When New Labour first began to plant its size nines all over the centre-ground of politics, you heard people complaining that the Tories and Labour were basically just the same. Our answer was a quote, I think from an Australian politician, who said the difference may only be half an inch, but it’s the half inch where we all want to live. This week the Tory government hacked away the half-inch where we want to live.
The unkindest cuts fall on local government. Councillors will find themselves managing decline over the next five years: making decisions about what to close and who to sack. First will come the soft options: closures of libraries, museums, playgrounds and swimming pools. Then the tough choices: home helps, services for disabled people, pensioners and children. The irony is that after next May and the May after that, Labour will control many more councils, and the Tories and Liberal many fewer. Thousands of newly-elected Labour councillors will face heart-breaking decisions in their first weeks in office.
In the coming years, local government will swing dramatically to Labour. Councils will throw up the next generation of leaders, just as it did 25 years ago with David Blunkett, Margaret Hodge and Ken Livingstone. Local government policy will dominate the NEC and party conference in way it hasn’t for two decades. Out in the cold at Westminster, Labour will be running the major towns and cities once again. People look incredulously when I tell them that when I was a press officer for the Association of County Councils (ACC) in the mid-90s, it was Labour-controlled.
In the 1980s, Labour in local government adopted differing approaches to the cuts imposed by Tory governments. Liverpool, then controlled by the Militant tendency, and Lambeth, controlled by Bennites, sought direct conflict with the government, including breaking the ‘rate-capping’ law by setting budgets which spent more than the council raised in revenue. In Liverpool the rate support grant (RSG) was cut by £30m by the Tory government. Famously 30,000 council staff were handed 90-day notices delivered by taxi as a ‘tactic’ to draw attention to the ‘theft’ of £30m from local people. It ended, of course, with Kinnock’s theatrical denunciation at Bournemouth, and a retreat by the council. Other Labour councils, led by ‘soft-left’ leaders such as David Blunkett in Sheffield adopted the ‘dented shield’, which meant protection of services for the most vulnerable within the limits set by central government. It was accompanied by vigorous campaigning, rallies and demonstrations.
This time round, Labour must adopt a similar stance. The trick will be to set budgets which protect core services, but clearly blame the Tories and Liberal Democrats for centrally-imposed cuts. Recent council by-election results in Sheffield, Oxford and Medway suggest that the public understand full-well who’s to blame. A modern version of the ‘dented shield’ would mean that Labour-led councils should seek to protect services, lead protests against the government, but not seek martyrdom. We need responsible leaders, not riddled corpses. Extremism of the kind we saw in Liverpool, Lewisham and Lambeth in the 1980s did the party no favours; the damage took years to repair.
Which brings me to Tower Hamlets. All members of Labour should be disturbed by the election of Luftur Rahman. The new mayor of Tower Hamlets, with a budget of over £1bn, has alleged links to the Islamic Forum Europe (IFE) and the Labour NEC has barred him as a Labour candidate. The IFE in turn has links to Jamaat-e-Islami, the Islamist movement which wants to replace parliamentary democracy with a supranational caliphate. The early evidence from Tower Hamlets is that turnout was low, especially amongst the white working-class voters who are in the majority in the borough, and previous Labour supporters were discouraged by Ken Livingstone’s intervention in support of Mr Rahman and against the official Labour candidate.
The result in Tower Hamlets will give succour to some very unsavoury groups and individuals, who will see entryism into the Labour Party and taking control of councils as a tactic which can deliver a major platform and resources to the Islamist cause. This is the new Militant Tendency, supported by ‘useful idiots’ like Livingstone, and the NEC needs to think very carefully about what to do next. The rules are clear: any member who backs a candidate standing against Labour is liable for expulsion. If there’s evidence that Livingstone publicly supported Mr Rahman, he should be booted out.
What? So that he can run again as an independent candidate and win against a less popular Labour figure.
Who are the useful idiots? I s it the people who listened to local people and took up their concerns and sought to be a voice for the people? Or is it those who listened to right wing Islamaphobes who are peddling a divisive strategy? Paul is righ to emphasise the importance of the ‘dented sheild’ as a strategy for trying to defend local people and to expose the Tory cuts. That is the strategy that Lutfur Rahman as a social democrat will follow. He doesn’t seek martyrdom but justice for the people he’s trying to represent. Labour in London need to learn the lesson of this terrible defeat and stop basing its policies on wild claims about extremist infiltration which Paul has zero eviidence for. We have work to do in opposing the Tories, trying to pretend that Lutfur Rahman is the re-incarnation of Ted Knight will show what a small minded clown Paul is. Give the Mayor a chance to show what he can do.
Well there’s all that TV footage. So I think there’s just a little bit of evidence.
Oh Wow! so the local people’s choice got elected, instead of Labour H.Q.’s favourite candidate, brilliant! During the ‘reign’ of Tony Bliar there was too much imposing of candidates from H.Q. instead of letting the ordinary people choose. Hopefully this has gone now we have proper Labour back!
Thanks. Good comment piece well expressed. I’ve passed on the concept of the ‘dented shield’ approach (paras 5 &6) to Jules Pipe in Hackney as an idea for moving forward! – Cllr Ian Rathbone
James, The TV footage are allegations from Lutfur Rahman’s enemies they do not prove that IFE has infiltrated Labour as Gilligan suggests. Yes IFE supportetrs may have joined Labour and yes they support Lutfur but that does not mean that it is the same as Militant (or an islamic variant) on that basis you would have to expel all observant muslims who you didn’t like from the Labour Party. I and many members think that the charge of being an ‘islamic extremist’ is an easy one for the tory press to make and peerhaps the most damaging for a Muslim politician to confront. Gilligan wants to get the Labour Party tearing itself apart over these allegations and sadly the Regional Party has fallen for his patter hook line and sinkeer. The real ‘useful idiots’ are Labour MP’s who go round shouting about ‘Islamist infiltration’ SAdly all of this will end up in the courts, making Labour look even more foolish. Its time Ed Milliband intervened and stopped the slide into an internal civil war whcih will benefit nobody
I thought that the whole idea of this site was that it was ‘progressive’. The imposition of candidates by Labour HQ against a popular but radical incumbent is exactly the sort of thing that will turn members, including newly returning members like me, away from the party for good. Surely we have learnt from the disaster of New Labour. It has taken about 15 years for me to return to the party (I saw the writing on the wall long before Blair was elected first time around) as I finally thought we were starting to turn the corner. I now find so called ‘progressive’ commentators encouraging us to partake in actions that even the coalition would regard as underhand. I have to say as well as an aside, as a recent revert to Islam, that there are slightly islamophobic undertones to the piece which is again worrying from a so called ‘progressive’ writer. I expect the EDL to say that we should fear radical islamic politicians but not members of my own party. In any case there is much that the west can learn from Islam.
So 51% of 25% of an extremely dubious electoral register is “the people’s choice”. Discounting for multiple registering, I doubt that as many as 9 or 10% of genuine votes available to be cast were actually cast for this ‘winner’. Equallt intersting is whether unlike the flagrant cowards Paul Richards and (TV interview three days ago “Ken will be Ken” Neil Kinnock” any LP officers have the bottle to put LIvingstone in his proper place – outside of the LP. He has the brand of Oswald Mosley all over him. Thank God it is BoJO not the fortunately chaotic BNP who will benefit. as LP are doing everything they possibly can to help the racist cause. Why, may we ask, did not John Biggs get to replace LR – he came second in the poll for mayoral candidate …
This is a pretty nasty article. I suspect the difference between the 80s and now is that party members won’t be fooled again by the right. We know how it ends up: a deregulated financial system going pop and a Labour government sending people abroad to be tortured. Not to mention being a generation out of touch on issues like climate change and AV. No thanks.
Stuart – if only Lutfur Rahman were merely ‘the incarnation of Ted Knight’. At least Knight had some claim to being on the left – albeit a totalitarian left that the Labour Party should have had nothing to do with. This current Islamist entryism is far worse, and far more dangerous for the party. It represents a far-right, fascistic, antisemitic, antifeminist and anti-gay reaction which should be utterly beyond the pale for the Labour Party. The only consolation in this debacle is that Rahman didn’t get elected as a Labour candidate, with the party then having to take the rap for the inevitable corruption and channeling of public funds to far-right Islamist organisations that Tower Hamlets appears to have let itself in for over the next few years. Make no mistake, Labour will pay heavily in the long run all over the country if it gives any appearance of appeasing this far-rightist tendency. I agree with Paul on this one, and I for one have had enough of Ken Livingstone’s opportunistic stirring of the sectarian pot (witness his embrace when in office of the far-right Muslim Brotherhood’s chief ideologist al-Qaradawi). I have no idea whether Rahman is personally an Islamist or is merely opportunistically riding the Islamist tiger into office. Either way, it would be electoral madness, as well as unprincipled, for Labour to allow itself to be driven into this particular electoral ghetto.
Is there no end to Paul Richards’ drivel!
In the 1980s Liverpool City had mass working class support, and eliminated the Tories from the City because it was prepared to make a serious stand against cuts – not play at Kinnock’s dented shield, which ended up defending very few. When the Militant council was removed – not by the people but by the Labour Party leadership – who were too gutless for such a fight – the LIberals siezed control of the Council. They held onto it for the next 20 years, with Labour only wiinning back control this year. That was the legacy of Labour’s refusal to fight – as opposed to the massive public support maintained by the Militant council. The Party, the unions and Labour Council’s must stand and fight these current cuts – and in the process drive out this coalition Government. 5 years of the Dented Shield (not fighting approach) will set a firm basis for the Tories staying in power.
I agree with Harry G.there.But I do not understand Ken’s thinking in standing by this man.Could he have been thinking something like ,better to have a more visible muslim presence ,out in the open to fight against in a Democratic way ? An enemy one can see rather than people who bomb the underground and run away,I really do not know if this man has ,shall we say negative ideology .I am glad the Party made a stand if it had any doubt ,many people are worried about meetings held in mosques,maybe better they are held in the town hall ?
@Harry Goldstein “This current Islamist entryism is far worse, and far more dangerous for the party. It represents a far-right, fascistic, antisemitic, antifeminist and anti-gay..” You should get your facts right Rahman sacked the former TH Chief Executive to replace him with someone who is openly gay Dr Kevin Collins.
Paul, As you know I am no sycophant and have been very highly critical of you in the past. Well written, and I want to thank you for your article on Labourlist regarding GDH Cole, a real inspiration for us fellow “builders”. It is tough and next year will be awfully challenging. But as we learn in the military tou have to try and turn a negative into a positive and by researching into our incredible socialist history we can do this whilst adhereing to those values we treasure most and that the people rely on. Even now many of us are working to find ways to turn this against the Tories whilst at the same time begin, finally to truly begin to rebuild our communities and local economies in a sustainable manner. By locking in wealth and freedom (the two go together more often than not) as well as responsibility and dignity in our local people we can begin to challenge more than mere cynacism in this country. I was at RAF Cottesmore recently watching the Harriers, and in the full knowledge of the fact they will soon fly no more. The Harrier of course was a symbol of creative engineering genius that originated here in Britain along with the TV, Telephone and so many other things that have changed the world. Having also witnessed in Asia the technology race in countries that have nothing like our educational infrastructure and the in the full knowledge of the International recognition given to Manchester University on their work on Quantum computers you begin to realise two things. The first is we need a highly focued State organ that can focus attention at one area, the empowerment and skills development of the people, whether they be in Glasgow or Cardiff or London or anywhere else in the UK. The Big Society is a farce, as the model the Tories offer already exists and can only be sustained for so long as it does not just rest on people to do what many politiciansd are incapable of and give in to their better natures but additionally depends on them being able to find the time and their own avility to survive to do so. Cameron’s Big Society is totally dependent on those people who can afford to be “Big” hearted and during a recession this is incredibly difficult and requires leadership to lead by example. Are the millionaires in the Tory Party leading by example? I think not. We are only in it together when led by example, not when begged to do so by the very wealthy who clearly could not give a fig for society and who are more interested in seeing more wealth and investment drained from this country via than they are in seeing us become an International Player on the Global Markets. Onle we in the Labour Party, with the history of creative and sustainably relevant policy can deliver a “Good” society or a “better” and “fairer” society. With our traditions as representing working people, the Unions, the Fabiens and the Co-Op movement only we, if we all work together and harness our people can truly restore the creative, successful and more decent society for the vast majority and take this country our of the prolonged slump and decline it has endured since the days of Thatcher. So thanks Paul, your written material has been a keen inspiration for the likes of me and the history is still applicable today if not more so and a reminder of how much we memebers owe to the great thinkers of yesterday.