Jim McMahon, Labour's leader in local governmnet, has a message for the Labour leadership candidates.
Show Hide image

Labour's leadership hopefuls have lessons to learn from the party's councillors

Devolution of powers, reform of the state, and above all, a clear idea of what Labour is for are required, says Jim McMahon.

The four contenders for Labour’s top job will be speaking at a local government hustings in Harrogate today. I would urge them to listen there to the councillors who run our grassroots campaigns and knock millions of doors every year for the party. I recently surveyed all six thousand Labour councillors across England and Wales. One in ten replied, whether in power locally or in opposition, from every sort of council and from every region. Their nationwide efforts shouldn’t be taken for granted and their insights from outside the Westminster bubble should be heard. So, what do Labour’s local champions want from the party’s next leader?

The issue that vexes us most is the prospect of yet more cuts to council services. On top of the 40 per cent of our funding we have already lost since 2010, we look set to lose another £3 billion next year alone and are heading towards a funding gap of £10bn by the end of the decade. The government insists on caricaturing councils as brimful of faceless bureaucrats, but people need to understand that this will mean swingeing cuts to public services that they do care about. Youth clubs, libraries and children’s centres will shut as a result. There may have to be reductions in social care for isolated adults and savings in children’s services for vulnerable kids. Four out of five Labour councillors believe that in the next two years some councils will go bust altogether. We need Labour nationally to argue for fair finance for local authorities, distributed according to need, and for councils to be able to keep revenue that’s locally raised. Then we can offer a meaningful alternative to the Tories’ miserable tale of managed decline.

A coherent, compelling narrative on the economy is essential. Labour’s local representatives believe that we lost the debate on the economy in 2010 and never recovered. Failure to command people’s trust and confidence there poses a credibility problem we cannot dodge. If we can’t defend our economic record, then no-one else will. And if we are not sure about the economic path we want to take, then nobody will follow. Our political economy needs a shakeup too. The state often props up the market with very little quid pro quo. To cut the housing benefit and tax credit bills, for example, we need to drive wages up and rents down in the private sector.

The country is suffering a chronic housing crisis. Supply is badly outstripped by demand. Too many of the homes we have are sitting empty or falling apart. Regeneration since 2010 has ground to a halt. But new government policy will make matters worse. The forced sale of ‘high-value’ council homes that the government is proposing, for example, is an exercise in asset-stripping that will, over time, segregate mixed urban communities into separate city centres for the rich and banlieues for the poor.

On welfare, the government seems determined to try to balance the nation’s books on the backs of the poor. The contributory principle that people must put in as well as get out is important, but so is having a system that provides the right incentives, safeguards people’s dignity and supports them at times of need. After the Chancellor’s £12bn of cuts to social security in his budget next week, the nation’s safety net will be left dangerously threadbare. As the welfare system is hacked back, it is councils that are left to pick up the pieces at the taxpayer’s expense.

The machinery of government also needs rewiring. When Labour was last in power we kept a lot of decision-making at the centre, in England at least. We now need a principle of subsidiarity that insists that power, resources and responsibility should rest at the most appropriate level to address a given issue: devolution by default, not outdated deference to Westminster and Whitehall. Britain’s regions have different characters and differing needs. They ought to be able to organise public services in their area in the most effective way for their local population, especially when one-size-fits-all national approaches have failed, as they have in vital areas like employment and skills. Devolved transport has worked well in London. I have high hopes for the devolved and integrated approach to health and social care we are now taking in Greater Manchester. But devolution should be on offer to all parts of the country, be they collections of coastal towns or former industrial areas, not just a handful of major city regions with their metro-mayors. Unequal devolution runs the risk of entrenching inequality. But, done right, devolution offers a route to renewing a sense of belonging and restoring local pride.

Labour in parliament must now prove an effective Opposition. While the party picks its top team, our MPs must take the government to task, all the time looking outwards to serve and speak up for the people who put them there. We cannot cede the political frame for this parliament the way we did in 2010.  We need to learn the lessons of the past five years. During that time, neither the party’s policy offer nor its on-the-ground organisation was bad. Its communication was weak though and its core message was unclear. We have to choose a strong, decisive leader who can tell a convincing story about the sort of country we want to be. We must be seen to stand for something. Whether our candidates are up against Conservatives or UKIP in 2020, clarity of definition, confidence and purpose are what our movement now needs.

Cllr Jim McMahon OBE is the Leader of Oldham Council  and the Leader of Labour in Local Government

Getty
Show Hide image

Let's face it: supporting Spurs is basically a form of charity

Now, for my biggest donation yet . . .

I gazed in awe at the new stadium, the future home of Spurs, wondering where my treasures will go. It is going to be one of the architectural wonders of the modern world (football stadia division), yet at the same time it seems ancient, archaic, a Roman ruin, very much like an amphitheatre I once saw in Croatia. It’s at the stage in a new construction when you can see all the bones and none of the flesh, with huge tiers soaring up into the sky. You can’t tell if it’s going or coming, a past perfect ruin or a perfect future model.

It has been so annoying at White Hart Lane this past year or so, having to walk round walkways and under awnings and dodge fences and hoardings, losing all sense of direction. Millions of pounds were being poured into what appeared to be a hole in the ground. The new stadium will replace part of one end of the present one, which was built in 1898. It has been hard not to be unaware of what’s going on, continually asking ourselves, as we take our seats: did the earth move for you?

Now, at long last, you can see what will be there, when it emerges from the scaffolding in another year. Awesome, of course. And, har, har, it will hold more people than Arsenal’s new home by 1,000 (61,000, as opposed to the puny Emirates, with only 60,000). At each home game, I am thinking about the future, wondering how my treasures will fare: will they be happy there?

No, I don’t mean Harry Kane, Danny Rose and Kyle Walker – local as well as national treasures. Not many Prem teams these days can boast quite as many English persons in their ranks. I mean my treasures, stuff wot I have been collecting these past 50 years.

About ten years ago, I went to a shareholders’ meeting at White Hart Lane when the embryonic plans for the new stadium were being announced. I stood up when questions were called for and asked the chairman, Daniel Levy, about having a museum in the new stadium. I told him that Man United had made £1m the previous year from their museum. Surely Spurs should make room for one in the brave new mega-stadium – to show off our long and proud history, delight the fans and all those interested in football history and make a few bob.

He mumbled something – fluent enough, as he did go to Cambridge – but gave nothing away, like the PM caught at Prime Minister’s Questions with an unexpected question.

But now it is going to happen. The people who are designing the museum are coming from Manchester to look at my treasures. They asked for a list but I said, “No chance.” I must have 2,000 items of Spurs memorabilia. I could be dead by the time I finish listing them. They’ll have to see them, in the flesh, and then they’ll be free to take away whatever they might consider worth having in the new museum.

I’m awfully kind that way, partly because I have always looked on supporting Spurs as a form of charity. You don’t expect any reward. Nor could you expect a great deal of pleasure, these past few decades, and certainly not the other day at Liverpool when they were shite. But you do want to help them, poor things.

I have been downsizing since my wife died, and since we sold our Loweswater house, and I’m now clearing out some of my treasures. I’ve donated a very rare Wordsworth book to Dove Cottage, five letters from Beatrix Potter to the Armitt Library in Ambleside, and handwritten Beatles lyrics to the British Library. If Beckham and I don’t get a knighthood in the next honours list, I will be spitting.

My Spurs stuff includes programmes going back to 1910, plus recent stuff like the Opus book, that monster publication, about the size of a black cab. Limited editions cost £8,000 a copy in 2007. I got mine free, as I did the introduction and loaned them photographs. I will be glad to get rid of it. It’s blocking the light in my room.

Perhaps, depending on what they want, and they might take nothing, I will ask for a small pourboire in return. Two free tickets in the new stadium. For life. Or longer . . . 

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 16 February 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times