"Electing mayors will let in the BNP". Labour accused of dirty tricks

Local parties have been accused of scare tactics ahead of tomorrow's referendum. But why the strong

As the country readies itself for a raft of local elections tomorrow, the news of a dirty tricks campaign should be no surprise.

In amongst elections for local councillors, ten cities – including Birmingham, Nottingham and Leeds – will hold a referendum on whether to introduce elected mayors in the style of London.

The Times (£) reports this morning that local Labour groups have been attempting to scupper the chances of a “yes” vote. In Nottingham, thousands of leaflets were sent out implying that voting in favour of a mayor would put far right parties in power:

The Racist BNP and EDL want a £1m extra mayor. That’s the only way they can win in Nottingham. Stop them by voting first option [against a mayor].

Jon Collins, the leader of Nottingham City Council, stood by the leaflet, saying that “we needed people to know that the BNP and EDL support a mayor for Nottingham”.

The paper also reports that in Leeds, local party whips told Labour councillors that if they backed a mayor, they would not be promoted. A former councillor said that there was “a climate of intimidation”. In Newcastle, Unison spent a reported £20,000 on leaflets opposing elected mayors (the union disputes this figure).

So why this strong opposition to directly elected mayors? After all, the idea was pushed forward by a Labour prime minister -- Tony Blair, who said in 1995 that elected mayors could be “a modern symbol of local government”. It marks a devolution of power away from Westminster, and cities that vote “yes” will gain a significant increase in funding from Whitehall (Liverpool is already getting around £130m a year more).

One obvious reason that local parties would oppose directly elected mayors is that it will have an immediate disruptive effect on local councils, changing the way they work and depleting their power. The fact that mayors’ powers remain ill-defined will compound this worry.

Another factor is that this is another opportunity to score political points. Tory ministers are reportedly anxious about how many cities will vote in favour of elected mayors, with signs that even Birmingham might stick with the status quo. These worries are well founded. Since 2001, 37 towns and cities in the UK have voted on whether to introduce elected mayors, and only 12 were in favour. Thursday already looks set to be a bad day for the Tories, and further losses would compound this.

These cynical scare tactics obscure the debate over whether this could actually improve local democracy, and serve no-one, least of all the constituents voting tomorrow.
 

A Boris Johnson supporter unveils a poster at the launch of Mr Johnson's bid to be re-elected as Mayor of London on April 10, 2012. The capital has had a directly elected mayor since 2000. Photograph: Getty Images

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Find the EU renegotiation demands dull? Me too – but they are important

It's an old trick: smother anything in enough jargon and you can avoid being held accountable for it.

I don’t know about you, but I found the details of Britain’s European Union renegotiation demands quite hard to read. Literally. My eye kept gliding past them, in an endless quest for something more interesting in the paragraph ahead. It was as if the word “subsidiarity” had been smeared in grease. I haven’t felt tedium quite like this since I read The Lord of the Rings and found I slid straight past anything written in italics, reasoning that it was probably another interminable Elvish poem. (“The wind was in his flowing hair/The foam about him shone;/Afar they saw him strong and fair/Go riding like a swan.”)

Anyone who writes about politics encounters this; I call it Subclause Syndrome. Smother anything in enough jargon, whirr enough footnotes into the air, and you have a very effective shield for protecting yourself from accountability – better even than gutting the Freedom of Information laws, although the government seems quite keen on that, too. No wonder so much of our political conversation ends up being about personality: if we can’t hope to master all the technicalities, the next best thing is to trust the person to whom we have delegated that job.

Anyway, after 15 cups of coffee, three ice-bucket challenges and a bottle of poppers I borrowed from a Tory MP, I finally made it through. I didn’t feel much more enlightened, though, because there were notable omissions – no mention, thankfully, of rolling back employment protections – and elsewhere there was a touching faith in the power of adding “language” to official documents.

One thing did stand out, however. For months, we have been told that it is a terrible problem that migrants from Europe are sending child benefit to their families back home. In future, the amount that can be claimed will start at zero and it will reach full whack only after four years of working in Britain. Even better, to reduce the alleged “pull factor” of our generous in-work benefits regime, the child benefit rate will be paid on a ratio calculated according to average wages in the home country.

What a waste of time. At the moment, only £30m in child benefit is sent out of the country each year: quite a large sum if you’re doing a whip round for a retirement gift for a colleague, but basically a rounding error in the Department for Work and Pensions budget.

Only 20,000 workers, and 34,000 children, are involved. And yet, apparently, this makes it worth introducing 28 different rates of child benefit to be administered by the DWP. We are given to understand that Iain Duncan Smith thinks this is barmy – and this is a man optimistic enough about his department’s computer systems to predict in 2013 that 4.46 million people would be claiming Universal Credit by now*.

David Cameron’s renegotiation package was comprised exclusively of what Doctor Who fans call handwavium – a magic substance with no obvious physical attributes, which nonetheless helpfully advances the plot. In this case, the renegotiation covers up the fact that the Prime Minister always wanted to argue to stay in Europe, but needed a handy fig leaf to do so.

Brace yourself for a sentence you might not read again in the New Statesman, but this makes me feel sorry for Chris Grayling. He and other Outers in the cabinet have to wait at least two weeks for Cameron to get the demands signed off; all the while, Cameron can subtly make the case for staying in Europe, while they are bound to keep quiet because of collective responsibility.

When that stricture lifts, the high-ranking Eurosceptics will at last be free to make the case they have been sitting on for years. I have three strong beliefs about what will happen next. First, that everyone confidently predicting a paralysing civil war in the Tory ranks is doing so more in hope than expectation. Some on the left feel that if Labour is going to be divided over Trident, it is only fair that the Tories be split down the middle, too. They forget that power, and patronage, are strong solvents: there has already been much muttering about low-level blackmail from the high command, with MPs warned about the dire influence of disloyalty on their career prospects.

Second, the Europe campaign will feature large doses of both sides solemnly advising the other that they need to make “a positive case”. This will be roundly ignored. The Remain team will run a fear campaign based on job losses, access to the single market and “losing our seat at the table”; Leave will run a fear campaign based on the steady advance of whatever collective noun for migrants sounds just the right side of racist. (Current favourite: “hordes”.)

Third, the number of Britons making a decision based on a complete understanding of the renegotiation, and the future terms of our membership, will be vanishingly small. It is simply impossible to read about subsidiarity for more than an hour without lapsing into a coma.

Yet, funnily enough, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Just as the absurd complexity of policy frees us to talk instead about character, so the onset of Subclause Syndrome in the EU debate will allow us to ask ourselves a more profound, defining question: what kind of country do we want Britain to be? Polling suggests that very few of us see ourselves as “European” rather than Scottish, or British, but are we a country that feels open and looks outwards, or one that thinks this is the best it’s going to get, and we need to protect what we have? That’s more vital than any subclause. l

* For those of you keeping score at home, Universal Credit is now allegedly going to be implemented by 2021. Incidentally, George Osborne has recently discovered that it’s a great source of handwavium; tax credit cuts have been postponed because UC will render such huge savings that they aren’t needed.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle