The Open Democracy e-journal has launched a new project called Our Kingdom, a conversation on the future of the UK. Our Kingdom is running a series of articles on local politics. I wrote the tenth in the series, discussing the potential strengths and weaknesses of local parties.
I reproduce here, but you can also find it at this link. Or the whole series at this link.
LOCAL MATTERS X: THE RISE OF THE LOCAL PARTY by Richard Berry
Stuart Weir began this series with a piece lamenting the over-centralisation of the British state, and an anonymous poster responding to this made the argument that local government itself is acquiescent with this situation. I believe the analysis of why local authorities do not make more vociferous demands for autonomy has to take into account the party origins of most local politicians.
As has been the norm for decades, a large majority of local councillors represent national political parties. Most people join a party, quite rightly, because of the national vision they present, for their position on overriding debates around civil liberties or the distribution of wealth. This is surely a key reason why many councillors do not push more strongly for devolution; although they may be dedicated local public servants, the things that motivated their entry into politics have little to do with the business of local government.
But a new breed of politician has emerged in recent years: one that appears solely concerned with local issues. These are those members of 'local parties,' who have been making a big splash in many parts of the country. Perhaps the most famous example is the Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern party, which formed in protest at a planned hospital closure. This group even has a Member of Parliament, Dr Richard Taylor; more importantly, it also took control of Wyre Forest council. As have the Boston Bypass Independents, who took an amazing 27 out of 32 seats on the local council in a campaign for a better road network in Lincolnshire.
These parties both grew out of single issue campaigns, but others - such as the Community Action Party in Wigan or Blaenau Gwent People's Voice - began with a broader remit and have also succeeded. One of the distinctive characteristics of these groups is that they do not impose a party whip on their councillors, unlike the national parties. The whip does have its use in political life, but is severely over-used in local government. At this level a more consensual, inclusive style of decision-making than we find nationally might be expected, but in fact the opposite is the case. For instance, national party groups on local authorities tend to operate a much tighter reign over council scrutiny committees than Gordon Brown or David Cameron do with their parliamentary equivalents, Select Committees. So local parties can give far greater autonomy to local councillors.
Another strength of local parties is that they help to stop local elections being seen simply as 'second order' national elections. The contests on May 1st were seen in the media as a battle between Gordon Brown and David Cameron, but this was not the case. When a local party is in contention, voters' minds are more focused on local issues.
However, some local parties have been known to struggle after an initial spurt of growth, usually when internal disputes develop. Health Concern combined former Conservative and Labour members in its ranks, who began to have policy disagreements after the party won executive power. In Wigan, Community Action found that members had different ideas of the purpose of the group; some only wanted to focus on ward-level issues, while others thought they had a platform to criticise New Labour more generally. Both parties suffered electorally.
These parties are best when they allow flexibility for their members - but there does have to be a unity of purpose, even if it is only a minimal one, so the members and the voters alike know what it is meant to achieve. However, when local parties work well, they truly can be a new way of doing politics.
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Monday, 3 March 2008
Bloomberg
So Michael Bloomberg has (again) officially ruled out running for the US presidency. Bloomberg, you will recall, is the multi-millionaire former Democrat, former Republican turned independent mayor of New York.
(I nearly wrote "directly elected mayor" then - having written that phrase so much in relation to Hartlepool, Middlesbrough et al lately. As if there could be any other kind in the US...)
Now, American parties are not like British parties. They are far less imposing organisations on their elected representatives. They're not unimportant, but individual party politicians have much more autonomy (politically and financially) from the party machine in the US than they do in the UK and the rest of Europe generally.
We might even go as far as to say that while the most important relationship for a British MP is between him/herself and the parliamentary Chief Whip, they key relationship for an American Senator is between him/herself and the corporate funders who pay for his/her election campaigns.
In that sense it doesn't matter so much whether an independent is elected to the US Congress, because members are fairly independent already. Individual independents may be even more tied to major corporate interests, so they would not necessarily be a good thing anyway.
Still it would capture the imagination for an independent to have a serious run at the presidency. In the past, independents have tended to be further to the left or to the right than the mainstream candidates, so they draw their votes primarily from the natural supporters of one candidate. Ross Perot took votes from George Bush Sr in 1992, while Ralph Nader took them from Al Gore in 2000.
A Bloomberg candidacy would be different in that he will be going for the centrist voter mainly. That's likely to be a crowded field this year, with McCain and Obama aiming for the centre - perhaps a major reason Bloomberg has not entered the ring.
We still have the possibility of Bloomberg being placed on either ticket as a vice-presidential candidate. Obama remains the most likely destination, but we can only wait and see.
(I nearly wrote "directly elected mayor" then - having written that phrase so much in relation to Hartlepool, Middlesbrough et al lately. As if there could be any other kind in the US...)
Now, American parties are not like British parties. They are far less imposing organisations on their elected representatives. They're not unimportant, but individual party politicians have much more autonomy (politically and financially) from the party machine in the US than they do in the UK and the rest of Europe generally.
We might even go as far as to say that while the most important relationship for a British MP is between him/herself and the parliamentary Chief Whip, they key relationship for an American Senator is between him/herself and the corporate funders who pay for his/her election campaigns.
In that sense it doesn't matter so much whether an independent is elected to the US Congress, because members are fairly independent already. Individual independents may be even more tied to major corporate interests, so they would not necessarily be a good thing anyway.
Still it would capture the imagination for an independent to have a serious run at the presidency. In the past, independents have tended to be further to the left or to the right than the mainstream candidates, so they draw their votes primarily from the natural supporters of one candidate. Ross Perot took votes from George Bush Sr in 1992, while Ralph Nader took them from Al Gore in 2000.
A Bloomberg candidacy would be different in that he will be going for the centrist voter mainly. That's likely to be a crowded field this year, with McCain and Obama aiming for the centre - perhaps a major reason Bloomberg has not entered the ring.
We still have the possibility of Bloomberg being placed on either ticket as a vice-presidential candidate. Obama remains the most likely destination, but we can only wait and see.
Sunday, 2 March 2008
Quiet and disquiet
Hartlepool, the town so nice I visited it twice. It has been the setting for a very interesting juxtaposition of two different types of independent.
When Stuart Drummond was elected as H'Angus the Monkey to the position of mayor in 2002, it was a massive blow to Hartlepool's political class. In office, however, Drummond has pursued a non-confrontational style. Most of his executive is comprised of Labour councillors, and by all accounts they work very well together.
Drummond sees his role as fostering better communication between the council and the public, not necessarily to challenge the council. It seems to me that local government in Hartlepool has just been business as usual for the past 6 years, only explained to the voters in a more straightforward way.
This is not to criticise Drummond. Many of the things councils need to do are common sensical, even mundane. There is usually no need for tribal division among politicians.
Although there are other independents in Hartlepool who think a bit more division might be appropriate every so often, to force through necessarly changes. One of these - taxi form boss Ian Cameron - stood for mayor in 2002, pledging to cut council tax by 40%. He was actually very close to winning in 2002, and he may well have done so if Drummond hadn't launched his publicity stunt. You can bet there would have been no alliance with Labour if he had.
Another more forceful independent is Councillor Geoff Lilley, a self-styled left-wing maverick who left Labour. For him Drummond's election was an opportunity to shake up a stale political sytem in Hartlepool, but it is one that has not been taken advantage of.
So what are we supposed to expect from an independent? That they seek to unite political opponents under a neutral banner? Or that they launch a political assault on the vested interests under a flag of war?
Maybe its horses for courses, although in Hartlepool no-one's agreeing in what kind of terrain is being travelled.
When Stuart Drummond was elected as H'Angus the Monkey to the position of mayor in 2002, it was a massive blow to Hartlepool's political class. In office, however, Drummond has pursued a non-confrontational style. Most of his executive is comprised of Labour councillors, and by all accounts they work very well together.
Drummond sees his role as fostering better communication between the council and the public, not necessarily to challenge the council. It seems to me that local government in Hartlepool has just been business as usual for the past 6 years, only explained to the voters in a more straightforward way.
This is not to criticise Drummond. Many of the things councils need to do are common sensical, even mundane. There is usually no need for tribal division among politicians.
Although there are other independents in Hartlepool who think a bit more division might be appropriate every so often, to force through necessarly changes. One of these - taxi form boss Ian Cameron - stood for mayor in 2002, pledging to cut council tax by 40%. He was actually very close to winning in 2002, and he may well have done so if Drummond hadn't launched his publicity stunt. You can bet there would have been no alliance with Labour if he had.
Another more forceful independent is Councillor Geoff Lilley, a self-styled left-wing maverick who left Labour. For him Drummond's election was an opportunity to shake up a stale political sytem in Hartlepool, but it is one that has not been taken advantage of.
So what are we supposed to expect from an independent? That they seek to unite political opponents under a neutral banner? Or that they launch a political assault on the vested interests under a flag of war?
Maybe its horses for courses, although in Hartlepool no-one's agreeing in what kind of terrain is being travelled.
Saturday, 23 February 2008
Local government chronicle
It would be helpful for readers of this particular posting if they had a subscription to the Local Government Chronicle, but not absolutely necessary. Assuming most of you aren't, I won't put the links in, it would be teasing.
The LGC published an article recently about independent councillors, noting their increasing numbers. Discussed one particular example, the Boston Bypass Independents, who took almost every seat on Boston District Council last May. I'm not going to be interviewing them for my book, unfortunately - maybe in Volume Two.
Anyway, I thought I'd stick my nose in and reveal a few insights picked up about this subject during my research. Here's my letter to the LGC, which they published (most of it anyway) this week:
"The major political parties would be well advised to undertake a serious analysis of why independents and local parties have been more successful in local government recently (‘Locating localism’, LGC, 12 February).
Part of the reason has to be public frustration with the overly strict control parties tend to exert over local decision-making. In many areas, for instance, ruling parties attempt to manage and limit scrutiny committee activities to a much greater extent than the national government would dare to do with parliamentary select committees.
When independents are successful, it would make a refreshing change for the parties to accept this as part and parcel of a vibrant democracy rather than a dangerous threat. Renewed support for the introduction of directly elected mayors would be one way for Labour to signal that it holds no grudges against the independents that previously claimed power in its heartland areas.
Independents themselves, however, can be equally assured that launching an explicit anti-party crusade is more likely to alienate the voters than gain their support. Very few will vote independent to be part of a new ideological struggle, and finding ways to work in partnership with the major parties should always be a priority."
The LGC published an article recently about independent councillors, noting their increasing numbers. Discussed one particular example, the Boston Bypass Independents, who took almost every seat on Boston District Council last May. I'm not going to be interviewing them for my book, unfortunately - maybe in Volume Two.
Anyway, I thought I'd stick my nose in and reveal a few insights picked up about this subject during my research. Here's my letter to the LGC, which they published (most of it anyway) this week:
"The major political parties would be well advised to undertake a serious analysis of why independents and local parties have been more successful in local government recently (‘Locating localism’, LGC, 12 February).
Part of the reason has to be public frustration with the overly strict control parties tend to exert over local decision-making. In many areas, for instance, ruling parties attempt to manage and limit scrutiny committee activities to a much greater extent than the national government would dare to do with parliamentary select committees.
When independents are successful, it would make a refreshing change for the parties to accept this as part and parcel of a vibrant democracy rather than a dangerous threat. Renewed support for the introduction of directly elected mayors would be one way for Labour to signal that it holds no grudges against the independents that previously claimed power in its heartland areas.
Independents themselves, however, can be equally assured that launching an explicit anti-party crusade is more likely to alienate the voters than gain their support. Very few will vote independent to be part of a new ideological struggle, and finding ways to work in partnership with the major parties should always be a priority."
Saturday, 9 February 2008
The Tatton batton
The River Stour, pictured here, runs through the centre of Kidderminster. It's fair to say, actually, that it trickles through Kidderminster. But downstream's a different story - the Stour flows into the mighty Severn, England's longest river. So, to deduce the meaning of this, some fairly minor occurrences in Kidderminster can have a much bigger national impact than you would first assume.
Not unlike........
Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern! (Health Concern for short.) When Martin Bell stepped down from his Tatton parliamenary seat in 2001, and went on to lose in Brentwood & Ongar, the mantle of 'leader of the independents' was passed on to Dr Richard Taylor. Taylor led a local campaign against the closure of Kidderminster Hospital, you may recall, and was elected to parliament for his trouble.
The campaign wasn't exactly successful locally, but it caused major shockwaves, and no doubt influenced the way the government approached hospital reconfiguration from that day forward. That is, they were very scared of doing it, but to their credit they haven't admitted defeat on pandered to the masses where they think changes need to be made.
Bell's Tatton victory was stunning, but in a different way. Bell waxes lyrical about Tatton (a place in Cheshire that doesn't actually exist) and his joy at representing its people (mainly ageing conservatives). But his story is essentially a national one. A national government minister was caught doing wrong, causing a national scandal. Bell was a national celebrity (as a BBC reporter), and took the national media with him as he ousted the naughty MP.
Taylor campaigned about a very local issue, and himself was a very local man. He seems to have personally saved the lifes of half the constituency if the people I interviewed there are to be believed.
If independents are going to be more and more successful, it will have to be based on the success of these local campaigns. Many high-profile politicians get themselves mired in scandal, but not enough of them are taken seriously enough for a hundred Martin Bells to keep winning elections.
West Wing comes true
The Republican party chooses a relative moderate who angers the right of his party, but expects to pick up the votes of independent voters. He chooses a right-wing running mate to balance the ticket.
The Democratic party faces a choice between a frontrunner that fails to excite and young ethnic minority candidate, and takes the fight all the way to the party convention.
Reality or fiction?
There's a scary resemblance between the US primary race and the final seasons of the West Wing (which were thought to be rather far-fetched)...
Hillary Clinton = Bob Russell
Barack Obama = Matt Santos
John McCain = Arnold Vinick
Mike Huckabee = Ray Sullivan
Of course, Democrat Santos won the fictional '2006 election' on TV. It has been rumoured that the producers of the show had planned a Vinnick win, but when John Spencer (who played presidentil chief of staff Leo McGarry throughout the series) died during filming, they decided that Democrat fans might have had enough emotional heartbreak, so re-wrote the script to give Santos the win.
As the writers acknowledged on the show, the Vinnick-Santos contest should have been an easy win for the Republican. He had the greater ability to reach out to floating voters, and much more experience than his opponent. The invention of a freak nuclear accident at a plant Vinnick had lobbied for was the way the writers decided to give Santos a fighting chance.
In reality, too, the Republican will most likely be the strong favourite in a McCain-Obama contest.
Perhaps the only thing that could stop him is the detraction of his own party - after 8 years of President Bush the Republican right is accustomed to one of their own being in power. The British Tories had exactly the same situation under Margaret Thatcher. When the political ground shifts underneath them, it can be hard to adapt - witness the successive elections of Hague, Duncan-Smith and Howard as Tory Leader.
If they don't realise soon enough that McCain is the closest they'll get to a conservative champion for a while (read his views on "socialised healthcare" and you'll see just how close he is), the West Wing may begin to look even more like reality.
The Democratic party faces a choice between a frontrunner that fails to excite and young ethnic minority candidate, and takes the fight all the way to the party convention.
Reality or fiction?
There's a scary resemblance between the US primary race and the final seasons of the West Wing (which were thought to be rather far-fetched)...
Hillary Clinton = Bob Russell
Barack Obama = Matt Santos
John McCain = Arnold Vinick
Mike Huckabee = Ray Sullivan
Of course, Democrat Santos won the fictional '2006 election' on TV. It has been rumoured that the producers of the show had planned a Vinnick win, but when John Spencer (who played presidentil chief of staff Leo McGarry throughout the series) died during filming, they decided that Democrat fans might have had enough emotional heartbreak, so re-wrote the script to give Santos the win.
As the writers acknowledged on the show, the Vinnick-Santos contest should have been an easy win for the Republican. He had the greater ability to reach out to floating voters, and much more experience than his opponent. The invention of a freak nuclear accident at a plant Vinnick had lobbied for was the way the writers decided to give Santos a fighting chance.
In reality, too, the Republican will most likely be the strong favourite in a McCain-Obama contest.
Perhaps the only thing that could stop him is the detraction of his own party - after 8 years of President Bush the Republican right is accustomed to one of their own being in power. The British Tories had exactly the same situation under Margaret Thatcher. When the political ground shifts underneath them, it can be hard to adapt - witness the successive elections of Hague, Duncan-Smith and Howard as Tory Leader.
If they don't realise soon enough that McCain is the closest they'll get to a conservative champion for a while (read his views on "socialised healthcare" and you'll see just how close he is), the West Wing may begin to look even more like reality.
Monday, 28 January 2008
academic interest
I'm a bit late in advertising this, but I'm sure independent-watchers will find it very useful. the Institute of Local Government at Birmingham University held a conference late last year on minor parties and independents, probably the first such in this country. Look here.
The papers discussed examples of independent and minor party success all over the world. I particularly found the discussion of the Crossbenchers in the House of Lords by Meg Russell and Maria Scaria very entertaining.
As well as that, there was an excellent piece of work from Russell Deacon, University of Wales Institute Cardiff, on Welsh minor parties. As you'll be aware I've spent a lot of time considering the People's Voice group in Blaenau Gwent and elsewhere. Plans are afoot to combine my work with Russell's, hopefully producing a fairly definitive account of PV in the Welsh political context. Watch this space.
The papers discussed examples of independent and minor party success all over the world. I particularly found the discussion of the Crossbenchers in the House of Lords by Meg Russell and Maria Scaria very entertaining.
As well as that, there was an excellent piece of work from Russell Deacon, University of Wales Institute Cardiff, on Welsh minor parties. As you'll be aware I've spent a lot of time considering the People's Voice group in Blaenau Gwent and elsewhere. Plans are afoot to combine my work with Russell's, hopefully producing a fairly definitive account of PV in the Welsh political context. Watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
