Who will be the next Labour leader?

[Proper Tidy]

Labour party led by a Sir is pretty much taking the piss out of how little long term effect the 2015-19 era had isn't it. In many ways it's sad and in many ways it's lol

 

[Gramsci]

Couple of things. Firstly I dont think anyone is talking about main stream council/public services when discussing community led/council enabled or community self sufficient schemes. The Co-op council/Big Society initiatives from Councils were mainly prompted by the fact that the Blair era funding was cut and Councils went through phases using a whole range of initiatives ( which also included outsourcing, combined council or regional wide services, service redesign, systemic thinking, squeezing the third sector , the Council as property developer buying land and building and then flogging them off, and more recently bringing services back in) .So for all the philosophy ( some of which may make some salient points )and what ever the hype the council budget was the issue not what the community wanted. I visited loads of Councils including Lambeth ,scores of projects and held many focus groups and consultations when I worked on innovation for my own council.
Secondly whilst calls for municipal socialism might evoke memories of George Landsbury and Poplar Council , Council services by and large are top down with little or no connection to communities. , very often based on meeting targets and aligned to funding meeting targets and rarely involve users or residents in their design or delivery of services. Nandy quoted the Sure Start centres and its interesting that despite delivering a valued service ( mainly to savings in the NHS) their closures weren't greeted by picket lines of staff and users and the local community up in arms. I can remember in my borough residents wanting to use the Sure Start centre at the weekends for childrens play activities, it was denied as they dont open Saturdays. A fathers group wanted to use a centre , denied because it didnt correspond with the targets set for Sure Start. So from being community based centres offering local service they became centres that actually excluded the community. I think the point she was making is that often communities know what they want , come up with ideas but unless they fit in the councils view of how it should be done they dont happen. So I agree with her when she talks about a sense of ownership or that things could be done differently.
Thirdly her point was not that community groups should be expected to run services long term on their own ( although actually most boroughs will have long standing community groups that have run local projects very often on their for decades) but that Labour Councils should support them . Councils and partners can support them by advising on service design, facillitating visits to other projects in other areas, research, pepper corn rents ,opening up spaces at night or weekends subsidised painting decoration or renovation of premises, linking with local business or local chains for funding , business advice,mentoring , volunteering etc etc. Howvere I take your point that equally Councils are very often resistant or unwilling or dont have the culture to do this.
Lastly or we can go the other way and have projects like Helping Hands in Edinburgh, or the IWCA Athetics Club and countless other community owned and led iniatives. What isn't on the cards is municipal socialism.

I notice that Lisa Nandy is now saying that Councils should be allowed to set up their own bus companies.

'Councils must have the power to run bus services for people, not profits'

Leadership hopeful Lisa Nandy says decade of austerity has forced cuts in bus services - but Labour councils like Nottingham have produced very successful long-term plans for public transport networks

www.mirror.co.uk

So she's is in favour of Councils having much bigger role in local communities.

What she objected to was foregrounding rail re nationalisation so much at last election. Which she didn't see as it as that relevant to the people she represents. But she is all in favour of local Council taking over buses. Fair enough imo. This is a new form of municipal socialism. I don't think doing things like this means literally going back to the days of Lansbury.

I was chatting last Sunday at a local community project I'm involved in how long we can keep this going. We did it to prove to the Council that there was a demand ( its an adventure playground). The Council officers said there was no demand and the land was therefore available as a "development site". But what is really needed long term is actual support from the Council as you outline in your post. Not having to lobby and argue all the time. This is wearing. It is also not feasible to expect locals to run a complicated service like a playground without support from the local Council long term.

Also local Cllrs in my borough ( Lambeth) can't publicly support community projects in case they get into trouble with the local leadership. They are only allowed to support local stuff if given permission by the leadership. So no campaigning for local Labour Cllrs. Which is ridiculous imo. To root itself in local communities at the very least local Cllrs should be able to do that.

As Nandy says politics has to be relevant to ordinary working people who are only just getting by. ( which is most of us). So how local Labour Councils operate should be the backbone of the party.

Council run services can be done in non top down way. I'm on the user group for my local leisure centre. Its been up and down with Council put its possible to have Council run services with local input. Leisure centre was under threat a while back ( the land its on is worth a lot) Then local residents did turn up to shout at the Council leader and senior officers and they backed down. So people will sometimes defend a local asset.

 

[SpookyFrank]

heres one answer

Oh gods, and I had such high hopes for her

 

[SpookyFrank]

I notice that Lisa Nandy is now saying that Councils should be allowed to set up their own bus companies.

Pretty sure they can already. Here in Nottingham the main bus company is city-owned.

 

[butchersapron]

They can if they already exist - they are no longer allowed to establish new ones.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Is there anywhere in the world where membership of a radical left wing political party is anything but a tiny fringe?

You could argue Podemos and Labour, could you not? Depending on how far you want to stretch your definition of radical left.

 

[billy_bob]

Labour party led by a Sir is pretty much taking the piss out of how little long term effect the 2015-19 era had isn't it. In many ways it's sad and in many ways it's lol

It's taking the piss out of how little long-term effect the 1900-2019 era had, tbf.

 

[killer b]

You could argue Podemos and Labour, could you not? Depending on how far you want to stretch your definition of radical left.

You could argue this if you like, but then why aren't those millions and millions you spoke of thirsting for a radical left party already in Labour (membership 500,00) or Podemos (membership 170,000)?

 

[SpackleFrog]

You could argue this if you like, but then why aren't those millions and millions you spoke of thirsting for a radical left party already in Labour (membership 500,00) or Podemos (membership 170,000)?

To be fair, in neither case have either of those parties made much of an offer to those people to join. Both Iglesias and Corbyn have somewhat dimmed their radical credentials in the process of leading their respective parties.

All I'm saying is that it's possible to put together a pitch that mobilises people beyond the existing membership. In the case of Corbyn for example whenever he was attacked new waves of people joined to defend his leadership ie Owen Smith challenge, 2017 election.

I'm not sure we will agree, I think with the Labour position on Brexit you saw it as neccessary to triangulate between the existing membership, resulting in the fudge position, and I thought it was possible to do something different. I'm just saying that I think theoretically, it could be possible for example for RLB to run a campaign geared towards a more confrontational approach to the labour right, based on democratising the party and appealing to people outside the Labour Party to join on the promise that the membership would have some real control over their MP's and what the party did. Even if it were not possible to win the leadership on this basis it would move the debate in a more positive direction.

 

[ska invita]

Oh gods, and I had such high hopes for her

It's not such a big deal, Emily will be out of the race sharpish and the practice of getting people on the ballot for the sake of it seems common practice... Such as Corbyns nomination by...I forget her name... Margaret Hodge?

 

[killer b]

To be fair, in neither case have either of those parties made much of an offer to those people to join. Both Iglesias and Corbyn have somewhat dimmed their radical credentials in the process of leading their respective parties.

All I'm saying is that it's possible to put together a pitch that mobilises people beyond the existing membership. In the case of Corbyn for example whenever he was attacked new waves of people joined to defend his leadership ie Owen Smith challenge, 2017 election.

I'm not sure we will agree, I think with the Labour position on Brexit you saw it as neccessary to triangulate between the existing membership, resulting in the fudge position, and I thought it was possible to do something different. I'm just saying that I think theoretically, it could be possible for example for RLB to run a campaign geared towards a more confrontational approach to the labour right, based on democratising the party and appealing to people outside the Labour Party to join on the promise that the membership would have some real control over their MP's and what the party did. Even if it were not possible to win the leadership on this basis it would move the debate in a more positive direction.

My current view is that the left had one shot at making these kinds of changes to the Labour Party, and it's done. I doubt on reflection that it was ever possible.

 

[SpackleFrog]

It's not such a big deal, Emily will be out of the race sharpish and the practice of getting people on the ballot for the sake of it seems common practice... Such as Corbyns nomination by...I forget her name... Margaret Hodge?

Margert Beckett I think?

 

[SpackleFrog]

My current view is that the left had one shot at making these kinds of changes to the Labour Party, and it's done. I doubt on reflection that it was ever possible.

Fair enough, I mean we'll never know since they didn't really try. But I think they should have tried since even if it were not possible in Labour it would have laid some of the groundwork for something new.

 

[sihhi]

I like Rayner - she clearly gets it. Whether she’s got the wherewithal, or would have the opportunity as deputy, to shift the LP away from its developing delusional conclusions about what has gone wrong is a different matter though

Anyone who failed to vote against the 2015 Welfare Reform Bill has zero credibility.

 

[killer b]

Fair enough, I mean we'll never know since they didn't really try.

what makes you think this?

 

[sleaterkinney]

The Corbyn clique with the parliamentary party was always tiny, that's why the likes of burgon and long-bailey could rise up the ranks.

 

[ska invita]

My current view is that the left had one shot at making these kinds of changes to the Labour Party, and it's done. I doubt on reflection that it was ever possible.

Definitely a massive lost opportunity. If being kind, too much on the back foot dealing with crisis, but maybe never had the vision in the first place. It was possible, anything is possible, but there wasn't even an attempt that I heard of.

 

[billy_bob]

Definitely a massive lost opportunity. If being kind, too much on the back foot dealing with crisis, but maybe never had the vision in the first place. It was possible, anything is possible, but there wasn't even an attempt that I heard of.

Being unkind, they chose to take that back foot. From early on in Corbyn's tenure, McDonnell had economic plans which, while not revolutionary, represented movement in a positive direction - but so little was said publicly about them that barely anyone outside the favoured few within the membership itself would have known much about them. No wonder many people reacted to the latest manifesto like it was some fantasy wishlist that had just fallen from the sky. And they should have been more confrontational from the very start with the elements within the party and beyond who were working against them for their own vested interests/reasons.

Maybe they'd have done that and still failed for reasons beyond their own control. But at least they'd have done what was within their control.

 

[steeplejack]

The final line up is like a cast of jobbing actors queueing up for a minor part in an ITV adaptation of a forgotten Barry Hines novel.

About as inspiring as a damp cardboard sandwich.

 

[bellaozzydog]

Started of a discussion about the BoD directives and the leadership thing on local party favebook

A day later post locked all messages deleted despite none being in anyway inflammatory

The level of witch hunt fear is ridiculous

 

[killer b]

Sure, they have no reason for being a bit jumpy about discussions on antisemitism and related.

 

[treelover]

Being unkind, they chose to take that back foot. From early on in Corbyn's tenure, McDonnell had economic plans which, while not revolutionary, represented movement in a positive direction - but so little was said publicly about them that barely anyone outside the favoured few within the membership itself would have known much about them. No wonder many people reacted to the latest manifesto like it was some fantasy wishlist that had just fallen from the sky. And they should have been more confrontational from the very start with the elements within the party and beyond who were working against them for their own vested interests/reasons.

Maybe they'd have done that and still failed for reasons beyond their own control. But at least they'd have done what was within their control.

John had a number of meetings with anti-welfare reform campaigners, planned to prosecute Smith, a review, lots of positive ideas around social security, none of it really saw the light of day till the manifesto,

 

[billy_bob]

John had a number of meetings with anti-welfare reform campaigners, planned to prosecute Smith, a review, lots of positive ideas around social security, none of it really saw the light of day till the manifesto,

I know - that's the stuff I meant. mrs_bob's a member so I was pretty well up on what was going on, but I've tended to find that even most Corbyn-sympathetic habitual Labour voters knew very little about it if they were outside activist circles.

 

[killer b]

Does anyone really pay much attention to economic policy outside election campaigns? That Alternative Models of Ownership pamphlet has some genuinely good ideas in it, and they pushed it pretty hard - but that they didn't manage to break through to anyone other than political obsessives isn't really surprising.

 

[kebabking]

Sure, they have no reason for being a bit jumpy about discussions on antisemitism and related.

Just asking questions...

The local FB politics page is full of this shit - all with their hashtags and symbols - they just can't leave it alone. These people are broadly split between being openly anti-Semitic or so irredeemably politically deaf and blind that the LP would be well shot of them. Cleverly, one of them is the media officer for a CLP.

Very occasionally someone begs them to to just shut up, but they can't - the definition of a fanatic is one who can't change the subject.

 

[billy_bob]

Does anyone really pay much attention to economic policy outside election campaigns? That Alternative Models of Ownership pamphlet has some genuinely good ideas in it, and they pushed it pretty hard - but that they didn't manage to break through to anyone other than political obsessives isn't really surprising.

Pamphlets, no. There must be more imaginative ways to get a message across that would have some impact if used on an ongoing basis, though. I'm talking about the big ideas of it, the alternative narrative - most people are never going to want to read about the minutiae of implementation, and the reception of the 2019 manifesto reinforces the fact that detailed costings aren't what it takes to make something seem plausible anyway.

 

[SpackleFrog]

what makes you think this?

Definitely a massive lost opportunity. If being kind, too much on the back foot dealing with crisis, but maybe never had the vision in the first place. It was possible, anything is possible, but there wasn't even an attempt that I heard of.

Would agree with Ska here and say that there was no attempt I can see. Off the top of my head, I think they changed the process for electing a leader slightly and had a row about whether or not Corbyn should be on the ballot after the VoNC in his leadership. Can't think of any other reforms to the party that they attempted.

There was never any push for automatic re-selection of MP's, which would have been a simple move that could have dramatically re-balanced power in the party. If memory serves Unite pushed for this at one point but were pressured to back down by Corbyn and his team. Corbyn was still routinely attacked on the issue of automatic re-selection despite the fact he never brought it in.

That's just one measure, sure, but it would have been game changing and there was a golden opportunity to bring it in in 2017 after Corbyn's unexpected success.

What makes you think otherwise, if you do?

 

[Brainaddict]

From quite a big bunch of people there was a massive push for automatic re-selection. It just didn't succeed. What they got instead was a compromise where you can hold a local ballot on whether you re-select, which is at least an improvement on no way to re-select at all.

 

[SpackleFrog]

From quite a big bunch of people there was a massive push for automatic re-selection. It just didn't succeed. What they got instead was a compromise where you can hold a local ballot on whether you re-select, which is at least an improvement on no way to re-select at all.

People talked about it a lot but it didn't actually happen.

I actually think the 'trigger ballots' are worse because it allows the right to push this bullying narrative.

Plus the endless articles about MP's being 'triggered'.

 

[bellaozzydog]

Just asking questions...

The local FB politics page is full of this shit - all with their hashtags and symbols - they just can't leave it alone. These people are broadly split between being openly anti-Semitic or so irredeemably politically deaf and blind that the LP would be well shot of them. Cleverly, one of them is the media officer for a CLP.

Very occasionally someone begs them to to just shut up, but they can't - the definition of a fanatic is one who can't change the subject.

openly anti-Semitic? On Labour face book pages? Screen shot any of it? who’s definition of anti-Semitic are you referencing

sounds very much like your mind is made up