Just Left

The Hope Project: changing Labour's organisation

Yesterday I said that overhype can lead to disappointment, and foreshadowed what will happen to John Key as it becomes ever more obvious that he can't deliver a "Brighter Future". I was asked by a few people to expand on what Labour has to do.

Labour is going to need to pitch as the party of the future and as the party of hope, to reconnect with past and possible supporters.

Too many of those people don't think that is what we are about. Some of our own conduct and choice of messages has helped create that impression. That is why we need to change.

I'm going to focus on the party outside parliament, because that is where my involvement is.

Our president, Moira Coatsworth, foreshadowed the review we are now doing in May last year. David Shearer is the co-sponsor and the review has been widely supported across the broad leadership of Labour.

It was clear to Moira, and more broadly, that Labour's organisation needed a solid going-over, because it simply isn't working.

For those who quibble with that, consider:

• membership trends
• operating budgets
• party vote trends
• electorate vote trends
• membership involvement in setting Labour's agenda and policy

Those have seen our vote float between 27% and 41% in the past two decades. The centre left vote has also, arguably and depending on definition, shrunk pretty consistently since 1996. It isn't that all parts of the picture are bleak, but that the whole combo is.

My view is as a serious party seeking to change the country and lead governments, we need to peak our vote in the mid to high forties. Today, the Labour party doesn't have the organisation or the programme to achieve that.

That is why over the years (here in 2008, here in 2010, or here in 2011 for instance) I have said that Labour needs to open up: it needs to be more in touch with the interests and mores of people who do or might support it. It needs to be relevant to all those people, seen favourably by them, and able to organise them.

So I was pleased when the review kicked off this year with a listening phase. It wasn't that the wise heads defined the issues and consulted about them: instead the broadest set of areas was floated, and the party listened. It really listened. Members of the review team travelled around the country and heard what people had to say.

To most normal people, that sounds like an obvious way to start.

To most people in politics, it is extraordinary.

The review group, under tight limits of time and resources, pulled together over 1000 submissions and the results of dozens of discussion meetings, to produce its report for consultation at the regional conferences.

You can find the report in PDF format here.

It's a very interesting first pitch. It deals with the need to keep values up front in the party and to improve the internal culture where this is needed.

It wants us to look again at local structures, MMP campaigning, the democratisation of policy making, representation, leadership selection and more.

I think it's a thorough start and the feedback at regional conferences is really positive so far. People are aware of how big the mountain is we need to climb, but feel the proposals made so far are starting off in the right direction.

The test for the party is what comes next. After the regional conferences, the review team has about a month to tie down concrete proposals for annual conference. As a member of the party council that will receive the report and sign off final plans, I don't know exactly what the review will come up with. Like all my fellow Councillors I'll be looking forward to seeing it.

The test we will face is not to decide whether or not to change Labour so it can win. It isn't to make those changes in a technical sense, because we know we need to do that.

The test is going to be working the changes we agree are needed into the work that thousands and thousands of volunteers and people across diverse communities do every day to make Labour the party that it is.

I'm confident that substantial changes, based on our values, will get support and will be a major landmark on the way to a win for David Shearer in 2014. Implementing it will be the hard but satisfying work of the next few years.

That'll be the Labour party organisational side of things sorted and on the up.

In a political world marked by dashed expectations, which is what 2014 is going to be all about, getting our organisation right is a vital part of putting together a hope project that can really change New Zealand.

Boy does the country need it!

Next post in this short series will talk about the broader strategy we need to follow to make best use of a stronger organisation.

Where's the hope? Obama and Key

Do you remember the hype of the 2008 General Election campaign? The American one, I mean, where "YES WE CAN" was triumphing against doom and fear.

I do. I remember it vividly. Most people do. It had an effect here of course: the Labour government of Helen Clark was on the way out and the Time for a Change pop-culture meme was being butressed by the amazing rhetoric and iconography out of the States.

Obama's problem since is that the U.S. political system does not allow a President much say over what the country does. Combine that set of constraints with the worst global economic crisis in eighty years, and you get disappointment.

Expectations had flown so high. The chilling winds of global turmoil and Obama's inability to meet them -- actually, inability to ever even come close to meeting them even if the economy had been in good times -- has the counter effect today.  Many people who were stirred to enthusiasm and hope have had their hopes dashed.

We all know, from our own lives as well as our own politics, what happens to dashed hopes. Especially when they are dashed by someone else.

Sooner or later we tend to find someone to blame or hold responsible, and we take it out on them.

It doesn't happen fast and it doesn't always happen. But when it does it's generally pretty intense and it doesn't often then get rekindled.

How is this relevant to Mr Key?

The National government Mr Key leads is preparing for its fourth Budget, which will be announced next week. It's a budget of failure: National's yawning budget deficits and willful tax splurges for the rich have left a party whose priority is cutting things with little choice but to cut. Or at least not to grow.

Add to that the continual bad news about the rest of the economy and the headlines that are flying around (e.g. Fed-up Kiwis flee to Oz en masse), and the Government's swing to the right since the election, and you're starting to see some similar things here.

Mr Key has far more levers at his disposal than Mr Obama does. He is far more responsible for the absence of progress than his American counterpart.

John Key and National promised a brighter future. All they've delivered is the opposite.

The public have sussed this out. The changing tone of public debate is accelerating the slow change in opinion.

So where's the hope?

Labour couldn't find the inspiration in 2011 to hold out a hopeful vision of the future.

If we can get our heads around that and do it, then 2014 is going to see a change of government.

The one thing voters really don't like is being the victims of false promises. As capable a politician as John Key is, he is not going to be able to distance himself from the core of the agenda that got him into office.

The long downward slide, in other words, has begun.

Next week's budget will be another increase in the slope, because it's all about failure, zero, restraint, cutting, tough choices. Not a skerrick of hope in sight.

Learning from the Greens

Green politics is coming of age, and the NZ story is a part of that.

Post-industrial electorates with a high degree of material prosperity and security are experimenting with the idea that the environment might, sometimes, be more important than the insatiable desires of humanity.

With the rise of a wide range of environmental concerns, and a still-broad attachment to progressive values of fairness and justice, there is space in politics for a party focused on Green - and green - issues.

The New Zealand Greens have been a prime example of a party taking the opportunity presented by these changed circumstances and making a success of exploiting it. What lesson does their success present for Labour?

First the project. From my outsider point of view, it looks like the Greens made a conscious decision in the middle of the 2000s to do some things differently. In particular, they:

• consciously decided to become a bigger party, by expanding the range of people they sought support from.
• moderated their policy ask, to make it accessible for more voters.
• changed their message and branding, to be less scary to their opponents and more open to potential supporters.
• completely renewed their caucus and leadership over a few elections, such that in 2012 there are no overlaps with the caucus of 1999-2002.
• developed and maintained a slick and effective political operation at parliament and in the country, to let them implement the changes well.

Most important, seems to me, is the lesson about a project. The Greens knew their politics could not attract more voters, so they changed their look and their substance. That has succeeded. Their high vote in 2011 was not just caused by Labour weakness: it was in part (and probably mostly) a result of Green strength.

(I won't canvass the longer term risks to the Greens of that, it isn't relevant to the main argument of this post.)

So what lesson does this provide for Labour?

There are the easy ones about getting branding and communications right, and running an effective political operation. We know we have to do this, and progress is being made.

The bigger and harder lesson in my view is about the project.

Labour has to renew its governing project to win more support and change (build a new) New Zealand. It needs to do this because New Zealand has changed since our Labour project was last re-tooled, which was in the mid 1990s.

The specific area for change is the environment.

Labour has adjusted well to the growing diversity of New Zealand society. Our party structures acknowledge and respect that diversity of identity and occupation, making us potentially the most open and inclusive party for the huge variety of people who are New Zealanders today.

But that structure is not matched by our political practice.

Too many Kiwis don't think Labour is the party for them.

Too often, people think we are interested in or obsessed with the concerns of 'fringe' groups, and that as a result we aren't interested in 'the mainstream'.

That has to change.

The foundation of that change is us saying, admitting, that we recognize that people sometimes feel like that about us.

But that isn't enough — not at all enough.

We have to turn our focus onto our values. Labour values are widely shared across New Zealand society. Our problems come when people think we don't stand up for them, and don't live up to them.

So they have to be front and centre. Only when they are, only we proudly and honestly state them and how they apply to New Zealand today, can we build a broader base of support.

But that isn't enough either.

New Zealand society hasn't only become more diverse.

Over the past thirty years, our economic debate in this country had become a weird alien disaster zone. Deep frozen in extreme financial globalization, if you want a partly up front label. The consequences have been low growth, low productivity, indifferent jobs, and rampant inequality.

But that's not all either. In the past 30 years, concern about the environment has exploded. No rational person now thinks the environment doesn't matter. The opposite: there is dawning understanding that our society and economy are parts of the environment.

If the environment goes bung, we are all stuffed. In every respect. Economy? Society? All broken, all gone.

Labour's project has gone some way towards addressing the need for a post-neo liberal economic agenda. More work is needed.

It has gone much less far and needs far more work in truly dealing with the challenge of environmental guardianship that all serious governing parties now need to have at their core.

That's the lesson - the challenge - the threat, of the Greens.

If we do not adjust our politics to tackle these challenges, we will be left in the dust of history.

If that happens, we will have nobody to blame but ourselves. The fate of the Liberals shows what happens if we fail. Political parties have to combine values and programme to tackle the real challenges facing their country.

So the lesson is: take note of the real needs of our society.

Needs, not wants: analysis based on New Zealand as it *is*, not as we hope or fear it might be.

Build a programme and a politics based on our Labour values that matches those needs to real change.

Build the party organisation that can deliver the campaigns and ideas and engagement so we can have the chance to do it.

Easy eh? ;-)

Polls move slowly

Following last night's poll on tVNZ, there's only one thing politicos need to remember.

Unless an event has absolutely shocking cut through in a way that surprises and upsets large masses of voters...

One week doesn't change a government's level of support.

Nor does a month.

National would need months of work like this to suffer significantly in the polls.

Easy to forget in the day to day rush.

Shearer's first speech

I got up this morning and watched the video stream of David Shearer's first major positioning speech of the year. It was a good effort. He delivered it well, and it had a freshness of tone and lightness of style I find refreshing and easy to read and to listen to.

The substance is good too. The focus on the economy and education is well merited: they are interlinked, and in the economic sphere, doing the same things is going to lead to the same results.  That is why we need big changes, and that is why he's talking about them.

I also agree with the signal to review the tax-free threshold promise we took to last year's election.  At $1.4bn a year when fully rolled out, that was a very big tax cut. I would be surprised if we can afford anything like it in 2014.

Some key extracts:

We're going to keep on doing things the way we are ... for as long as the supply of lambs holds out.

We're going to go right on relying on property market bubbles and a small basket of primary produce exports to earn our living and we're going to go on borrowing money to pay for a standard of living we can't afford.

We owe too much. We all know that.

We earn too little. We all know that too.

Far too many of our eggs are in the one basket.

We all know that.

And anyone who tells you we can make things better here, without making big changes, is dreaming.

New Zealanders can cope with the truth.

So let's be honest with ourselves.

The honest truth is that the Christchurch recovery cheques from the insurance companies will only help us a bit.

The honest truth is that asset sales - even by the most generous measure - will hardly help us at all.

The honest truth is that a commodities boom, even if it keeps on rolling, isn't enough on its own to pay for what we need.

The honest truth is that merging and restructuring government departments will simply not cut it.

And the honest truth is that the economic plan New Zealand is following at the moment has more missing from it than it has in it.

He locates the positioning in the idea that things need to change. That is indeed the Labour way - not backward looking or status quo.

If I had to sum up what we need to do in one sentence I'd say this: we need to make a new New Zealand.

That's what the next Labour government will be about.

That means looking at everything through a whole new lens.

Everything.

It means questioning the comfortable assumptions we make.

I think the "we" there is New Zealand, but it's also the Labour Party - and he's right on both counts.

We all have an instinctive sense in New Zealand that everyone deserves a go, and that everyone needs to pull their weight and contribute.

Labour believes that. It always has.

Don't let anyone tell you different.

We say two things:

Number one: our community must take care of the needy. They deserve a share of the pie.

And if people fall on hard times, we will help.

But equally importantly, number two: everyone who can help to make that pie needs to be involved, and fairly rewarded for doing it.

Rights and responsibilities, that's the social contract that binds our society.

A precis of the next speech perhaps, and a nice summation of what Labour believes.

Have a read of the whole speech. It's worth a look.

On the day that we win

When Labour wins the general election in 2014, and David Shearer is sworn in as Prime Minister, what will be the public mood? How will people feel about a new government with a big mandate to profoundly change New Zealand?

People will be sick of the failure of austerity politics, and they will be focused like Labour on policies that will spark more jobs, higher wages and faster growth.

People will be worried about the growing queues in the health system, exploding class sizes in schools, and Auckland's transport infrastructure being in crisis. They'll have decided the cuts have gone too far.

People will be incensed at the unfairness of tax and asset sales policies that leave most Kiwis behind but leave some pocketing heaps, not because they hate success but because they want *everyone* to have the chance to get ahead.

Voters will have cottoned onto the fact that this country won't match Aussie wages without stronger industrial relations laws that give people more power at work.

The broad swathe of that majority will be convinced that New Zealand can build a common future, tackling our social & economic challenges while truly respecting the environment. And it won't be frightened by the differences between us kiwis: it'll be celebrating that diversity in a shared vision of community and of New Zealand as the smartest, greenest, richest and fairest little country in the world.

They will have the frame of mind that sees them concerned about these things because the Labour Party, working with parliamentary allies and a wide range of communities, will be ruthless over the next few years in making these the issues that define what New Zealand can be.

Political junkies will marvel at the party's refusal to be defined by Steven Joyce and National's agenda, by its sparkling message discipline, its savvy communications strategy, and the ruthless discipline it deployed in making those things real.

They - and the public - will marvel at how, in a few short years, Labour went from a defensive and internal focus to a big, vigorous, open, welcoming organisation on which they could confidently project their ideas for the future, their hopes and dreams for themselves, their families, their communities and the nation.

Getting there is going to be fun. I hope you're up for it. Parts of it are going to be a bumpy ride, but the prize is worth the fight.

#summerlabour - Summer School 2012

The weekend saw the tenth Labour party Summer School, a residential retreat organised for the Labour party by Young Labour each year.

It's a chance for party members to think about the long term challenges of social democracy away from the drivers of day to day reaction, self-censorship and organising imperatives. It isn't cut off from what's happening day to day, but tries to be a bit detached and reflective.

There were a whole slew of interesting sessions which tabled a range of policy and ideological issues, and a discussion of Labour's organisational review chaired by party president Moira Coatsworth.

The rewarding parts of the event as always were the chances to meet new people, and to talk about politics in the absence of time pressures and with new ideas floating around.

Compared with the last few, there was a higher turnout and more new faces. Both very welcome developments.

From my conversations, there is a strong recognition that Labour needs to be doing things differently compared with what we have done in the past few years, to establish more clearly in the public mind what Labour stands for, and to reach out to and include pools of potential Labour voters who do not vote for us at the moment.

The election result is primary evidence of this, but so is the tone of voter and campaign feedback and of the attitudes of friends and family to Labour today.

We are too often seen in a way that doesn't feel real to us, but does to too many voters: detached, self obsessed, negative, without a plan, economically non-credible, captured, and essentially backward looking and irrelevant.

Perceptions like that aren't only caused by outsiders or by 'the media'. It takes two to tango. Things we have done that seem minor or irrelevant to us sometimes symbolize a much bigger deal to people we want to support us, not to be pissed off by us.

It's a big challenge to undo all that. We have a good new team in the leadership roles, and still fresh people at the party council leadership, to do that rebuild. But it can't be just down to them.

That's why summer school was fun, really: a chance to spread the news about change, and to face up to the fact it will be scary, fun, challenging, inspiring work that will leave Labour more fun to be part of, and more electable to public office.

Labour's Lineup - 19 December 2011

Labour's new lineup:

	MP	Portfolios
1	David Shearer	Leader Security Intelligence Service Science and Innovation
2	Grant Robertson	Deputy Leader Environment Tertiary Education, Skills and Training
3	David Parker	Finance
4	Jacinda Ardern	Social Development
5	David Cunliffe	Economic Development Associate Finance
6	Clayton Cosgrove	SOEs Commerce Small Business Trade Negotiations Associate Finance
7	Shane Jones	Regional Development Associate Finance Economic Development (Māori) Fisheries
8	Nanaia Mahuta	Education Associate Māori Affairs (Social)
9	Maryan Street	Health Disarmament and Arms Control Associate Foreign Affairs
10	Su’a William Sio	Employment Pacific Island Affairs Inter-Faith Dialogue Associate Foreign Affairs
11	Phil Twyford	Transport Auckland Issues Associate Environment
12	Trevor Mallard	Shadow Leader of the House Associate Finance America’s Cup
13	Charles Chauvel	Justice (incl Courts and Corrections) Attorney General Arts, Culture and Heritage
14	Lianne Dalziel	Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Civil Defence and Emergency Management Earthquake Commission Consumer Rights and Standards Associate Justice
15	Chris Hipkins	Senior Whip State Services Associate Education
16	Phil Goff	Foreign Affairs and Trade
17	Annette King	Housing Local Government
18	Darien Fenton	Junior Whip Labour Immigration
19	Damien O’Connor	Primary Industries Food Safety
20	Clare Curran	Communications and Information Technology Broadcasting Open Government Disability Issues
	Ruth Dyson	Conservation Senior Citizens Internal Affairs
	Parekura Horomia	Māori Affairs Treaty Negotiations
	Sue Moroney	Early Childhood Education Womens  Affairs
	Moana Mackey	Energy Climate Change
	Iain Lees-Galloway	Defence Transport Safety Veterans Affairs Associate Health (Alcohol and Drugs)
	Raymond Huo	Building and Construction Statistics Land Information
	Rajen Prasad	Ethnic Affairs Associate Social Development
	Kris Faafoi	Police Customs Associate Health
	Louisa Wall	Sport and Recreation Community and Voluntary Sector
	David Clark	Revenue Associate Tertiary Education
	Andrew Little	ACC
	Rino Tirikatene	Tourism
	Megan Woods	Youth Affairs Associate Science & Innovation
	Ross Robertson	Nominee for Assistant Speaker Racing Associate Disarmament (Small Arms)

 

 

A huge job; learning from the Nats - #labourleader

This post canvasses the huge job facing Labour's next leadership, and learns a few lessons from National's recent history.

 

A huge job.

It's hard to get your head around the scale of the task the next leadership team in the Labour Party faces.

At the core of the job is to create and communicate an alternative to recession economics as preached by Key and English, and to build a hopeful narrative of change and growth to counterpoint the fear/debt mix deployed so effectively by National this year.

They need to work out the ways to get that across to people who do or might vote Labour, and to maintain those messages and narratives for the whole three years, to create a climate where people want to change.

Doing the hard grunt analysis and policy work, and getting the message right, requires smart thinking and broad engagement with what's happening locally and globally. It requires great research and insight.  Fantastic political judgement, and a ruthless determination to apply our values to today, not yesterday.

The new team will need to do and talk about politics sufficiently differently that the little sparkle of interest created by the current leadership race in Labour's future carries on into the new year, and builds new membership and activism in the Party.

They need to work with the New Zealand Council see through a successful programme of reform that improves Labour's ability to organise.  That requires members/supporters and money to drive more voter contact and voter persuasion.  The reform programme also needs to improve the role of members in the party, and improve candidate selection.

They need to fend off the political depradations of NZ First to the right, and the Greens to the left; animate and energise Labour's base; and then reach out and be open to securing the votes of middle of the road voters who chose to stay with National.

They will need to pull every single Labour MP into roles they are well suited to, as spokespeople, organisers, and supporters of change throughout the Labour Party.

It's one hell of a job. 

Of all these things, I think the most important is the first one. If we don't have a credible programme of reform that can actually make people better off, then we won't be able to build the politics around it to win.

And, to be frank, it'll not be much worth winning if all we do is continue to make life worse for most people, which is exactly what National's policy framework of failure is going to do in 2011-2014.

 

Learning from the Nats.

There's the other angle too, to learn from our opponents.

Think about how Key got to where he is today.

With his attractive back story, he entered Parliament in 2002 and was finance spokesman in time to really take on (and in some ways beat) Cullen during the 2005 campaign. 

While he was doing that, the National Party organisation was restructuring itself into a far more effective body, with improved internal governance and so on.

A leader who could motivate the base was in place, leading to a sharply higher vote in 2005 and massive flows of money and membership. 

Simultaneously, despite Brash's inclinations, National was ditching the far right policies of the late 1990s and starting to talk about issues that mattered to voters.

Then Key took over in 2006, moderated further, ran a relatively unified caucus on top of a well-resourced party, and took on Clark at the end of a long Labour government as a fresh and positive face flying into dark and stormy times.

The point I suppose I am making is that the successful thing about Key isn't only his back story.  That helped voters listen to him and still does.  But he is a success because of all the other things - successful reform, big well resourced party, ideas in touch with the times.

That is why I said in my last post that we need to change, and change big time.  It's why I said there is no silver bullet in a particular leader.

We remain lucky that in the Davids, we have people who can do many of these things. I refuse to choose between them, because my voice does not count in the choice.

I'll keep posting thoughts about what I think the task is that we face, because the task does not change, regardless of who our leader is.

That task is hard stuff, and we'll all need to work together to make it happen.

Refounding Labour #1 - #labourleader

In the wake of Labour's most serious election defeat since the 1920s, a comprehensive and critical re-examination of almost all of what Labour's politics is about is an absolute necessity for our party.

On the table must be our policy, our campaigning, our organisation from branch to national level, our candidate selection, our structure, our communications, our tone, the way the parliamentary party works, what the staff do in the party and in parliament, and on it goes.

There was a bit of reflexive back patting after election day.  I'm not too worried about that, but the time for that is now past.

The scale of what we need to do justifies the same name the UK Labour Party has chosen for its post-election work: Refounding Labour.

We don't need to just review or reform our party: we need to refound the party and the movement.

The only thing not up for debate as far as I am concerned are our social democratic values: our commitment to fairness and equality for all. That is what Labour does and always will stand for. 

But as revisionists have always said, it is our constant job to apply our values to the world as it is, not as it was -- or as we wish it was.

We have to start with acknowledging what happened to us on 26 November.

We got hammered. 

There are no two ways about it. 

The result is worse than in 1996, which should have been impossible given that that result followed the three-way split of the 1980s Labour Party.

It is a comprehensive rejection of Labour as a party fit to lead the government. 

I know it as a candidate.  There was none of the anger of 2008 directed at us. Instead there was simply indifference. People were sure we weren't ready for the job.  Second time in a row.

We must face that defeat, own it as an organisation, acknowledge it, and be ready to take some hard choices about how to refound our party and our movement to win.

It's that big a deal.  A positive and upbeat four week campaign does not erase the fact of failure, and nor must it be allowed to disguise how far we have fallen and how much work we have to do.

First and most profoundly, Labour has to work out again what electorate it wishes to appeal to.  Who are the 50-60% of New Zealanders we want to have open to voting for us, from which we can draw 40-50% of the vote at general elections?

Secondly, we need with hard data and through open and engaged listening, to work out why it is that so many of those groups who used to be open to us are not now listening, and just don't care what we stand for or say.

Third, we need to build a policy agenda for 2014 that responds to what New Zealand needs for the 2010s, 2020s and beyond, to what Kiwis want for their country, and that gives effect to Labour's values.

Fourth, we need the organisation on the ground all around New Zealand to be able to talk about our hopes and dreams for these islands with our country, and to listen to what they have to say. 

(It is not good enough that there are many electorates where the Labour Party is basically absent.  It is even worse that in some electorates where we do have organisation, it's out of touch and unable to run decent campaigns - and that includes some seats we actually hold!)

Fifth, we need the leadership to pull all this off.

I'm the Secretary of Labour's policy council and have learned a lot of lessons about what worked in the past three years.  I've been on NZ Council, the party's governing board, since 2004.

I've learned a lot about the party, but have an overwhelming impression that, to be frank, and despite the hard work of many, we are miles behind where we need to be.

Some things have worked but far more has not.  This is not the time for a status quo response. This is not the time for "business as usual".  It's not the time for the same old approaches that have led us to an historic defeat -- and that have led us to let down New Zealand.

I don't know who can do that leadership job for us.  I like David Shearer.  I find David Cunliffe brilliant to work with. I think both men would be capable leaders of Labour, with different strengths and weaknesses brought to the job.

I haven't made up my mind which of the two I would prefer to see in the job.  The astonishingly open process now happening of interviews and hustings meetings around the Labour Party are going to be a very good test.

By the time of Caucus on 13 December, I'm sure I'll have made up my mind about who I want in the job, and I will let my local MP know.  I don't have a vote and whoever gets elected will have my respect, and my support.

But what I do know is this.

One leader or another is not the solution to Labour's problems.

A fundamental acknowledgement that we have a major job to rebuild our party and our movement, and to reconnect with voters who we have clearly lost touch with, is the start.

Leaders can help or hurt with that, but we are in the fortunate position of having two front runners who both would help. 

We have to say it clearly: NO leader can do what needs to be done on their own.

It requires every single one of us in the Labour Party to stand up, to do things differently. 

We all have to share our ideas and hopes for change, and to be determined that whoever is in the top job, we work together to put our values into place by leading a government after 2014.

I'll do another blog next week with some more concrete thoughts on what needs to change.

I hope this makes it clear that I'm looking forward to being part of it.