The local elections on 2 May offered crumbs of satisfaction for all three main parties, provided few clues about political sentiment nationwide, produced some alarming individual results and, on the whole, were determinedly focused on local issues. It was abandoned and burned-out cars; the state of the local environment; levels of graffiti; youngsters creating mayhem on the streets; and the efficiency or failures of local services which were the things people wanted to talk about and, ultimately, were the things that brought them out to vote.
So, whilst the results don’t tell us very much about the national political picture, they tell us a lot about the things that are uppermost in voters’ minds around the country. It is our old friend delivery in public services, at a local as well as a national level, that is top of the electoral agenda.
That said, there are a few conclusions that can be drawn from the results overall. First, and most worryingly, the advance of the BNP in a number of areas; most obviously, but not exclusively, in Burnley. It is not just the election of three BNP councillors that alarms me, but the relatively high percentage vote obtained by the BNP (akin to that secured by Le Pen in France) in those wards where they stood and made an effort. Just as we did many years ago in Wapping, we need to take their arguments head on, reveal them for what they are, and win the debate. We won’t do that by pandering to them. We will, however, do it by recognising that votes for the BNP and similar parties are often rooted in the sheer frustration of those trapped in impoverished communities. It doesn’t excuse racism, but it does tell us that we need to offer routes out of hopelessness as well as an anti-racism message.
Second, there is clearly a general disenchantment with traditional political parties and politicians. The election of the ‘Monkey’ in Hartlepool, Ray Mallon in Middlesbrough, or the Kidderminster Hospital candidates in Wyre Forest, show that where seemingly attractive ‘non-political’ candidates or organisations are available, people vote in their droves for them. This ought to give us pause for thought about how, as politicians and parties, we can reconnect with the voters – not just with their concerns and their interests, but with their sense of the style, flavour and feel that ought to characterise our approach to politics.
Third, the Lib Dems become vulnerable once they have been running a council for some time. The results in Sheffield and Richmond were very telling in this respect, and mirror what happened in Tower Hamlets some years ago. The Lib Dems are very good at campaigning to win things (they did, for example, in my own patch of Islington) and sometimes tell the most outrageous untruths in order to do so, but they aren’t that good at actually running things. Once they’ve been in power for a while, the shine comes off.
Fourth, good Labour councils on the whole get rewarded with the electors’ trust. Places like Trafford and Camden, where Labour has been doing an outstandingly good job of running the council, held firmly with us. Sadly, this is not a universal truth. We lost ground in Norwich, undeservedly. As a general rule of thumb, the better the Labour record, the better the Labour vote.
And fifth, the Tories failed to make anything like a breakthrough. A year into the new government, with a Budget that has just announced that money is to be taken out of people’s pockets (a rather popular policy on the doorsteps, in fact), the Tories still show no signs of raising a great public wave of discontent. On this showing, they will not only fail to get back into government for a long time to come, they will fail to make very much of a dent in local government, either. Thank goodness for that.