Local Elections 2019: What the most vulnerable need from their councillors

On Thursday, most of the English councils outside of London will hold their local elections. These elections range from a third of seats on the council to whole council elections, meaning a lot of local areas could see control of their councils switch to different parties.

Considering the policies of the governing Conservatives, the austerity they have reigned over that has hurt local areas badly, and the backlash being predicted, the fact that they have the most seats and councils to defend - more than twice second place Labour - could make Thursday a damaging night for them.

That would be good news for the most vulnerable in our society, who desperately need representatives in local government who will push back. And there are some crucial issues that need outspoken councillors.

Just this week came the news that funding to help the homeless has plummeted under the Tories. With resources stretched by the cuts, it's the most vulnerable who lose out. Local government spending on single homelessness fell by £5bn over the last decade, even as rough sleeping rose by well over 100% - with new funding failing even to cover cuts.

That desperate situation for the working age poor is matched by the hit that social care for the elderly has taken under the watch of the Conservatives. Bailing on their centrepiece manifesto reforms, the Tories simply haven't arrested this dangerous situation - and while debate over the way forward continues, the care sector is collapsing.

At the core of the problems facing local communities are the cuts inflicted by the Tories at Westminster. On all of these issues, Westminster government holds decision-making on funding in an iron grip. And, right now under the Tories, that power is being used to choke off redistribution from richer to poorer communities.

The relationship between central government and local government cannot continue to be top down. Westminster needs to be a coordinator, helping local governments work together on mutual projects and for mutual positive outcomes. It seems unlikely that we will get that as long as the Tories and Labour keep their grip on power.

While Labour do at least pursue redistribution, in parts of Britain their local government presence is so powerful that the party is practically indistinguishable from the local administrative structures. One party states are as dangerous as states built on top down authority that divide communities against each other. We need new options. The most vulnerable need new options.

For progressives, the priority for now is ousting the Tories wherever possible. Labour's primary pitch, of introducing the Preston model to other councils is a sound proposition. But the reluctance of the party to accept pluralism means in the long run that party also has to be challenged.

So look closely at your councillor candidates and consider: how they will deal with the issues pressing upon the most vulnerable? Are willing and able to push back against Westminster? Will they open up local government to more voices? And when you've made up you mind, get out their and vote!

Right to Buy is a deeply unequal stopgap, not a solution to the Housing Crisis

Under George Osborne's direction, the Conservative approach to tackling the housing crisis was to resurrect Thatcherism. This came in the form of Right to Buy, the cheap sell off of social housing to first time buyers.

The trouble is, from the start, it was always going to be a time and resource limited solution. Eventually, as always, the Tories would run out of public assets to privatise and the well would run dry.

As New Statesman Political Editor George Eaton put it, "the problem with Thatcherism is that eventually you run out of other people's assets."

Today, the homelessness charity Crisis and the Local Government Association (LGA) were on the same page in calling out the effects of Right to Buy on social housing: the draining of a vital resource that is not being replaced.

Right to Buy, like Thatcherite policies in the 1980s, plugged gaps created by the withdrawal of the state with privatised public assets to buy time for the private sector to get prepared to take over and pick up the slack.

Osborne's policy kept the middle class housing sector afloat at the expense of social housing - even that technically owned by housing association independent from the government - which was sorely needed to provide affordable shelter for the least well off.

Now as then, the results are wildly inconsistent and deeply unequal.

Crisis have put forward a strategy to eliminate poverty in the next decade that puts new social housing - a hundred thousand new homes a year - at the centre. It combines these with a national rollout of Housing First and the strengthening of the rights of renters.

The LGA say that the core of any sustainable social housing plans, like those proposed by Crisis, must by necessity be devolving proper funding to local government so it can get on with the work of building homes.

For progressives, redistributing funds to local government for affordable and social housing is a clear cut issue - especially to poorer areas that see the least benefit from a scheme that doesn't even return the full receipts from the sale of local housing assets. But will Conservatives listen?

Britain's tented Hoovervilles show the reality of the humanitarian crisis behind the debt and deficit obsession of the Great Recession

Desperation, in the time of recession and austerity, has led to tented encampments springing up across the UK. This one lies a stones throw from Manchester Piccadilly station.

Iain Duncan Smith framed his resignation as the drastic last straw of a reformer, who's efforts were curtailed by the Chancellor's obsession with austerity (Asthana & Stewart, 2016; Peston, 2016). Whatever the true conviction behind the claim, it highlights something incredibly important.

The economic crisis, to which the Conservatives have ever been keen to keep the eye drawn in the last six years, has masked a wider humanitarian crisis. Only one small moment of the Chancellor's budget statement was devoted to it. He told Members of Parliament that:

"Because under this Government we are not prepared to let people be left behind, I am also announcing a major new package of support worth over £115 million to support those who are homeless and to reduce rough sleeping."

The government tried hard during the election the evade the issue, despite attempts to confront the PM directly with the fact that rising numbers of people were using food banks (Channel 4, 2015; Worrall, 2015). Yet the fact remains that homelessness is still rising (Gentleman, 2016).

In his response to the budget, Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the Chancellor's package of assistance, but stressed that rising homelessness was the result of desperate under-investment by the Conservative government (BBC, 2016{2}). A lack of investment which had starved local government of the resources to help and housing associations of the capacity to offer shelter.

While the Chancellor's budget did offer some funds to 'reduce rough sleeping', it was in reality much less than he previously cut from housing support - estimated at only "£1 in every £5" by Shadow Housing Minister John Healey (Healey, 2016).

It is, however, something more than the approach of some local councils to rough sleeping, which has been less than humanitarian (Ellis-Petersen, 2015). Yet even harsh measures haven't been enough to stop the emergence of small, and not so small, shanty towns springing up in places like Manchester, like the Hoovervilles of the 1920s and 1930s.

Europe and the other half of the crisis

The living encamped amongst the dead, along the Rue Richard through the Cimetière du Montparnasse, in Southern Paris, where tents line the road.

On the face of it, the fact that this is as much a broader European as a specifically British problem, may seem to exonerate the Chancellor and his policies. After all, it would be unfair to blame Osborne for the living lodging amongst the dead on the Rue Richard, at the Cimetière du Montparnasse in Paris.

Yet while Osborne has no part in French system - where, in response to their own crisis, supermarkets are no longer being allowed to throw away surplus food and must donate it instead to help those in need of handouts (Derambarsh, 2016) - he does have a role in the other half of the crisis.

War on Europe's borders has led to a second element of the humanitarian crisis: an influx of refugees, for which Europe was not necessarily lacking in resources to tackle, but certainly appeared unprepared. With the British government unwilling to take on the burden of the refugees, a camp sprang up on the British border at Calais.

That camp grew to become a large slum town, administered by aid workers running soup kitchens and handing out charitable donations. But even that temporary solution could not last and the camp is now being broken up, by force, in order to disperse the refugees (Weaver & Walker, 2016).

Hoover and the Great Depression

As President, Herbert Hoover oversaw the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression. Photograph: Herbert Hoover by Opus Penguin (License) (Cropped)

Osborne's approach, pulling back the state and public investment and looking to free markets and civil society to step in to the breach, has made him seem like a man more concerned about balancing his chequebook than acting in the face of a crisis. With that image, he risks receiving the same reputation that marred President Hoover during the Great Depression, as a 'do-nothing' (Leuchtenburg, 2009).

It isn't hard to draw comparisons between some key aspects of the approaches of George Osborne and Herbert Hoover. As US Secretary of Commerce, for two administrations between 1921 and 1928, Hoover was a follower of the efficiency movement - pursuing the ridding of inefficiency and waste from the economy (Hawley, 2006).

As when Osborne's Conservatives came to power in 2010 advocating for a 'Big Society' (Rigby, 2016), Hoover believed that the means of achieving his economic aims was 'volunteerism', as opposed to direction from government - trusting to, and nominally supporting, individual initiative, typified by his role as director of American charitable relief efforts in post-war Europe, particularly in Belgium.

His subsequent time as President, from 1929 and 1933, was however overshadowed by the Wall Street Crash and the beginning of the Great Depression that saw the poor of New York living in Central Park in tented encampments - one of many American shanty towns that became known as 'Hooverville'.

Hoover made more effort than previous Presidents to arrest the severe economic downturn, including some public works projects. And then (Gray, 1993), as now (Pidd, 2016), civil society stepped up to provide aid and relief. Yet when the election came, Franklin D Roosevelt won, and with his New Deal coalition led the United States for four terms, with a comprehensive and interventionist plan to support and rebuild.

While Osborne avoided the stigma of the crisis hitting on his watch, he has also avoided intervention. Instead he has cut public spending - saying that the roof must be fixed "while the sun is shining". Amidst years of economic turmoil and cuts to social security, while statistics say homelessness has continued to rise (Gentleman, 2016), its difficult to see an application for his maxim.

The cracks and those slipping through

The advent of these modern day Hooverville encampments suggest that there is an unacceptable break down in the welfare safety nets in Britain, in France and elsewhere in Europe. Not all of this can be put down to the pressures of the refugee crisis. There are cracks appearing and people are slipping through.

Throwing money at suppressing the symptoms is not enough. It won't tackle the core problems. As much as the Conservatives want the focus to be on the public debt, in order to justify their agenda, private debt is just as large of a problem. Individuals are hanging on by their fingernails, stretched thin by the high cost of living.

Housing is prohibitively expensive. The cost of energy needs to come down. Work for the lowest paid is too insecure and the safety net too full of holes. George Osborne doesn't have to become a believer in a big  interventionist state overnight to help. At the very least something might be done with small reforms, aimed at properly regulating the energy and housing industry to prevent anti-competitive behaviour and price gouging.

Above all that, Osborne might benefit from accepting a single simple lesson, one that most austerians should take note of: the bad times inevitably end up costing far more than the good.

Cold, business-like, austerity narrative has a weakness: it leaves no room for compassion

David Cameron has tried hard to take for the Conservatives, from Labour, a reputation for a stern, serious, business-like approach to government. Photograph: Prime Minister David Cameron meets EDF workers, 21 October 2013 - Department of Energy and Climate Change (License)

At the Conservative Party conference On Wednesday, David Cameron gave a keynote speech described as that of a leader at the height of his powers (d'Ancona, 2015). That label suits the supreme confidence Cameron and the Conservatives are showing right now in their dominant austerity narrative (Jones et al, 2015).

So far David Cameron and George Osborne, his heir apparent, have controlled the political debate, making it all about fiscal responsibility. So confident are they in their position within that debate, they're now - apparently - trying to pitch their message to the centre and centre-left (Freedland, 2015).

However, the terms have started to change. The emergence of Jeremy Corbyn, and the popular movement surrounding him, has forced the addition of ethical and moral dimensions to the contest. The simple narrative of responsible versus irresponsible is now being clouded by a contrast being drawn between 'tough love' conservatism and the compassionate anti-austerity Left.

Since 2010 a political consensus has developed in the UK that focusses on Labour's alleged reckless profligacy and the resultant need for responsible management of the national finances - with the Conservatives pitching themselves as just the business-like grown-ups to save the country from the naive and reckless idealists.

But Cameron & Osborne might finally be overreaching with their effort to appeal to the centre and Left. While pushing austerity measures, originally pursued as merely corrective, into an extended and lasting policy, they seem to have forgotten how thin the support for their political 'consensus' is in reality.

In a country divided, where at least 34% chose at least a 'lite' alternative to austerity and 33% didn't participate, the remaining 33% who believed in further austerity, and so voted Conservative or Ukip, do not represent a consensus so much as the most well organised minority - with many of those who voted Conservative likely not to even consider themselves party supporters, let alone loyalists.

Those are shallow foundations from which Cameron is pitching to voters the idea that the Conservatives are the only party of the mainstream - laying claim to morality, nationality and sensibility as things represented solely by them. In itself, the attempt just reveals how far into right-wing territory the political consensus has swung.

Centrism is supposed to be about balance. It is supposed to bring together communities, individuals and traditions - appealing to democrats, liberals and conservatives alike - to create a society balanced between, and accessible by, all.

All Cameron's government has offered are right-wing solutions: restricting or taking away parts of the social security system, taking legislative action against strikes, and pushing market-based solutions wherever they can be forced onto public services. The Conservative brand of 'centrism' is profoundly unbalanced in favour of a meritocratic elitism, based heavily on the role played by wealth and competition.

As much as the Conservatives have made an opportunity for themselves out of the struggles of the Labour Party, they have left a door open for Labour to make a return to relevance. Corbyn's "We don't pass by" speech to the CWU's People's Post gathering, in Manchester last week, conveyed a compassion that is fast becoming the mark of the Left in opposition.

While junior doctors have struggled with their working conditions with an underfunded NHS, the Conservatives have turned a deaf ear. It has taken the threat of strike action, and the disruption it causes to 'efficient' services, to make the Conservatives take notice of their suffering.

Even then, the response has only been the offer of promises and guarantees that there will be proper monitoring, all while plans continue to be pushed ahead (Campbell, 2015). It was hardly a surprise, then, to see junior doctors taking their campaign onto the streets of Manchester alongside anti-austerity protesters.

Similar accusations regarding the lack of response by the political class to suffering have come from those warning of homelessness rising under conditions of increased debts, restricted welfare and a lack of affordable housing ((BBC, 2015; The Telegraph, 2015).

Hackney Council have come in for criticism for its handling of homelessness, after it threatened to criminalise homelessness and introduce fines for sleeping rough (Osborne, 2015). Singer Ellie Goulding has openly campaigned against the maltreatment of homeless people by London councils (Ellis-Petersen, 2015).

It aught to be a matter of concern for Cameron and Osborne that, despite Hackney Council being Labour controlled, in Goulding's campaign for better treatment of homeless people, it is to Jeremy Corbyn and Labour that she has turned, in search of someone to bring "some compassion back into politics".

It is in that contest that the Conservatives' self-assigned 'pragmatism' may finally count against them. A shift in the debate to include compassion will hurt a government that has chosen to bet the house on a cold lack of concern beyond a financial, profit-making, statistical assessment of economic 'success' which does not factor in the impact on individuals or communities.

With an increase in working poverty, linked directly to changes being made by Cameron's government (Wintour & Watt, 2015), the dominant austerity narrative in which Conservatives have shown such confidence is being exposed for its lack of human warmth.

All of a sudden, Corbyn looks to be exactly the opponent, with exactly the right tone, to trouble the Conservatives' thin hold on power. The Conservatives have tried so hard to take from Labour the reputation for serious prudent economic focussed politics. It would be a tremendous irony if, with the party strutting around as if it has finally assumed that mantle, the poisonous flaw in that reputation might just have been discovered.