Politics is rarely described as the stuff of myth and legend. In the Labour Party, however, sentimental stories abound. Our heritage is built on tales of Keir Hardie and Clement Attlee, Barbara Castle and Nye Bevan, folks of such grit, character and determination that even the most hardened, old style Trades unionist can become moist of eye.
There are other myths which rear their heads, though, far more dangerous ones, malicious jibes which can have a very dangerous effect on even the most mild policy ideas that flow forward.
One of the most pernicious labels that the Conservatives have ever managed to stick on Labour is that we are the party of ‘Big Government’. Such claims have had two effects – one positive and one very, very negative.
The negative connotation is fermented in the minds of voters. ‘Big Government’ is synonymous with interference, of an Orwellian superstate intruding into every aspect of people’s lives. This line of attack was regularly trotted out during the early Blair years as the Tories found themselves unable to put forward an alternative agenda. It was hardly accurate, but some of the mud flung during that time stuck.
The positive view of ‘Big Government’ is the Corporatist State that delivered the NHS, universal education and social security, a method of Government which survived from the early war years right up until the collapse of consensus in 1979. That was the genuine era of ‘Big Government’ and a lot of Labour Party members are still emotionally and politically attached to the notions formed in that era. One of the problems with that notion, however, is that Labour was actually only in power for 17 years of that near 40 year period. Labour may have played a large part in constructing the Corporatist State, but the Tories actually spent more time running it.
In the early days of the Labour Party, a lot of time was spent discussing just how socialism and redistribution were to be achieved. Many, including Hardie himself, the Fabian Society and some Trades Unions favoured a localist approach. The argument went that conditions in the mills of Lancashire or the blast furnaces of Teesside were so particular to those areas that decisions about them were best made by people on the ground. Local Unions, local people and local politicians would find the best ways of running services and industries, making them work for their particular area, rather than having a ‘one size fits all’ policy for different industries. Once the party had decided on a programme of nationalisation, central strictures made more sense, but that is no longer a world we inhabit. Outside the NHS and education, there are very few areas which present problems needing national cures. It is growing increasingly likely that the localist agenda favoured by Hardie would be more likely to fit today’s issues than Attlee’s agenda. Glasgow Social Services face vastly different issues than those operating in Monmouth. The best we can do is to look at best practice and to adapt ideas to meet local needs.
One small but significant example concerns allotments. I doubt you would be able to find too many people arguing that such ideas are not a force for good. How to administer them, however, is rapidly becoming a big problem. Here in Monmouth we have an issue with plots that are not being utilised, despite being allocated to specific people. There is also a waiting list of people chomping at the bit, waiting to grow their own. One of the problems is that the allotments are administered by the County Council in Cwmbran, around 26 miles away. Why? There is already a committee in situ, so why on earth do decisions concerning a local resource need to be taken by people who may never have set foot on the ground concerned? Better, surely, to give control of the facilities to the committee. If someone’s patch goes unattended for a fixed period of time, let the chair knock on their door to ask why. In the case of sickness or incapacity, the patch becomes the committee’s responsibility until the person is well enough to tend it once more. If the tenant is simply not bothered any longer, then the committee should have the power to declare the land vacant, allowing the next person on the list to take possession. If the list were ‘blind’ then no-one would be able to favour their friends. All of this could be backed up by a little dedicated administrative time from the County Council.
While this is a small example, it is the kind of issue that matters greatly to those concerned. There are plenty of services that are already run by local people whilst remaining in public ownership. The problem is that they are dominated by bureaucracy. Surely cutting that layer of administration and letting people get on with what they already do is a better alternative? It is not a Trojan Horse for privatisation, nor is it an excuse to cut. It is a practical step towards giving power to people. None of those iconic figures who make up the Labour Party’s back story would object to that. Neither, of course, should we.
liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour
Twitter - @ Liam Stubbs
There are other myths which rear their heads, though, far more dangerous ones, malicious jibes which can have a very dangerous effect on even the most mild policy ideas that flow forward.
One of the most pernicious labels that the Conservatives have ever managed to stick on Labour is that we are the party of ‘Big Government’. Such claims have had two effects – one positive and one very, very negative.
The negative connotation is fermented in the minds of voters. ‘Big Government’ is synonymous with interference, of an Orwellian superstate intruding into every aspect of people’s lives. This line of attack was regularly trotted out during the early Blair years as the Tories found themselves unable to put forward an alternative agenda. It was hardly accurate, but some of the mud flung during that time stuck.
The positive view of ‘Big Government’ is the Corporatist State that delivered the NHS, universal education and social security, a method of Government which survived from the early war years right up until the collapse of consensus in 1979. That was the genuine era of ‘Big Government’ and a lot of Labour Party members are still emotionally and politically attached to the notions formed in that era. One of the problems with that notion, however, is that Labour was actually only in power for 17 years of that near 40 year period. Labour may have played a large part in constructing the Corporatist State, but the Tories actually spent more time running it.
In the early days of the Labour Party, a lot of time was spent discussing just how socialism and redistribution were to be achieved. Many, including Hardie himself, the Fabian Society and some Trades Unions favoured a localist approach. The argument went that conditions in the mills of Lancashire or the blast furnaces of Teesside were so particular to those areas that decisions about them were best made by people on the ground. Local Unions, local people and local politicians would find the best ways of running services and industries, making them work for their particular area, rather than having a ‘one size fits all’ policy for different industries. Once the party had decided on a programme of nationalisation, central strictures made more sense, but that is no longer a world we inhabit. Outside the NHS and education, there are very few areas which present problems needing national cures. It is growing increasingly likely that the localist agenda favoured by Hardie would be more likely to fit today’s issues than Attlee’s agenda. Glasgow Social Services face vastly different issues than those operating in Monmouth. The best we can do is to look at best practice and to adapt ideas to meet local needs.
One small but significant example concerns allotments. I doubt you would be able to find too many people arguing that such ideas are not a force for good. How to administer them, however, is rapidly becoming a big problem. Here in Monmouth we have an issue with plots that are not being utilised, despite being allocated to specific people. There is also a waiting list of people chomping at the bit, waiting to grow their own. One of the problems is that the allotments are administered by the County Council in Cwmbran, around 26 miles away. Why? There is already a committee in situ, so why on earth do decisions concerning a local resource need to be taken by people who may never have set foot on the ground concerned? Better, surely, to give control of the facilities to the committee. If someone’s patch goes unattended for a fixed period of time, let the chair knock on their door to ask why. In the case of sickness or incapacity, the patch becomes the committee’s responsibility until the person is well enough to tend it once more. If the tenant is simply not bothered any longer, then the committee should have the power to declare the land vacant, allowing the next person on the list to take possession. If the list were ‘blind’ then no-one would be able to favour their friends. All of this could be backed up by a little dedicated administrative time from the County Council.
While this is a small example, it is the kind of issue that matters greatly to those concerned. There are plenty of services that are already run by local people whilst remaining in public ownership. The problem is that they are dominated by bureaucracy. Surely cutting that layer of administration and letting people get on with what they already do is a better alternative? It is not a Trojan Horse for privatisation, nor is it an excuse to cut. It is a practical step towards giving power to people. None of those iconic figures who make up the Labour Party’s back story would object to that. Neither, of course, should we.
liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour
Twitter - @ Liam Stubbs
