Labour in local government: Radical or conservative?

By Ed Turner

Although things have picked up recently, Labour has had a tough time in local government, falling from over 10,000 councillors in 1997 to under 5,000 now, and with whole swathes of the country without Labour representation.

This is bad news for the party in two respects: firstly, councillors can make an important contribution to campaigning – not just as the deliverers of leaflets and tappers upon doors, but also in giving the party a credible local face. Second, and no less important at the moment, communities need strong advocates, who will be looking out for the most vulnerable, in the face of ConDem cuts.

There are two responses to this – a cautious, ‘conservative’ one, and a ‘radical’ one. Over the coming weeks, it’ll be instructive to see which one Labour’s new leader and shadow cabinet endorses.

The ‘conservative’ response isn’t a bad idea – it’s just not good enough. It comprises three elements: first, hoping that, with the swing of the political pendulum and a mid-term dip in governing parties’ support, Labour will gain more councillors without doing very much. This expectation is compounded by the cuts agenda and the Lib Dems’ weak strategic position. Secondly, it lays very strong emphasis on local campaigning, noting local successes from Hastings to Haringey, as a result of a strong campaigning effort all year round. Thirdly, Labour would retain its stated commitment to ‘new localism’ (nowadays, just ‘localism’), decentralising power to local government and also beyond it.

There’s not much wrong with this – and certainly on the first two elements, the ‘conservative’ agenda is probably right, as far as it goes. But it learns precious little from some of the mistakes of Labour’s time in government, and areas of missed opportunity. There are three additional elements to in a ‘radical’ response to Labour’s local government malaise.

First, we need to get representative. Local government has become heavily white, male, dominated by graduates (notably in senior positions) and has an average age of over 58. There needs to be a real push to bring in a newer, more diverse group of councillors. This can be done in part through party processes, but also the role needs to change, making it more interesting and attractive.

Secondly but related, local government needs to be strengthened, so that people actively involved in their communities actually see becoming a councillor as a good way of getting things done. In government Labour was great at making local councils ask local people what they wanted to happen, but pretty hopeless at giving them the tools to do it. On financial matters but also in regulatory functions (like control of betting shops and take-aways, or dealings with landlords and control of rented housing), councils need to be freer to shape their communities without needing permission from the centre. We need multi-purpose local authorities, actually able to steer the police, JobCentre Plus, utilities (not just the privilege of being able to invite them along to a scrutiny committee now and again).

Thirdly, we actually need to appreciate the positive role of political parties in local government. Too often, Labour’s ‘localism’ under the last government sought to undermine the role of parties, whether through the attempt to create apolitical scrutiny committees, the disastrous push for elected mayors (truly the last refuge of policy wonks bereft of ideas), or the endless, tedious partnership talking-shops where directly-elected politicians ended up being treated as one stakeholder amongst many, rather than the authentic, legitimate voice of the community. This was a big mistake: it made local government look ‘technocratic’, but so much of what is decided at a local level is intensely political, involving the allocation of power and resources between different groups. Technocracy, complete with the language of partnership gobbledegook, is not the way to broaden interest in local government. It also neglected the really positive role parties can play: in recruitment, in communication, in allocating responsibility, but most importantly in actually representing local opinion, weighing up and choosing between different options (far more effectively than those with the time and inclination to go to community meetings – which will be heavy on articulate pensioners and lighter on, say, women with childcare responsibilities).

Ironically enough, the ‘new localism’ pursued under the last government, with its deep scepticism of local councils and political parties in them, was the result of lesson-drawing from failings in Labour local government in the 1970s and 1980s, long after it had changed and the problems addressed were no longer present. We need to learn the lessons of our time in office, with a bold vision for local government that makes it more representative, more able to resolve the problems our communities face, and with a positive view of what political parties locally can achieve, rather than just waiting for another swing of the electoral pendulum.

This is based on a longer piece for Renewal.