamour and big business," writes Burnham. "There is a fine line between celebrating success and courting elites and to many people we crossed it. Unlike some others in the upper echelons of the Party, I do have a problem with people being filthy rich. This isn’t based on some working class knee-jerk reaction. It comes back to that sense of fairness, and the contrast between my constituency and George Osborne’s. Because I believe in a collectivism where everyone does their bit and everyone helps each other out."

Despite Osborne's "masochism", don't deny "economic reality", says David Miliband

Labour's lack of a shared ideology is a problem for the Party when opposing coalition cuts, argues David Miliband.

"An absence of a shared creed, of an ideology that can unite our movement, is a problem for Labour. In the good times it matters less... but when historic choices need to be made it is a weakness... Voters – many of them our voters – spent the election wondering whose side we were really on."

He argues that Labour needs its "own story of political economy that embraces neither the masochism of George Osborne nor the denial of economic reality."

"Old-fashioned New Labour is now an obstacle to winning next election", says Ed Miliband.

New Labour's focus on affluent voters will no longer win the Party elections, argues Ed Miliband in the last of our Labour Leadership essays. "New Labour’s proposition was simple – we need to persuade Tory voters to come to us. The task is very different now."

He goes on to argue, "Five million votes were lost by Labour between 1997 and 2010, but four out of the five million didn’t go to the Conservatives. One third went to the Liberal Democrats, and most of the rest simply stopped voting. It wasn’t, in the main, the most affluent, professional voters that deserted Labour either... You really don’t need to be a Bennite to believe that this represents a crisis of working-class representation for Labour – and our electability."

SPEECH BY PAT MCFADDEN MP, SHADOW SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS, TO THE FABIAN SOCIETY

This morning I want to share a few reflections on what I believe to be the critical question facing the country – how to shape the economy of the future.  And I want to warn against two options facing us – an echo of Thatcherism on the one hand and denial on the other - neither of which I believe are the right road to take.

AFTER DEFEAT

David Lammy

Fabian Review, forthcoming 21st June 2010

We lost the election and we could be out of power for a generation. What will determine our future now is how deeply we rethink and how quickly we regroup.

The new political reality is this: the new coalition government has done more to modernise and rebrand the Conservative Party than anything since Margaret Thatcher. Cameron is no longer the prisoner of his party’s Right flank. He has the chance to earn the trust of the British people in government.

We must also recognise the significance of our own defeat. We lost nearly one hundred seats. We dropped to third place in a further eighty-one. We lost vast swathes of the south. Nationally it was our worst result since Michael Foot. The Tories need a swing of just 2 per cent more to gain an overall majority. It wasn’t the armageddon that some expected but let’s not kid ourselves: this was a resounding defeat.

There are a number of temptations for our party now. Blame the Lib Dems. Blame our party’s leadership. Blame the electoral system. Blame the electorate. If only it were that simple. Instead we need to ask ourselves some searching questions about who and what we stand for in the twenty-first century. Only then will we earn the right to govern again. 

Democratising our party

The first lesson must be that when parties act undemocratically it comes back to haunt them. This is one of the great lessons of New Labour: a project that hung on to a command-and-control style of politics until the last.

A deal in an Islington restaurant in 1994 led to the creation of two different tribes at the top of the party. It damaged our government and we cannot let it haunt us in opposition. In 1998 the same mistakes were made, this time to prevent Ken Livingstone from becoming the Labour candidate for London mayor. He ran as an independent and won.

In 2008 when the party needed renewing we had a coronation rather than an open debate. I was one of the people who was part of that. I share the blame with the other 300 MPs who made the same decision.

Even now some will argue about whether we should have changed the leadership of our party last year. The truth is that no-one really knows. We should have had a leadership election in the first place. Within a year we had the election-that-never-was. We were left with a government that lacked popular legitimacy. 

Even in our dying days in government, there was no sense that MPs, let alone party members would be consulted on what kind of deal could be offered to the Liberal Democrats. I supported talks over electoral reform – but we are a democratic party and yet again we forgot that.

This political culture hasn’t just stifled our electoral prospects, it is suffocating our party. Membership has reached rock-bottom. Members feel disempowered. The Parliamentary Labour Party feels its voice is not heard. Our volunteers are wonderful but our candidates are still selected by fewer than a hundred people sitting in a room.

We need to renew our trust in democracy itself. In the leadership election we should introduce a fourth electoral college: the public. One fourth of the votes, alongside members, MPs and Unions, should go to the people who will elect the next government of this country. We should not fear enfranchising them. In the longer-term we need a new democratic culture within our party. We must put the long shadow of the 1980s behind us and give our members a proper voice in their own party. Members should be balloted over policy for our next manifesto, for a start. If we think this is just about leadership, we have big problems.

Beyond managerialism

The election itself proved that we stopped listening not just to our own members but also to the country. Going into the election 80 per cent of the public said that they wanted ‘change’. Our message: more of the same.

We warned people not to risk what they had, but forgot to offer hope of something better. We spoke about the economic recovery but never reform. The implicit message was that we would go back to the status quo. But people wanted more than this. The financial crisis revealed that markets are amoral. People wanted ethics, not just economics. For the campaign we should have run, anyone should watch Gordon Brown’s speech to Citizens UK: passionate, idealistic and reformist. This should have been our message throughout.

Similarly, we allowed Cameron and Clegg to claim the mantle of political reform. This despite the fact the Tories had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into a referendum on a new electoral system – which, of course, they will oppose. Why did this happen? Because we had already passed up the opportunity in government. The debate we are now having illustrates how important our government’s modernising mission was – and how damaging it is that it was never seen through.

The tragedy is that we even had some decent policy in the manifesto. A levy on the banks. A cap on interest rates for loans. Electoral reform. Tough, mandatory regulation of lobbyists. But rather than offering a story about Britain’s future, our manifesto read more like a telephone directory. It was a long list of disconnected proposals.

Those of us who have been ministers have swallowed too much of the language and culture of the civil service. We have become too managerialist and technocratic. For Labour's next generation this is the moment of reckoning. We cannot simply offer the public shopping lists of carefully targeted policies. Policy must be underpinned by a wider vision of social justice that people can buy into, whatever their circumstances. 

Rebuilding our coalition

With the Lib Dems propping up the Tories there will be a great temptation to simply wait for the coalition to collapse. Some will think we should just oppose Tory cuts and wait for the electorate to return to us with open arms. That would be a colossal mistake. Instead we need to focus on reconnecting with the ideas and values that are authentically Labour.

The precondition for that is to drop some of the old labels that are no guide to our political future. Most obviously ‘New Labour’ has become a meaningless term and should be confined to history. No-one in the party wants to re-write Clause 4. And no-one seriously wants to reheat the policies, the language and the political methods of the last decade. We must move on. Similarly, there can no longer be ‘Blairites’ and ‘Brownites’. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown both served our party, but neither is now active in British politics. We must not collapse into old factions and infighting. 
 
The truth is that our party is itself a coalition – of trade unionists, Christian socialists, NGOs and local community activists, human rights campaigners, environmentalists, feminists and anti-racists. We are at our best when we draw from all these traditions. Of course there will be disagreements but renewal must take place in that spirit.

We should revive an ethical socialist tradition that asserts moral limits to markets: the idea that there are some ways of making money that societies should not accept. That means stopping speculators in the city from rigging takeover deals for their own gain; a cap on the interest charged by lenders; tougher licensing of betting shops and casinos; measures to stop the commercialisation of childhood; mutuals and cooperatives that bring together workers and consumers to stand for the common good.

We should revive a labour tradition that speaks to the idea that workers are people who must be respected, not merely commodities to be exploited. That means a place for employees on the boards of companies; policies for a living wage; and taxes that focus more on wealth and less on work.

We should revive a communitarian tradition that speaks a language of obligation as well as entitlement. That means more policy focus on parenting; having something to say about fatherhood and family breakdown; a benefits system that does not entangle people in welfare; a character-building national civic service; and, on migration, clarity that people are joining a community not just a job market.

These lost traditions must sit alongside Labour restoring our claim to a proud place in the liberal tradition, committed to human rights and pluralism. We pioneered this country’s liberalisation on race, gender and gay rights to which others have now adapted, but we must now demonstrate ourselves to be less casual with civil liberties too.

If we do that we can rediscover a vocabulary and set of ideas that we lost. We can begin talking not just about the ‘empowerment’ of the individual to do as we please but also of love, obligation, cooperation and compromise.

Conclusion

All is not lost. We are not in government but we need not enter the electoral wilderness. To avoid this fate we must not fear change.

It is time to start to imagine a new governing project. We need to become a more open, democratic party, not centralised and controlling. We must become a more forward looking party that offers vision and reform rather than defence of the establishment. And above all we will only rebuild our governing coalition by rediscovering our own unique identity. Achieve this and come the next election we can be ready to serve our country again.

New Fabian analysis shows that a decision by Nick Clegg to join forces with David Cameron will provide an opportunity for a major electoral revival by Labour at a second election in 2010 – and potentially enough for Labour to regain its majority. It may also place many Lib Dem MPs in danger of being unseated. Tim Horton, Research Director at the Fabian Society, who produced the analysis, said: “Many Lib Dem voters are progressive and many voted for the Lib Dems as a way to keep the Tories out.” The briefing paper, Electoral Opportunities for Labour from a Lib-Tory Pact, can be downloaded here.

More than two thirds of people say they are personally concerned with the problems of people with multiple needs and exclusions, according to new YouGov polling presented by Peter Kellner in a Fabian Policy Report, 'Hardest to Reach'. The pamphlet, which looks at policies to improve the lives of people who experience a combination of issues including homelessness, substance misuse, mental ill health and who are often serving short-term prison sentences, has contributions from across the political spectrum, including from Iain Duncan Smith of the Centre for Social Justice, Alasdair Murray from CentreForum and former social exclusion minister Hilary Armstrong.

There is public support if we get this right

Peter Kellner

While politicians have sometimes shied away from tackling the most entrenched issues around people with multiple needs, new YouGov polling – conducted for this pamphlet – shows that the public are very concerned about this group and think government has a responsibility to make a difference. Politicians should stop being nervous of public opinion – and embrace people’s desire for real change.

Should we – society, taxpayers, government – do more to help people with multiple needs? At a time when pressure on public spending is likely to be acute for some years (whoever is in power at Westminster) can a case be made for increasing support for those affected by a combination of problems such as homelessness, mental ill-health, offending, drug addiction and alcoholism?

Our new data suggests that the answer is “yes”; or, rather, “yes, if”.  Most of the public believe that better services for people with multiple needs can be regarded as a form of investment: more coordinated services now would save later on or help individuals contribute more to society. Government interventions presented in this way would receive good levels of public support.

First, we set out the meaning of ’multiple needs and exclusions‘ and how men and women affected by them “often end up sleeping rough or ‘recycling’ between prison and the community”. Two-thirds of the public say they are personally concerned about people with such problems. Perhaps a more relevant number is the 21 per cent who say they are “very concerned”: this is probably a better measure of real public concern. So while it is not a majority passion there are significant levels of concern from the public for individuals in this group.

When asked how concerned “society generally” should be, the total saying “very” or “fairly” concerned jumps to 85 per cent, with 37 per cent saying “very concerned” – again, a minority but, this time, a rather larger minority.
And how concerned do you think society generally should be about the problems of such people?

So public concern exists, but it would still be relatively easy for any government to ignore the issue and hope it will go away, which, of course, it won’t. Suppose ministers and other politicians took a long view and decided that for social and economic reasons they must act. At a time when every penny of public spending must be justified, could they persuade the electorate of the case for giving a priority to the task of tackling multiple needs?

YouGov’s poll suggests that they could. While the public are hardly clamouring for action (indeed, we usually find that when they are asked to identify the main cause of problems faced by the most marginalised, they see a mix of factors and sometimes blame the people themselves) it is also clear they won’t stand in the way of change. They can see what the benefits of action would be. Six out of ten electors agree that if the government and local services did more to help people with multiple needs and exclusions “the individuals would be able to contribute more to society”. By more than six-to-one they outnumber those who say “I do not think any benefits would result”. It is widely thought that society would benefit in a number of other ways too: the people themselves would be able to contribute more (58%), fewer crimes would be committed (50%), local communities would be stronger (32%) and the cycle of despair would be broken, with fewer people in future facing multiple needs and exclusions (40%). These figures show a snapshot of public opinion as it currently stands – in the absence of any sustained local or national government initiative to tackle these problems. Were such an initiative to be launched, the numbers anticipating a positive impact would be expected to rise.

It is interesting that ‘future contribution’ tops the table of perceived benefits of action, for we know that this is also what often drives sympathy towards this group. Previous work by YouGov for the Fabian Society found that a belief that those receiving help would go on to contribute more to society in the future was the single biggest factor in influencing support for welfare. It was a much more powerful driver of attitudes to welfare than beliefs about how people got into difficulties in the first place. People can be prepared to forgive past behaviour if someone is genuinely trying now.
And key here was an individual’s intentions; not how much they could put back into society, but that they were prepared to try.

So it’s no surprise the factors that our latest polling finds most effective for increasing sympathy towards those with multiple needs are beliefs that the person is ‘motivated to improve their situation’ or concrete demonstration of good intentions (‘if they had looked for help and not found it’). Demonstrating that those receiving help are taking it in good faith and showing that people do go on to contribute to society in whatever way they find possible can therefore be a powerful driver of public support for assistance.

There is a strong view that government and local services currently have a disjointed approach for this group and that a stronger focus would help improve situations for people with multiple needs and exclusions.
Overall, it is clear that voters are far more likely to welcome than resist any plans to address multiple needs and exclusions more ambitiously.

You can read the Fabian Society's quarterly magazine by clicking on the thumbnails below. We'll be putting magazines up online around six weeks after publication. For more information about the magazine, please go to the Fabian Review page. Please do let us know what you think by emailing This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

What would the Webbs do in 2009? In this article, Peter Townsend adopts the Webbs’ authoritative style of planning and applies some of the precepts they used to challenge the failed poor laws and domestic poverty in 1909 to the global poverty that faces us in 2009.

Social housing is now – probably more that at any time in its 120 year history – the focus for controversy. Over the first 80 to 90 years of that period it was seen overwhelmingly as part of the solution (indeed sometimes the only solution) to this country’s housing problems. There was widespread confidence that the provision of more social housing, predominantly but not exclusively built and managed by local councils, was the right way forward.

Britain is not broken and public housing is not all about ‘sink estates’. Nevertheless, while most of our public housing serves its tenants very well, the evidence that this report presents strongly suggests that concentrated public housing is not just a symptom of poverty and disadvantage but is also a cause.

Tim Horton sketches the history of Beatrice Webb's 1909 Minority Report and draws out the key reasons why it still matters in 2009. 

There was once an age when class came with breeding. One’s parents gave one one’s position. One might stray a little above or below (a perfect marital match is never possible), but one knew one’s place, argues Danny Dorling in the latest Fabian Review.

Then for much of the last century class was about occupation – you only had to ask someone his or her job and you felt you knew almost everything you needed to know about them. But in 2008 that is no longer true. The 50 per cent of the British people who can just about pay the bills, but who should not even imagine paying inheritance tax, have a huge range of occupations. Just as those above and below them do. These middle class families tend to have two jobs (the British norm), two cars (the norm), a small semi-detached or large terraced house, a combined income that pays the mortgage, food, fuel and a couple of holidays a year, (one of them somewhere warm). Nowadays, class is all about money.

In the 19th century, accent, clothing, title and behaviour reflected our origins. There were schools for all classes: the Great Schools for those destined for greatness, and a multitude of not-so-great schools – mostly created or expanded under Victoria’s reign – catering for the children of different strata of the new middle classes. You could tell whether a family was upper-middle, middle-middle, or lower-middle class from the school their children attended.

The working classes had their day schools, Sunday schools, church schools and elementary schools. You could also tell their class from the street they inhabited. Charles Booth had maps of London beautifully coloured – you could see the subtle differentiation between all the areas not shaded golden yellow, the colour of the servant-keeping classes. You could also see those areas shaded black and labelled ‘vicious, semi-criminal, poor’.

Mrs Beeton wrote a book on household management that sold well in those days. It turns out she only had one servant, but she did a good job of pretending to have more. Her book sold well because of a popular demand for information on how to act up to the class you wished to be. Just like Nigella Lawson today, she provided the fantasy that you too could appear to come from a stable above, be of better stock and be more respectable.

We used to have popular guides to the British class system that told you how to appear just a slight cut above. But in 2008 those at the top have to try to appear like the rest, chummy and normal. This year women had to be told they must wear knickers to enter the Royal Enclosure at Royal Ascot. How did we get here from there?

It was a slow change through the 20th century. The decimation of the sons of the Great Schools in the 1914-1918 war, the ‘gifting’ of stately homes to what is now the National Trust, the collapse of the financial might of the upper class through the 1920s and 1930s, and a progressive tax regime that lasted from the end of the Second World War until the beginning of Thatcherism – all these things changed what class meant. Whereas under Victoria secondary schools had been designed to segregate the middle class, the 1944 Education Act split up the working class. It had the side effect of creating a one-off generation selected at 11 by what was called an ability test, a few of whom later got good jobs in universities and mused about class. They were almost all boys as the 11-plus tests had been made easier for boys.

Unsurprisingly, these Grammar School boys, with occupations their fathers had often not heard of, came to think of occupation and job title as very important. They designed class systems based on men’s occupations. Occupation was seen as a proxy for behaviour, for leisure pursuits, for taste, for class. Under this system the university lecturer from humble origins was equal to the don who did not need to draw his salary. Women fitted awkwardly into such schema.

Unfortunately, classification based on occupation came to predict some behaviour less well over time. Almost from the moment when the occupations were grouped, people started voting less and less reliably by occupational class. They took longer to stop behaving so predictably in lifestyle, partly because health outcomes have long antecedents, but premature mortality too has become recently a little less predictable by class.

Have we become a more classless society? It doesn’t feel quite like that to me. What I think has shifted is how we know what class we are in.

Give someone a fancy job title today and it may not mean quite as much as it did a few decades ago. You know what ‘general manager for the horizontal arrangement of goods for sale’ means, and what is being stacked where. Similarly two jobs can have the same title but be very different things. Different Members of Parliament, for instance, have very different lifestyles and differing levels of income and wealth.

Now there are better ways to gauge class. Tell me where you went to school, what your father’s job was then, and your home postcode now and I’ll quite happily put you in a pigeon hole. It still helps to know your job title, but I’m not that bothered about it. I’d be much more interested in your financial situation and that of your wider family. How many millions do you and your siblings, cousins, parents, grandparents and offspring collectively have recourse to if it were pooled? I know you’d never pool it. But it is access to just a little bit of that pool which often makes the difference between what happens to families when folk get divorced, lose a job, become sick, need a deposit or some other underwriting.

Your class is your family wealth. For many people that wealth is zero or less. If you cannot save £10 a month and take an annual holiday you are most probably poor. If you cannot do those things, and know you are poor, and you have a low income, then you are approaching another class below. Not an underclass – there really is no such thing as a group destined for the bottom due to some fallibilities they have. The very poor are, instead, those whose dream is that their greatest worry is that they cannot save £10 a month or take a holiday once a year. Roughly a quarter of people are poor, including about a tenth of the population who are very poor.

Above the poor in Britain are a group who have been squeezed in number in recent years: those who are neither wealthy nor poor. These are people who are socially included. They can partake in the norms of society. They are normal. If you are normal you can pay for the schools trips, and a holiday, but not for the holiday in Mauritius. You are getting by, but not comfortably. You are in a shrinking middle group, and any time right about now you will be in a minority. Today you make up 50 per cent of UK households. Across Britain – outside of London – most people are still normal but that normality ranges itself from living a whisker above poverty to a whisker below the wealthy.

The wealthy are the 25 per cent of the population who do have some (little) cause to worry about paying inheritance tax. Only a third of this group ends up paying it, but they almost all worry about it. You are in this group if your estate were to be liable for that tax should you and your spouse simultaneously drop dead today. Don’t forget to count those life insurance policies, or the writing off of the mortgage, or that death-in-service lump sum. But don’t worry: most people like you will manage to spend your wealth in old age long before you have a chance to pass much of it on. The odds are that you are also partaking in most of the norms of society. Most people in this group choose not to use private health and education provision. If they did, other luxuries would have to be forgone.

However, within the wealthy are a group who routinely do exclude themselves from the norms of society: for ease of remembering we’ll call them the exclusive rich. They make up just around 5 per cent of us.

What sets the exclusive rich apart from the rest is not their use of private provision, but their large properties, multiple foreign holidays coupled with the outright purchase of new cars. You need to be doing about two out of three of those things, while preferably also having a six-figure household income to be up with these Joneses.

There is a national fixation with this group, and enough written on them to sell a month of Sunday newspapers. So all I’ll say here is that they are fractal in nature. Within the best-off 5 per cent half are so much better off then the rest that they make the other half feel poor. Within that better off half, half are so much better off that... it’s a recursive definition. It ends with the poor sods at the top paranoid about being kidnapped and knowing that their children and lovers lie to them for their wealth and suspecting their servants of pilfering. This is our wealth-based British class system today.

It is a 25-50-25 division, the edges of which can be shaved off to almost infinite layers of abstraction. It may sound crude, but money is. Airs and graces no longer matter. In fact it’s crucial to try to avoid them regardless of which end of the scale you are from. Dress down if you might otherwise look like a ‘toff’, take off that tie, unclip that accent. Dress up if you come from more dour stock: sensible suits, a neat hair cut, hold your knife and fork right. All the old markers of class fade as, for men, a ubiquitous ‘bloke’ is created, and women have to lookWe can all still see the signs though. Those brown leather shoes that only men from certain (great) schools still wear, that fake handbag that only women not quite au fait would carry… but the signs matter less and less. Those whose occupations are labelled ‘working class’ still have a predilection to vote Labour more than their generally lower incomes would suggest. This means, in effect, we will not be asking about class. An income question is asked in the United States census, it is asked in censuses and surveys across Europe, it may even be asked in the 2011 census in Scotland, but it is not set to be asked in 2011 in England and Wales. There must be a civil servant living in a 1950s fantasy land somewhere who thinks that it is of some great use to know that a person’s job label is ‘Manager’. We’re only getting useful information when we know that they are a manager and that the income of their household is roughly £40k, and that only one adult in their family works Income is not being asked about in the 2011 census not because of any real fears of asking the question or because some folk might complain. It is not being asked about because we are afraid of what we will be told and of what kind of a segregated country we will see. Sometime soon, the proposed 2011 census questionnaires will be laid before Parliament. Parliament decides whether to accept what the civil servants propose. Parliament altered the 2001 form –Parliament could alter it again. Don’t you want to know what Charles Booth’s maps would look like if re-drawn today?

Danny Dorling works with the Social and Spatial Inequalities Group (SASI) in the Department of Geography, University of Sheffield. See www.shef.ac.uk/sasi. With Bethan Thomas he is author of ‘Identity in Britain: A cradle-to-grave atlas’ published by Policy Press in 2007. He is also an author, with colleagues, of the ‘Real World Atlas’ and ‘The Grim Reaper’s Roadmap’. Both are to be published in autumn 2008.

My thanks to Charles Pattie for showing me the British Election Study data on this.  

Our Prime Minister is a fan of reality television, Sunder Katwala argues in the new Fabian Review, seeing in the X-Factor a metaphor for unlocking talent. So how he must have thrilled to the Democracy Idol show which has gripped America this primary season, catapulting a new star, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, to the brink of a historic Presidency.

Proposals for Fabian pamphlets

Please send your proposal, keeping strictly to the following headings, to Tom Hampson, Fabian Society, 11 Dartmouth St, London SW1H 9BN or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .  You should be as specific as possible, as your proposal will be considered primarily on the basis of information given in this pro forma.

Working title

Author(s)

Address for correspondence

Including phone (daytime and evening) and email.

About the author(s)

What are your qualifications and experience in the field? Outline how you come to know about this subject, and describe your position, qualifications, experience or other relevant information. Include any relevant publications.

Objectives

(a) What is the purpose of the pamphlet or policy report? What do you wish it to achieve?
(b) What is the political and policy context in the field under discussion? What is currently happening or being debated, and how does the pamphlet/discussion paper address this?

Audience

Who is it aimed at and who would read it? Which people and systems are you trying to influence? What would your desired impact be?

Timetable

When would a first draft be available? Is there any particular timetable that would maximise its public impact?

Principal arguments

What are the key arguments you wish to make, and/or the main research findings you wish to present? What are the main policy-relevant conclusions and recommendations? What would make the publication original and noteworthy?

Synopsis

Set out the proposed structure of the publication, and summarise the main content in each chapter. Indicate the approximate length in words of each chapter, and the overall word length.

To sign up, all you have to do is email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , title your email 'Letter' and give us your details.

Read more of the Fabian Review Winter 2007

More of our Global Agenda theme

By the end of 2008 we need more than just an account of what we have got wrong, we need a practical policy agenda. Here Fabian General Secretary Sunder Katwala sets out ten steps to a better world

With the Government at a low ebb, the Foreign Secretary tells Tom Hampson how he is rising to the Prime Minister's challenge to combine vision and values to remake Britain's role in the world.

Sunder Katwala

Integration agenda needed to strengthen Britishness

• Poll: 50% fear divided society if we don't define what Britishness means.
• Charter: Education, constitution, equality and immigration reforms proposed.
• Fabian Review: The Britishness issue published to preview Future of Britishness conference with Gordon Brown on Saturday January 14th 2006.

Back to Autumn Review 2007

Sunder Katwala

Gordon Brown should broker a historic compromise on electoral reform by proposing the Alternative Vote alongside a second chamber elected by PR, argues Fabian general secretary Sunder Katwala in a new essay for September's Fabian Review. The plan would end a century of stalemate - and head off a legitimacy crisis under our current voting system.

Patrick Diamond, Sunder Katwala, Meg Munn

Howard Stoate, Bryan Jones

Is the future one of unlimited choice, the good life, a new puritanism or a retreat from global concerns? The Fabian pamphlet 2025 examines four Henley Centre scenarios for how British public attitudes could change.

Giving members more voice in policy-making requires cultural changes which will challenge the leadership and party activists, argue Tim Horton and Sunder Katwala. You can read their full submission to the NEC consultation on party democracy here, drawing on research for the Facing Out pamphlet.

Full text of the report.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats should cooperate in the cause of progressive politics, argues the leading article in the Fabian Review party conference special issue.

The call is out for new ideas for Labour's next manifesto. We asked Labour MPs what they would propose to Ed Miliband.

 The British people have a message for the prime minister: " we want a fairer Britain". Results of a Fabian poll of more than 3,000 people spells out some clear messages for the new Commission on Human Rights and Equality and the government. There is a feeling that Labour has gone so far, but could go further, says Rachael Jolley.

Leading historian Linda Colley calls for banknotes to reflect Britain's diversity.

Britain's banknotes should symbolise Britain's diversity and help to increase public knowledge of our history, says leading historian of Britishness Linda Colley in a wide-ranging interview on on identity, history and citizenship for the Fabian Review Britishness Issue, published ahead of the Fabian Society's Future of Britishness conference with Chancellor Gordon Brown on Saturday January 14th 2006.

• Poll: 50% fear divided society if we don't define what Britishness means.
• Charter: Education, constitution, equality and immigration reforms proposed.
• Fabian Review: The Britishness issue published to preview Future of Britishness conference with Gordon Brown on Saturday January 14th 2006.

The 'Britishness' debate must result in a practical integration agenda to strengthen the 'ties that bind' our society together, argue leading politicians and thinkers as an Opinion Leader Research poll shows that 50% fear that we run the real risk of a divided society if we don't define what Britishness means. The Fabian Review Britishness Issue, published on Tuesday 20th December 2005, previews the Fabian Society's Future of Britishness conference headlined by Gordon Brown on Saturday 14th January 2006.

Gordon Brown will need a 'clause IV moment' of his own, putting equality at the heart of Labour's constitution if he is to see off David Cameron's attempt to claim 'social justice' for the Conservatives.

In the Spring edition of the Fabian Review - which focused on the environmental challenges facing policy-makers - Matthew Taylor of the RSA interviewed the environmentalist Mayer Hillman. The following is the full transcript of their conversation.

Britain has by far the worst levels of social mobility in Europe. As the Brown government seeks out new ways to target the problem, Professor John Van Reenen and Professor Stephen Machin show how they can crack it.