Labour Leadership - I've Finally Decided

This blog is a bit of a journey; in starting it I was completely undecided on who I would cast my vote for in the Labour Leadership Contest. I’ve trawled the websites of the runners and riders, watched the interviews and read their literature and, after much head-scratching I’ve reached a conclusion.

From my perspective the whole leadership contest has to some a large extent been defined by the absence of two names which I was desperate to see on the ballot paper. Alan Johnson – the union man with high-level cabinet experience who hardly faltered at the top (and on the occasions I have heard him speak he has been excellent); and Jon Cruddas – the media tagged ‘senior backbencher’ with a fantastic policy pedigree and the perfect type of politics (everything I have read by JC in Compass has been spot on).

Alas, the ballot paper has five different names on it, all bringing their own unique flavour to the mix. One thing I can say is that the campaign has showcased our ‘broad church’, and the genuine contest will mean a stronger party than that which followed Gordon’s coronation. So, turning to each of the candidates:

When you meet Andy Burnham he comes across as a genuine down to earth bloke with a passion for putting things right in society. I like some of the inclusive social policy he has come forward with, however he’s not come forward with much – only one post on his leadership blog. I like what he has said on trusting the party and being more inclusive in the policy making process, and he offers a much broader commitment to this than the other candidate’s elected party chair gesture.

A couple of concerns though. Firstly his media performance: like it or not a party leader must be able to stand up to a grilling. When I saw Andy on This Week (a fairly informal set up) he was mauled by Andrew Neil. How would he come across facing Paxo on Newsnight or Cameron over the dispatch box? Secondly, his campaign has been described as grassroots. If we’re honest it’s been barely visible because of lack of finance and manpower. If a leadership contender can’t inspire the support and donations to fight this battle, how will they engage the public in order to grow the Labour movement and build the electoral coalition we need to succeed in the next election?

Mrs Reynolds decided early on in the leadership campaign that she would be backing Ed Miliband. I wanted to be convinced, and must admit I have been taken with his approach to the economy (e.g. High Pay Commission, interventionist in industry) and his take on what people want from politicians – ideology and passion rather than just guff. That said I wonder if a milibandwagon has passed Ed’s campaign HQ? Denouncing the invasion of Iraq for instance (wasn’t EM a policy advisor to Tony Blair back then). Also I’m not keen on his pledge on gender balance for the shadow cabinet, although I admire the principle. The party should appoint people to posts based on skill and potential, rather than on arbitrary quotas. There are enough females of a high calibre in the Labour Movement that the new leader doesn’t need to be reminded they are there by having his/her own targets!

I’ve been very impressed by David Miliband’s campaigning machine. I’ve personally had three calls from his team, a leaflet and he is all over Twitter. Some of this is because of his huge financial backing, but then again two of the calls were from ordinary members of his own CLP that are giving backing to the campaign. Also, if people are donating to the campaign there must be a reason, inspirational leadership perhaps (see B Obama)? Having seen David speak on a couple of occasions though, he’s not blown me away. His policy priorities don’t get me excited either. There’s nothing I’d argue with: fair wages, building the new economy, a greener Britain, its just it all seems a bit cliché and there doesn’t seem to be much substance. All in all I think David would be a very capable leader but not necessarily an incredible one. He would manage the media, and take the battle to the ConDems, but would he inspire the reinvigoration of the Labour Movement and the nation?

I must admit I started out with a prejudice against Ed Balls. I know a lot of educationalists that haven’t a good word to say about his approach while Secretary of State. Also a lot has been said about the ‘bullying culture’ that allegedly characterised the latter days of Government, with Mr Balls being Gordon’s chief lieutenant. This is a culture which a revitalised Labour Party should be avoided like the plague.

Over the course of the leadership campaign, however, my perception of Ed Balls has changed entirely. He has been by far and away the best candidate at defending Labour’s record under attack from the new government. Further he’s not denied his key role in the New Labour project. His campaign has been articulated in unpretentious language which I like and he has in my opinion been strongest in the media, particularly in broadcasted interviews. He has got stuck in to his campaigns (watch out for Keep the Post Public), but aside from that his campaigns are similar to David Miliband’s – a little dry and ‘bitty’. Ed is a high calibre candidate but I’m not sure he provides the break with the past that we need.

Last but not least the final contender Diane Abbott. Its been refreshing to see Diane in the contest, not because she isn’t a white thirty-something man, but because she isn’t in the same mould of carbon copy politico’s that use a certain type of language and present their arguments in a certain type of way. She’s also put across some arguments that haven’t had the airing they deserve for some time. However I get the feeling she’s playing being controversial and trying to make that her USP. I really like her stance on immigration policy, trident and economy, but then again I find some of her policy banded under ‘Civil Liberties’ unacceptable. I like the prospect of have a highly principled leader, but what happens when her principles are at odd with the will of the wider party? Will she bolt as she has done as an MP? Also I’d question whether someone is a principled politician when they argue against private education and then send their offspring to public school. Aside from that I can’t get past the fact she’s unelectable.

So cutting to the chase, after balancing everything up Ed Miliband will be getting my first preference and (surprising to me) Ed Balls the second.

Frankly, whoever wins the leadership has a massive task. Tony Blair aspired that while the Tory’s were the party of government in the twentieth century, Labour would be in the twenty-first. For that to happen we have to become a movement again rather than just a Westminster party. None of the policy initiatives or rhetoric coming forward from the candidates at the moment will make that transformation. It is an exciting, if worrying, time to be a member. From the new leader a party expects.

Playbuilder Knock Back

Since being elected a couple of years ago, I've been involved in a new community group in Longton North called the Chad Park Partnership. There are a few individuals who I have mentioned previously in my blog who do a tremendous amount of hard work, on a purely voluntary based, to try and improve the play facilities for young people in the area.

The partnership have had some great early successes- the new MUGA behind Gladstone Primary, and in partnership with the Council to improved play area at Anchor Rd. To me, the Partnership is everything that is good about communities, charities and the public sector working together for the greater good- what David Cameron might call 'the big society'.

I can honestly say being involved with the Chad group is one of the things I am proudest of as a ward councillor, so I'm really upset that the next phase of the project - the completion of Anchor rd rec with a mix of playbuilder and ward funding - has been seriously jeopardised by the Central Government's withdrawal of playbuilder finance.

I fully understand that central government has to cut the cloth given the situation of the public finances, we know we will have to make difficult decisions here at a local government level as well. But there is a paradox between the Prime Minister's rhetoric about Big Society (which on the whole I agree with because of the underlying cooperative ethos), and the slash and burn on schemes like playbuilder which are enabling communities to improve themselves in a collaborative way.

My solace is that I know the determined individuals involved in the Chad Park Partnership will keep up the momentum generated by their early wins, and I'm sure that despite this set back we will continue to see improved open spaces in Sandford Hill and Meir Hay.

Budget Day Exasperation

I am sitting at my computer finally having calmed down after today’s budget setting council. My incandescent rage that has slowly extinguished throughout the evening was sparked by the absolutely diabolical proceedings in the chamber this afternoon. To be honest my anger with the performance of many of my colleagues from the other council groups is unlikely to go away for a good while.

Today was always going to be an incredibly important meeting. The 2010/11 budget has been set not only economically difficult times, it comes at the end of a year of financial turmoil for Stoke-on-Trent City Council. The Tory/LibDem/Indy’s budget proposals fell way short of the mark in terms of offering answers to the city’s needs. In fact the proposals contained no investment in any area of the council at all. The only thing put on the table when the budget setting process started was cuts, cuts and more cuts.

In yet the Tories and their patsies around the chamber, including the BNP claimed it was the most inclusive budget setting process ever. Rubbish. Labour’s budget consultation two years ago included a communication with every household in the city requesting participation. No, this year’s ‘consultation’ documents and events were merely an attempt to massage the egos of the more gullible in the council chamber. How is being asked to pick between this cut or that cut a genuine consultation? It’s like being asked to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea. Nor did the exercise ask members to identify priority areas to improve service or if they had alternatives for savings.

So that is exactly what we on the Labour Group did do in our amendment proposals. Keeping the figures balanced we laid out in a positive way priority areas we believe the council should invest in and improve – in tune with people in our communities. Further, we identified where the money for our investments were coming from. Our proposals included:
· Maintaining the Stoke-Speaks-Out Budget in order to preserve a gold standard service for many children in the city
· Investing an extra £100k in improving Dementia services
· Investing an extra £500k to tackle antisocial behaviour
· Using £1 million from the unnecessarily large dedicated reserve for insurance to fund 100 new apprenticeships across the City Council. Using taxpayers money to create jobs and valuable training experiences for local young people
· Saving £400k from the £7.7 million per year spent on outside consultants
· Saving £150k from the corporate communications budget by creating a more efficient and joined up operation
· Saving £150k from the management costs in NSRP, a service which has underperformed despite generous funding.

Despite the fact that several councillors from the other parties conceded that we had good ideas they shouted us down for ‘political grandstanding’- we should have brought up our proposals outside the chamber according to them. I query whether there is any point in having a budget council if it is just to nod through the executive’s proposals with no alternatives or proper debate.

Nobody on the other benches actually gave a passing mention during the amendment ‘debate’ to the actual content of our proposals. They chortled away when we talked about saving Stoke-speaks-out, chatted amongst them selves when we argued for investment to tackle the ASB that makes people’s lives a misery, they jeered when we put forward plans to employee young people and were belligerent when we said how we would pay for it all. I can only put this despicable behaviour down to the fact it was a Labour putting forward these ideas.

I put it to Messrs Clarke, Ward, and Irving, not forgetting Messrs Salih, Coleman and Ibbs, that it was they and not us who were playing petit politics on budget day. It was them voting against an amendment because of who proposed it over and above any ideological or practical consideration. Because of them and their cronies the city will be a poorer place as long as the 2010/11 budget is in place.

There was only one non-labour Councillor I retained full respect for today and that was Gavin Webb. We never agree, he is a libertarian and I am a socialist. But he had the decency to give libertarian arguments for his position today and for that full respect.

Apologies for this stream of consciousness, I’m just very angry. I promised @bankyfields a blog on regeneration soon - I will get round to it in the near future.

Park Progress and Refreshment Rage

Just a quick blog by way of update…

Happily, there is some great news from the CHAD Park Partnership. The builders have now moved on site to start the new Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) at the side of Gladstone Primary and it should be completed in a couple of months. The MUGA will include 5 a side and basketball equipment, and will also be marked out for other sports. It’ll have two gates, one attached to the school and one accessible for the public. During school hours the court will be exclusively for the use of Gladstone, but out of hours it will be accessible for the whole of the community to use.

The project has been made possible thanks to pro bono work by Mansell (the Gladstone School building contractors) with match funding raised from grants and ward budget bids by Partnership Chair, Sue Rammell and the school’s Youth Forum. The really great thing about the scheme is that it has been made possible by the whole community coming together to drive it forward: young people, parents, grandparents and councillors. However special credit needs to be given to Sue Rammell and Dave Eaglestone (Gladstone School Build Manager) whose tireless efforts and negotiations with the Sport England, City Planners and Funding Bodies are finally paying off.

And things get better – thanks to resources that have been made available the MUGA will now also feature a lighting system that will make it useable all year round. Also, work is beginning for a new under 10s play area at Anchor Road Rec. People who know the area will know the shocking state of the play equipment there – now a new naturalised play park is being installed using play-builder finance.

Also I think its worth mentioning a leading story in the Sentinel this week, regarding proposed savings from cutting the refreshments at meetings at the civic. http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/TEA-BISCUITS-FACING-163-20k-CUT/article-1701221-detail/article.html Cllr Kieran Clarke thinks that £20k can be saved by introducing a ‘refreshments policy’. That got me thinking about a couple of things.

Firstly, which meetings have refreshments to that value in the first place? I’ve never even seen coffee and tea at O&S meetings!

Secondly, and more to the point, why is a ‘policy’ being considered? When cutting valued services across the city and cherished facilities are being put forward by the Cabinet, it should go without saying that drinks and butties at the Civic be cut back completely. I was also a little bemused by the outraged responses of the Councillors that commented in the Sentinel’s coverage. Difficult budgetary decisions will have to be made in the coming months, but before I’m asked to vote on a closure for Tunstall or Shelton Pool I want to know that everything has been done to trim the fat in the authority. Perks for Members and Officers like snacks at meetings should be first on the chopping block, so let’s not shilly-shally around with a ‘refreshments policy’.