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

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.