The Labour Party in Bristol faces a dilemma. Should it join a cabinet formed by the newly elected Mayor George Ferguson. My good friend Darren Lewis has blogged passionately on the subject here:
http://turningbristolred.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/why-we-have-a-labour-party/
Fundamentally he is right. A council with no opposition party is effectively a one party state, with deals stitched up in private and democracy relegated. Openness disappears as the parties on the council collude raising the old adage that it doesn’t matter who you vote for they are all the same.
You also have to ask the question is it honest of George to run a campaign which contained in large print on all his leaflets to vote for him as “the only candidate who can beat Labour” (he wasn’t the only candidate who made that claim) and then to invite Labour onto his cabinet. It must seem strange that his promise to beat Labour also meant promoting them.
Also why would Labour want to join on a cabinet with Tories and Lib Dems whose parties in Westminster are through a combination of legal changes, privatisation and funding cuts destroying local Bristol City Council. The latest information suggests £32m cuts next year. Projections by the Conservative led Local Government Association predicts that within a few years councils will only be able to afford to provide care and empty the bins. The Tories and Lib Dems are also breaking up the NHS, introducing massive cuts in benefits to the poorest and deconstructing the public sector.
These are compelling reasons for Labour to shun any cabinet posts.
On the other side the cheer leaders of George are filling twitter with claims of ‘sour grapes’ and ‘sulking’ for people like Darren who say we should nothing to do with George.
I would like to pose another question, one which also picks up on a theme in Darren’s blog. Labour and Marvin Rees did spend time opening conversations with experts both within the Labour Party and many outside. I wide range of issues were debated and filtered to find items which was developed into Marvin’s manifesto. The question is how does Labour use the council to further these ideas? Can they convince George to adopt the living wage or the building of new council housing? Can they put together a budget package which minimises the impact of the cuts on those in greatest need? In some ways it is the age old dilemma for socialists as to whether to work to make capitalism fairer or to stand outside and fight it until it collapses.
The question the Labour Party should prioritise when it meets this week is not ‘should we join the cabinet?’ but ‘how do we implement the measures we set out in our manifesto?’ In my opinion the answer to that can’t be, ‘Let’s wait three and a half years until we can fight the next mayoral election’.
If that that leads to a view that Labour should consider joining the cabinet there would have to be some very important preconditions. That membership of the cabinet does not require collective responsibility (surely an alien idea to an independent which has the hallmarks of party whips and discipline), that decisions must be made in the open and not behind the closed doors of the Mayor’s committee room and that ditching robust scrutiny is a condition of membership.
The cabinet as a group of people with executive power no longer exists, it is now little more than an advisory body to the Mayor. While the work of cabinet members may be important, meetings of the cabinet will be little more than for show. Many decisions of the council will still be made in its collection of committees.
There is no easy answer to this problem and I will play no part in it as I am working in London on the evening when this will be discussed (phew). However the debate needs to be framed around the needs of the people the Labour Party was created to represent, it needs to look forward to the coming years and not backward at the bitter and bitterly disappointing election campaign.
A lot of sense. Labour claims to represent the interests of the people of Bristol (and elsewhere). It seeks to shape policy to meet those interests. Doing that ‘only when we win’ is ridiculous. It should be a 24x7x365 exercise. Additionally, what best suits Bristol today almost inevitably will change month-by-month over the next few years. Inflexibility = deafness to the interest of the people of Bristol. Campaign for what Labour believes in & show by example the merits of those policies and voters will see that and back the policies. Don’t consider democracy a one every few years affair – it is all the time – and the party that works hardest will win of the wins of fortune are blowing in its favour.
Engage, encourage and influence policies – who knows – George may adopt some of them. Also criticize and hold to account the Mayor whenever he goes wrong. But do it in a spirit that benefits EVERYONE and eventually everyone will feel engaged and be ready to listen to what Labour believes to be right.
I am becomming a bit tired of people claiming that this vote means that “history is over” and “politics is over” , seeking all the members of all the parites to mould into one “for the greater good”.
Ignoring the optimism over George Ferguson’s win, the following years will see the harshest cuts in services this country has ever seen. The Council Cabinet will claim they are compelled to bring in these cuts and anyone within the cabinet will be bound by collective responsiblity to impose them.
Ferguson wants labour in his cabinet so they can share the blame for these cuts. If labour stays out, they can at least campaign and stand for what they are supposed to believe in. It might even give the Labour Party an opporutinty to reconnect with the 72% of constituants it sees as its core voters but whom it rarely speaks to outside election time.
I agree about your point on the death of politics. The question I am asking is given the current position in bristol how do we most effectively pursue our manifesto objectives and protect our communities from the cuts? I don’t think there is an easy answer to this question. As for the cabinet it has no real powers or responsibility unless they are given to it by the mayor. Apart from urban design George is a policy vacuum the question is can we fill that vacuum with our policies and if yes how?
I agree with Harry, however tempting it is to join in with George’s plans, it is a political trap. It would of course be good for Marvin Rees to get some Cabinet experience, but not for the Labour party in general, who need to play the long game. George’s optimism in my view is quite honest, in that he is likely to achieve success in areas around securing more investment, getting a better deal on Transport, working with the LEP, ensuring that the business rate base is optimised and creating a good environment for business. Moreover, he communicated a stronger spatial vision for Bristol, for example his pro urbanist approach to places like High Street/Wine Street restoring the urban grain which was lost in WW2 struck a chord with voters who get frustrated at Bristol’s poverty of ambition and developer led urban renewal. Therefore in my view, George’s Liberal approach overly focuses on the economy and creating value (to the benefit of those who have the greatest stake). There is nothing wrong with this approach provided there is an equal focus on social justice. This is where George is weak, he will spend the next three and a half years focussing on ‘ the sensible people’ who live in Westbury on Trym, Henleaze etc, who stand to gain the most from his policies to raise the profile of Bristol and attract high value jobs and industries. I doubt if he will do anything of value for voters in Southmead or Bedminster (unless there is a gentrification slant). George’s approach is similar to Boris Johnsons’, focus on creating the right conditions for business, but with limited influence in ensuring that local residents get the jobs which are created and support the living wage in principle, without being able to or have to enforce it. I do not believe George has a social vision or agenda for Bristol, he is not going to be able to narrow inequalities and create better public services if he has to implement vicious cuts. Labour should stay out of his cabinet and hold him to account, whilst starting to build up a stronger support base and represent those who most need the Labour movement and party to stand up for them.
Isn’t a small rise in council tax a moderate and reasonably progressive decision in that it will help to make cuts in services a little less harsh? Something Labour could/should support?
Dont agree with your opening paragraphs Paul – we are talking about running a city not a state and in local govt copperation between parties is eminently sensible and what people have voted for.
Your conditions for membership of the Cabinet are exactly right though.
No politician in the city has articulated any vision regarding the next round of BCC cuts. I don’t personally see Vowlise’s “mak[ing] cuts in services a little less harsh” as much of a vision. It’s more of a dirty compromise to get a cabinet seat.
The politicians all seem to be sat on their backsides waiting for their hallowed senior council officers to provide answers to them on cuts.
The best thing George could do is release all the secret budget briefing papers knocking around the
Counts LouseCity Hall and we’d all have an idea what we’re up against and whether we support George.As, let’s face it, it’s pretty likely that George will go for an “officer solution” to cuts because – as pointed out above by @CitzenSanchez – he has no idea about social policy or public services.
Unfortunately you are right. Bristol needs a zero based budgeting approach not the traditional salami slicing approach. Officers have a tendency to keep some savings in their back pocket for the following years while others are making unacceptable cuts. The council really needs to be completely re- engineered looking at what it is for. It needs to understand that it can’t keep chucking £100,000s at vanity projects like the green city bid.
I agree with Paul, Salami slicing is the wrong approach, rather root and branch reform, the empire building of officers needs to be challenged and the opportunities for shared services with WoE councils should be explored to the max. With regards to the orginal dilema, as a lesson learnt, look at Tower Hamlets council and what happened when an independent Mayor was elected, Labour members served in the cabinet, which ultimately divided the group, of course the circumstances are different and there are different variables, but the point remains, the paradox of coalitions is that they divide political parties. Labour is now an effective opposition and are poised to take the authority back in 2014. Incumbancy is the real issue with the Mayoral system, Mayor’s in London boroughs who have served since 2002 show no sign of relinquishing power. George Ferguson will be no different. My feeling is Labour should accept it lost, learn the lessons of defeat and regroup. I just dont see the benefit of kidding ourselves that Labour members can mitigate the cuts. Furthermore, an independent Mayor with a Con-Dem cabinet, will look less attractive to voters in May, when there will be an opportunity to get a strong Labour representation. Only then could it be worth exploring a partnership with the Mayor, from a position of strength.
Labour have worked more successfully with independent mayors in north east
There wasn’t even a conversation during the election about zero budgeting and no signs of it during this cabinet horsetrading.
All the signs are it’s business as usual at the
Counts LouseCity Hall*.* What’s krek Bristolian for City Hall? See All?
The NHS stalled my transgender healthcare because of the arbitrary opinion of a rich white man with a flowery certificate on the wall. This happens all the time because of rich white men gender policing or not understanding people’s real lives and living with poverty.
I feel desolate and inconsolable.
Let’s hope George Ferguson isn’t just another out of the same tired old rich white man mould.
The morning afterwards I feel shocked and confused. I spent months trying to explain to medical professional facts about my life. In the last session I felt the gender shrink had his list of top down views but wasn’t interested what mattered to me or my life. He just wanted control. He didn’t like the fact I wanted control of MY life. To do things MY way. To be supported by a vibrant trans community instead of a community divided and made toxic by ignorance, repression, and fear.
Soooo what do I do? Seek a second opinion? See a lawyer? Make a formal complaint to the police alleging institutional abuse (which is an open secret among the transgender community)?
Given Bristol doesn’t have an NHS GIC (which is suspect in itself) how should Sue Mountstevens, Bristol’s new FEMALE police and crime commissioner whom Paul (another rich white man) has overlooked, react to the issues?
Local govt co-operation between parties is eminently sensible – and it’s what people have voted for, so this should be recognised provided the new Cabinet is: committed to taking decisions openly and accountably; and its members are able, diplomatically, to speak their minds and not own every single Mayoral decision.
Each individual Councillor and Party needs to change mindset and both scrutinise, criticise and support as appropriate. Conscience first not party – that’s what they are supposed to be doing according to the code of conduct they sign up to in any case! This code includes ‘making decisions on merit’ and reaching ‘their own conclusions on the issues before them and act in accordance with those conclusions’.
Councillors have power through a vote on the council, through committee work and through lobbying the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Asst Mayors when in place. Hopefully some power will be properly and effectively devolved to local councillors and people in neighbourhoods soon too.
Labour were the party with councillors that got the most votes and in next May’s local elections Labour are likely to make gains on the council – the Tory and Lib Dem vote has sunk and is unlikely to recover enough for them not to suffer councillor losses. I’m most in favour of people getting into the Cabinet on the basis of merit not party but having said that the Mayor – and Bristol Labour Party – should also take into account which parties the public are voting for.
According to The Post this morning, Bristol’s Labour Party last night voted against taking up three Cabinet seats offered to them and so have have refused the opportunity to argue for their policies directly with the Mayor and others. Its still unclear to me whether they voted to ban all members from taking part though Paul so what’s the score???
I’ve been thinking again… (Yeah, shut up.)
I’m a creative maverick type (which is a big reason why a snotty nob of a gender shrink in a Tory town would sink me) and thinking of going behind the NHS GIC back and seeing if my GP (fat chance) will short circuit the system. They are, actually, entitled to do that.
George Ferguson is a prick but…
Labour are run by old white men aka dinosaurs. Like, get the fuck over yourself and work in the cabinet. Just be *professional*. Then Labour might, just might (haven’t seen it so far) be able to raise transgender healthcare as an agenda and help create *real* innovation in a city which likes to talk about it but never really gets there.
Labour is like Linux – it will never get anywhere unless it changes. Valve are creating a Linux gaming platform that may change this so who’s to say transgender healthcare isn’t Labour (or Bristol’s) platform to drive focus on key issues like “cosmetic” surgery as standard instead of the fugly default?
Bah.
I’m talking to idiots…
Paul Smith M.I.A. (What did I say, honey?)
I just checked the Evening Post to see how events were unfolding and discovered Labour councillors had decided to participate in George Ferguson’s cabinet. Good news. Thank you.
Whatever the economic difficulties and differences I hope this collaboration can help and encourage people to create a beautiful city.
Unfortunately, I’m still screwed and transgenders across the UK are still suffering from institutional abuse. Hey, ho.
I just checked the papers after a break and Labour are back to playing silly games again? Ruled from the top, appalling party structure, and out of touch with the voters… Oh, do behave. Labour don’t own people.