Amid the cacophony of speculation about the future of Gordon Brown’s premiership, the imminent electoral meltdown, and the future direction of the Labour party, I think one aspect is being marginalised, which is the future of the party at a local level, and in local government. It is clear that current crisis is playing out on a national level, with national and international problems catalysed by Westminster intruigue and a failure of national leadership that can speak to the concerns of the people.
Now, the fall-out from this is obviously felt at the local level, as Labour’s loss of councillors in the May elections demonstrates. But it is not clear that the existential worries currently afflicting Gordon Brown and his parliamentary colleagues are shared by their Labour friends on local councils. In Tower Hamlets, for example, the Labour group recently increased their majority after four defections from Respect, and a by-election win (after a popular Lib Dem councillor stood down for health reasons, no less).
Of course, if the local parties are not suffering from the same crisis of purpose, this is probably to do with the differences between the nature of local and national governance. Localities like Tower Hamlets have very specific problems, to which a Labour council can confidently respond within their current ideology, without having to worry about national unity, or whether the same policy would be effective in different boroughs.
So, as the columnists and bloggers search in vain for a viable alternative to Brown, and a new direction for the party, I wonder whether the most coherent and confident voices might come from local government, rather than the national scene, policy wonks, or the unions. They are ideally placed to comment on pressing issues such as community cohesion and knife-crime, and how other concerns such as the environment and immigration can be dealt with in practice.
These are purely my anecdotal thoughts – what are the thoughts and experiences of other Liberal Conspiracy readers and writers?
Cross-posted at Liberal Conspiracy.
You Don't Need to be Black to Be the British Barack
Cassilis says that a little humility would have served Hillary well, and concludes by making a comparison with British politics:
Quick final thought – let’s look at that Clinton character sketch again:Formidable intellect and an impressive grasp of detail and policy; Perceived lack of warmth and an inability to smile with any sincerity; High-minded approach to politics and a dismissive attitude towards opponents; Brooks no dissent; Long-time association with a previous administration.
Ring any bells? I know, I know – my more cynical readers will think this is where this post was headed all along but I assure you that wasn’t the case. The parallels with Brown are striking – the one obvious difference of course being he’s already got the top job.
This reminds me of a thought I had last week, after the New Statesman asked “Is there a British Obama?” Surfing on the wave of the Illinois Senator’s paradigm shifting campaign, the New Statesman was asking where Britain’s first black prime minister is lurking. I remember thinking that you don’t need to be black to be the British Barack.
Because the momentum behind Obama’s candicacy is due to more than his skin colour. It is as much about dynamism and youth, and about challenging Hillary’s lock on the nomination. It is about the profoundly democratic notion that we shouldn’t have coronation nominations. The Americans seem to have embraced this idea, and managed to confound the cynics by actually delivering this unexpected political turn-around.
The comparable events in Britiain took a much more predictable, cynical turn. David Miliband could have fulfilled the Obama role, bursting Brown’s aura of inevitability. We know he considered the posibility of a challenge, but in the end he took the path of least resistance. Gordon the Glazier had installed a glass ceiling his own, with only one person above it, and no-one (black or white) had the courage to try and break through.
Life Goes On
After the terror attacks in London and Glasgow, there’s obviously been a lot of analysis and opinions flying around, from the mainstream media, security analysts, bloggers and the general public. Its interesting to see how most people are adhering to the idea that life should go on, and that these attempted suicide attacks should not provoke a draconian curb in civil liberties. To do so would hand the terrorists a victory.
For what its worth, I think Gordon Brown, Jacquie Smith and Alex Salmond have hit the right note, with their calls for unity and calm. Dave Hill seems to agree.
Over at the Devils Kitchen, Nosemonkey makes an interesting, if flippant point in the comments:
I believe in taking the piss when they cock up, and diminishing the status of the terrorist bogeyman. Terrorists exist to spread terror – make them a figure of fun, they fail, even if the occasional success does manage to kill a few score people and freak us out for a bit.
I’m not sure about making jokes about the attack, although I would suggest that the “life goes on”, “I’m not bovver’d” attitude also contributes to the diminishing returns of terrorist attacks in the UK.
Gordon Blair
Now I know why its called the Grauniad. Today’s front page heralds the new Labour Party leadership with a photo of the happy couple.
A victorious Harriet Harman joins Gordon Blair on stage in Manchester.
You're still an MP, Tony
With all this talk about Tony Blair taking on some role as a Middle-East envoy for the US, no-one seems to have remembered that he will still be a Labour MP after he steps down as Prime Minister on Wednesday. He won’t be able to go galavanting off to Palestine if Gordon Brown’s whips’ office needs him for a crucial division on housing reform.
The only way he will be able to take George Bush up on his offer is if he resigns as an MP, forcing a by-election… or if Prime Minister Brown calls an early election. Perhaps Tony knows something we don’t…