Local difficulties

By Joe Caluori / @Croslandite

The relationship between the Labour leadership and Labour in local government has a rich history, far too complex to be examined is this short piece – but what role do the leadership candidates see for Labour in local government?

It is of course natural that leadership contenders should gingerly conduct a courtship of Labour councillors. Not only do councillors often form the campaigning core of local parties, they are also opinion formers, influencing the views of their ward members. And of course, it would ill-behove a future leader to have ignored the tier of elected representatives who will form a bulwark against this government’s policies for as long as the government lasts.

But my warning to all leadership candidates is to avoid treating Labour councillors as an army of Terra Cotta warriors, used only for campaigning and cheerleading on behalf of Westminster generals.

There are still traces of bitterness in local government circles stemming from a belief that the last Labour government was too slow to trust local government, and too fond of ring-fencing, top-slicing and passporting. Labour councillors have also often felt that they were treated as expendable collateral of the internecine struggles and administrative incompetence at Westminster. The sabotage of local government election campaigns by lost criminals, data disks and ministers resigning before votes are cast – seemingly unaware that one TV interview can undo 3 months of tireless campaigning – has left a sour legacy.

In 2007 the clarion call was to ‘paint it red’, make it clear to people what Labour have achieved in their area and stop Lib Dem and Tory councils taking credit. In 2010 the challenge is very different.

In our last period in opposition Labour councillors risked forfeiting their property and even freedom by refusing to be custodians of Tory policy; but some Labour councils also incubated the breed of self indulgent modern political extremism which made many Labour voters turn away from their local representatives in disgust. Neil Kinnock’s infamous Bournemouth conference speech in 1985 marked a turning point, showing a new path towards more professionalism and humility in municipal socialism.

So firstly, the next leader should take a view – do Labour councils combine in organised resistance against ConDem policy, even if in the short term it leads to greater hardship for their poorer residents? Or will they encourage Labour councils to manage cuts as best they can, engaging a debate over the merits of salami-slicing cuts versus sacrificing a function entirely in order to save another?

Secondly, in the longer term, there is a profound debate to be had over the view of the centre-left towards the new religion of ‘localism’. At its best, localism can provide a voice for the voiceless, giving communities greater control of their own destiny – Lambeth’s co-operative council concept is a nod in this direction.

However, participatory budgeting and Tory fuelled changes to planning processes could make localism a charter for nimbyism, giving the usual suspects the keys to the cupboard, with local councillors cut out of the equation entirely. This means fire gates on suburban streets rather than better lighting on estates, funding for flowers and trees but not women’s refuges, and localised vetoes on new housing developments.

We Labour councillors are right to feel uneasy about the future, and the next leader of the party would do well to hold a series of symposia with councillors, jointly mapping out future policy. There is a desire in the body politic for a greater say over decision making, and greater public involvement could help erode mistrust of politicians and the political process, but moves towards greater localism must only be seen through a prism of social justice.