« Tonight: the Politics of Electoral Reform | Home | Cutting The Deficit is Only Half the Story »
General Election — No Gain in Going Short
By Andy | November 17, 2009
It seems a long time since I’ve written anything half decent here. Lack of inspiration has been the problem and the whole expenses saga has taken its toll. But now the Kelly Report has been produced the General Election campaigns have begun and it seems sensible to take up the reigns again.
So, first up — the date of the next General Election.
Westminster — and London — are awash with rumours of an early General Election. Watch March say some of the more interesting voices.
An early General Election is always a possibility. The government may choose to go short because it simply does not have the funds for a long election campaign. Membership income has suffered, unions are not particularly well disposed to help and the Party’s bankers are reported to be insisting that spend stays at current levels. Staff levels in both HQ and Darlington are far lower than you would expect at this point in the electoral cycle. In many ways it would make sense to go early with a short-sharp campaign.
But an early election might decimate Labour Local government which, in many areas, represents that last bit of functioning structure in the Party. For example, levies on Councillors keep local leafleting campaigns alive and often support key campaign staff.
Local government is banking on a General Election on the same day as the locals next year. This is particularly true in London where all Councillors are up for election.
Local analysis of campaigns and canvassing makes interesting reading. In inner city areas a General Election turnout may be good for Labour. For example, Labour ‘won’ both the Mayoral Election in inner London and the European elections in Inner London. Boris’ great achievement was in getting out the previously apathetic Tory vote in the suburbs. It is possible that even with a bad national result that some Labour Councils could do reasonably well. And — if there is to be a change in government — this is a good thing.
Labour councils may well have to face up to being a key component in the opposition to the Tories in government. This was the case during the Thatcher and Major years when local government was at its most creative. Partially this was because it wanted to stress the practicality of an alternative view of government, but it was also because local government was clear of its duty to protect its most vulnerable citizens. Many of our policies in ‘97 had been developed through local government during the dark years of opposition. If the Tories win Local government will become just as important for Labour.
But there are some big differences this time around. Firstly, membership is lower. Local parties in Labour areas remained vibrant because of a Tory government. Our parties are far smaller now, indeed in many traditional Labour areas they may not have the means to regenerate themselves. Secondly, Labour in opposition was at the centre of a hub of a wider progressive alliance. Many Labour MPs and Councillors came to Labour through other alliance partners, CND, Marxism Today’s rainbow alliances and the Women’s Movement. Today Labour is nowhere near as central to these groups in philosophy, policy or tone. Groups such as Compass may well have a role to play here but they will want to see real change in the Party before they can effectively act as an honest broker.
If Labour faces a long road back to power it will have to build at a local level and in that its Councils and its local parties and Labour Groups will be very important. You would look to see new ideas at a local level as well as the involvement of new faces.
A short campaign could put all of this in jeopardy. We’ve been here before when Kinnock lost in ‘92. This election was held a month or so before the locals. The view of many local voters was that we had lost before we had started. We were mad campaigning. We did badly.
Many local activists are of the view that the Parliamentary leadership simply isn’t interested in local politics or local government. They will determine the date of the General Election in their own interests alone.
This would be a disaster and anyone with ambitions to lead the Party in the near future should be very concerned. If Labour local government takes a real hammering there we might just have compromised our foundations a stage too far.
Hopefully we will see the Opinion Poll gaps narrow over Christmas, but we have to be honest that at the moment their is at least a chance of a heavy defeat. Be clear, what we do over the next few months will have an impact on building a vibrant Party in the future.
Sacrificing local government is not an option.
Topics: Westminster Village |
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
If Labour win the election will they let Brown stay as PM?
I doubt it, and here is something interesting, in allowing Baroness Ashton to become EU Foreign Minister, it is obvious little David Miliband is keen on fighting for the leadership, but look out, Dave - your old chum James Pur-nell was reported in Friday’s Evening Standard to have been taking a Turkish bath a deux with Tim Allen, Alistair Campbell’s ex-right hand man, in New York last week. No doubt they were just discussing the price of flat cleaning these days. Or were they?
Despite the sad curtailment of Pur-nell’s “engagement” earlier this year, it’s nice to see he is out and about trying to make new friends. A real “man’s man”, don’t you think?. He had the “guts” to come out of the Cabinet, why doesn’t he find the guts to come out of the closet as well?
But if Miliband AND Pur-nell, the David and Jonathan of politics both want the top job, I fear tears before bedtime, or handbags at ten paces. And there was me thinking they’d grow old together, like Derby and Joan, or Byers and Milburn…..