Local Elections 2018 Preview: Labour look set for gains, but what we need more is a greater diversity of perspectives

Manchester City Council, with 95 Labour councillors and 1 Liberal Democrat, is a prime example of the need for a greater diversity of unwhipped perspectives in local government. Photograph: Manchester Town Hall by Stephen Douglas (Licence)

After last year's opportunistic election did not go to plan for Theresa May's Conservative and Unionist Party, her government - propped up by the Northern Irish loyalist Democratic Unionist Party - has been stumbling from one potential crisis to another.

These elections come at a strange time. Despite both main parties struggling, they both remain at around 40% in the polls and have a strangling grip on local government. Is this a chance for smaller parties to make some breakthroughs on councils?

With the majoritarian two-party system reasserting itself, some pushback from smaller parties like the Greens or Lib Dems would be welcome, to ensure representation of a wider set of perspectives - and to increase the accountability of local councils.

Conservatives

This will be the Tories first big electoral test since then. The final totals will need to weighed against the fact that half of the seats up for re-election are currently held by Labour. Yet there could be some headline defeats for the government.

Theresa May's party is particularly at risk of losing council seats in London. This includes control of Wandsworth, their flagship council from the time of Margaret Thatcher, which was used as the pioneer for contracting out local services.

The Conservative have taken a low key approach to the local elections. This may be a result of their own strategists projecting heavy losses to Labour. Downing St may have accepted that and prepared to downplay the significance.

This hasn't stopped local Conservative branches from pursuing aggressive campaigning tactics - including repeating the racist and Islamophobic overtones of the Goldsmith campaign for Mayor of London, which targetted Sadiq Khan's ethnicity and religion.

This time around there has been condemnation from Tory voices. But is the Conservative establishment distancing itself simply because of the timing? Local councillors have said their leaflets were signed off by Conservative HQ.

Mired by the Windrush scandal - entirely of their own creation - and with the media pursuing Labour hard over antisemitism, did the Tories just find it an inconvenient moment to be pursuing openly divisive tactics themselves?

Labour

With Labour holding most of the council seats up for grabs this time around, the party has to make inroads in Conservative areas. Part of that has them focussing very heavily on London - perhaps sensing that there are big headlines to be written.

Key Conservative controlled areas could be vulnerable to Labour and sweeping gains - on a night when they will begin already in a dominant position - will be an emphatic statement that can be milked for publicity and be used to continue the narrative of a Labour Party on the ascent.

For the Labour Party leadership, that would be a much need boost as their forward momentum has been arrested - despite the Tories creating problems for themselves - by their inability to adequately address the issue of antisemitism.

The media and critics have run roughshod over Labour on the issue, and Corbyn and his team have not come up with a way to convincingly show that antisemitism will not be tolerated - and thus diffuse the issue. As a result, a cloud hangs over the party.

So too does the ever looming prospect of a split. It's hard to see how anyone on the opposition benches would benefit, in the short term, from an inamicable split - even though a split increasingly seems like a good idea, to end the spiteful internal squabbling.

A split is hindered however, by the archaic quirks of our electoral system, that does not abide multiple parties and the increase in critical perspectives it can bring, nor the prospect of groups working together despite holding different membership cards.

Opposition

The Green Party laid out this, the big theme of the local elections, in the UK in their campaign launch. Co-leader Jon Bartley called for an end to Britain's "one-party state" local councils, to increase their transparency and accountability to local people.

It's an argument that thinktank Compass and it's chair Neal Lawson also press, stressing that Labour need to overcome their obsession with claiming a monopoly on power - which leads it to absorb or crush any possible rivals, rather than working with them.

In terms of the Green Party's own prospects, their best hope may be in trying to make inroads into Labour dominated councils, whose unchallenged authority has resulted in some poor outcomes - that have left some voters disaffected. Consider, for example, the goings-on under Labour at Haringey or Sheffield.

The other visible party of opposition in local government are the Liberal Democrats. Buoyed perhaps by their consistent - as usual - good form in council by-elections, they've been talking up their chances of a mini-revival at the local government level.

With the polls consistently putting the Conservatives and Labour neck and neck, 40% to 40%, it's difficult to see where the Lib Dems will make inroads - especially after several years of desperate defence, to hang on to what they hold.

As supporters of a Progressive Alliance, The Alternative wants the Lib Dems to refind their progressive side. But at present their best chance of picking up seats may be by, finally, convincing Conservative voters that what they liked about the Coalition was actually the Lib Dems all along.

So watch Lib-Con head-to-heads. This is a dynamic that could have a gigantic affect on a future election, where Lib Dems taking votes and seats directly from the Tories could tip Theresa May out of office and open the way for Labour.

Voter ID

These local elections will also be the first to trial the controversial new Voter ID measures that the Conservatives hope to roll out nationally. Such measures have been deeply criticised by electoral and rights groups.

The reality is that, first of all, Britain has very little in the way of electoral fraud, and second, that Voter ID does little to stop voter fraud. In fact, it does little but deter voters - discriminating particularly against the poor.

The trial runs will take place in Swindon, Gosport, Woking, Bromley, and Watford.

Municipalism

If we are to have effective local government there must be no barriers to participation for the community. Their representatives must be accountable and transparent, and able to hold local bodies to those same standards on the public behalf.

Erecting barriers, especially those disproportionately impacting voters from minority groups, and leaving one-party local councils unchallenged, is a recipe for bad governance. Well run, accountable local government can achieve so much at the municipal level.

There are big ideas out there, from Barcelona to Preston. Municipalism taking root. Local government can empower local people. The first step is to break up the local political monopolies, to leave them no choice but to start hearing criticism and engaging with it.

Richmond Park By-Election: Zac Goldsmith's horrid London Mayoral Campaign should be lightning rod for rallying progressive support behind a challenger

Zac Goldsmith, once the darling of 'decent' liberal conservatism, chose the low road against Sadiq Khan in London. Photograph: Zac Goldsmith MP at 'A New Conversation with the Centre-Right about Climate Change' in 2013 from the Policy Exchange (License) (Cropped)

Zac Goldsmith's promise to resign should the Government go ahead with plans for Heathrow expansion was triggered on Tuesday. Theresa May's Ministry gave the go ahead to Heathrow plans, triggering a by-election in Goldsmith's Richmond Park constituency (BBC, 2016).

Goldsmith will nominally stand as an Independent, but with the Conservatives not standing a candidate against him - for the clear tactical reason of knowing Goldsmith will vote with them on most issues and so wish to avoid splitting the conservative vote - he remains a pro-Government candidate.

For the main opposition in the area, the Liberal Democrats, facing a conservative support split between two Tory candidates would have been a gift. But as it is, the seat remains one of the best opportunities the party will get to demonstrate its 'Lib Dem Fightback'.

The Richmond Park constituency was in fact a liberal seat from 1997 until 2010, when an upsurge in people voting in the constituency tipped it into Conservative hands. Goldsmith defended his seat with an increased majority in 2015.

Yet that defence came under peculiar circumstances. The Lib Dem's general collapse found its way to Richmond Park, where the party lost around half of its support, to the benefit of all the other challengers.

But, regardless of the party voters chose in 2015, the constituency as a whole still seems to be pretty liberal in its make up. At the referendum, going against the Eurosceptic Goldsmith, the area voted by 75,000 to 33,000 in favour of Remaining in the European Union (Dixon, 2016).

What should go a long way towards advancing the challenge of the Liberal Democrats is that certainly no progressive should be giving Goldsmith any consideration after the horrid London Mayoral campaign run his name - with its blatant racial profiling and anti-Muslim attempts to smear Khan as a friend to extremists (Jones, 2016).

In fact, that makes Richmond Park look like the kind of idealistic rallying point for which a Progressive Alliance is intended to represent. Some sort of united progressive stand against the overwhelming majority of Tory policies that Goldsmith still represents and his disgusting divisive tactics in the London campaign would be entirely justified.

With the Lib Dems as the clear sole challenger - it being formerly their seat, the seat being very pro-EU and the Lib Dems sharing the anti-Heathrow expansion position of Goldsmith and Richmond constituents - their candidate would ideally, and tactically, be the focus of allied progressive support against Goldsmith.

Certain Labour MPs have certainly expressed their openness to such an arrangement (Casalicchio, 2016). Sian Berry, Green Member of the London Assembly and their 2016 Mayoral Candidate, has already stressed that she won't let anyone forget Goldsmith's divisive campaign in London (Berry, 2016).

However, officially, Labour have said they will stand their own candidate. But that does not necessarily mean that they ultimately will- or that, having stood a candidate, they will necessarily campaign as hard as they could.

For the Lib Dems themselves, this is clearly a great opportunity. While they will need a huge 19% swing, they achieved that at Witney - and in Witney they showed how thin the Conservative majorities are were they benefit previously from the fall out from the Coalition.

For progressives more widely, the Richmond Park by-election is the first clear chance they've had to significantly defeat the Government at the polls. Local council and Mayoral defeats have been waved away with excuses. But a progressive topping the poll at this by-election would be a serious indicator that the Tory majority was even more tenuous than it already seems.

However Goldsmith and the Government may try to make sure the 'Independent' label sticks, Goldsmith stand with the Government majority on the rest of its programme. Rallying to defeat his candidacy would be a definitive rejection of the Government's policies. It would also demonstrate that even the largest Tory majorities are far from safe when a new election comes around.

The headlines are dominated by the Labour Party, but the progressive movement goes on beyond its factional strife

Progressive politics goes on, far beyond the limits of Labour and its grimly destructive leadership civil war. Photograph: Protesters outside last Autumn's Conservative Party Conference in Manchester.

The summer recess is usually the slow news time for British politics. This summer was supposed to be different. The two big parties, Labour and Conservative, side by side, would hold leadership races, setting the political agenda for the return to business in September. However, the Conservative race saw Theresa May blast away the field in short order.

That left the leadership challenge in the Labour Party to hold the spotlight all by itself. And that contest, with all of its chaos and rancour - including the party taking legal action against its own leader and even its own membership - has been a sour experience for progressives. To try and balance out the negativity of Labour's internal wrangling, here is a look at what other progressive party's and groups have been up to around Britain over the summer.

Sadiq Khan and London

In London, Sadiq Khan has set out early to establish himself in his new role as Mayor of London. One of his very first appearances was at London Pride - a strong progressive symbol with which to start his time in office. There will be arguments about his policies, but what Khan has gotten right, so far, has been image.

If there is anything with which the Left has traditionally struggled, and which can do so much to energise support for progressive policies, it is presenting a bright and positive vision. In Canada, Justin Trudeau led the Liberals back to power with a positive feeling campaign, and the image Khan's has projected bares much in the way of comparison - not least their appearances at Pride events.

On policy, the one issue that has stood out so far, and on which Khan has been particularly strident, is arguing for greater autonomy for the city. Part of the post-Brexit response, but also part of a movement emerging across Europe, Khan wants London to have more devolved powers to help is combat the predicted negatives resulting from leaving the European Union.

Khan has been making a determined push, post-Brexit, with his social media hashtag "#LondonIsOpen", getting celebrities and athletes on board in support. It seems to be the sum and central theme of Khan's start as Mayor: open to all people and open to business, everyone is welcome.

When talking of London, it is also worth mentioning the work of Take Back the City, a grassroots political and community organisation that aims to get directly to people in London's communities and make their voices heard. Amina Gichinga, a member of the group and London Assembly candidate, took part in the Progressive Alliance event in July. Gichinga made a strong and eloquent case, very much worth watching, for what needs to change in how politics is conducted in Britain.

Liberal Democrats

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats continue their rebuilding efforts. The party seems to have returned to what it did best, focussing on local and community politics. At the 2016 local elections, the Lib Dems made the most gains of any party and has since continued to win local elections with growing numbers.

But to restore the party's tarnished image is a much broader work. To that end, on the wider British scene, Tim Farron has been trying put the party to work fighting on key issues. One such issue was Brexit, on which Farron confirmed the Lib Dem commitment to Europe and aligned the party with the 48% who voted to stay.

Most recently, Farron has been critical of vague promises from the Treasury to match European Union funding in the near future. He has called for the government to show where the alleged £350m a week of funding will come from and demanded that long term reassurances be given to those who depend on it can make important long term decisions.

Various leading members of the party have also associated themselves with efforts to build cross-party cooperation. Vince Cable took part in the Progressive Alliance event, proposing an electoral pact come the next general election, and Paddy Ashdown is backing More United, an effort to promote crowdfunding of candidates on the basis of values rather than party allegiances.

That attitude to cooperation is reflected in Wales, where, now with just one Assembly Member, the Lib Dems have entered into Coalition government with Labour. Former leader Kirsty Williams took on the office of Education - and has stated absolute opposition, on behalf of Wales' Coalition, to the reintroduction of grammar schools.

Caroline Lucas and the Greens

Last, but not least, are the Greens. The Green Party as a whole has made small gains, but still haven't made the major breakthrough - on the verge of which they seem to have been for a decade. In Scotland, at the 2016 elections, the Greens moved into fourth place. Yet in London they merely retained their seats and in Wales got nowhere near the seats.

However, their sole MP Caroline Lucas has been amongst the most active and most visible of the Left's political figures and campaigners over the first half of the year. From her NHS Bill, to campaigning for cross-party cooperation and a Progressive Alliance; Lucas has been the most visible, perhaps bar Sadiq Khan, and certainly the most outspoken, coherent and unabashed leader - not in title but in deed - amongst progressives.

Punching far above the weight of her one seat out of six hundred and fifty, her loud advocacy for pluralism in politics has helped move forward the campaign for proportional representation and for cooperation between progressives. Lucas has announced that she will run again for the party leadership, a move that many may see as important to the party's near future development - considering her visibility and popularity.

Progress and Pluralism

The future of the Left depends on more than who is the Labour Party leader. That's a hard message to accept, particularly for those who feel the blows from the Conservative axe most weightily and fear that Labour is only party with a realistic shot at displacing the axe-swingers. But the party has used that fear as a way to gouge support for decades, while alienating potential supporters all the while and shutting down any plurality of debate.

The Left can be about more than just one, jealous, centralising party. The Left is a place of diversity: civil rights, equality, sustainability, justice, cooperation, feminism, democracy, liberalism, radicalism, the individual and the community - thousands of voices with thousands of issues. Trying to force them all into one tent, to represent them all with one voice, hasn't worked and won't.

Through debate, discussion, thinking, testing and embracing a myriad of perspectives, the Left has the broad resources to build positive and inclusive visions. The sooner Labour embraces pluralism, the sooner progressives can start fighting back against conservatism, in ways that play to their strengths - because the path of pluralism is not division and weakness: it is strength in diversity.

Local Elections: Conservatism is far from dominant in a divided Britain, but people still await an alternative

Yesterday saw local council elections across England and assembly elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, that emphasised how varied the politics of Britain's provinces is becoming.

With so many pressures, on so many parties, from so many directions, the local and assembly elections were always going to be a fraught and complicated affair. As it happens, the changes forced were in small increments and, in broad context, left matters largely as they were (Kuenssberg, 2016).

But the biggest story of the night is really the way in which politics has taken on different shapes in different parts of Britain. In its different provinces, politics is being reshaped to fit provincial rather than British themes (Mason, 2016; Mason, 2015). Old divisions are being broken down, new ones are springing up and some groups are adapting while others are not.

The broad picture showed the Labour Party largely hanging on, with inconvenient losses matched by surprising gains and holds. However Corbyn still finds himself wrestling with the internal contradictions left to him by previous leaders, who failed to solve the fundamental disconnect between the party and its supporters. The Conservatives too managed to broadly hang on and even made the publicity friendly gain of becoming the official opposition to the SNP in the Scottish Parliament.

The Liberal Democrat slump also seemed to have hit bottom, with the party's vote mostly stabilising at about 8%. Yet there were also signs of life, with some gains won on the back of astounding swings of around 10-15% - an increase in supporters in the thousands - that will provide some useful fuel for their #LibDemFightback narrative.

UKIP's night was largely devoted to establishing themselves, securing their bridgeheads rather than breaking new ground. Their results matched 2015 and followed suit by again paying off in second places, and this time with both council seats and seats in Wales' Senedd.

Yet this broad, federal, party picture hides a much more complicated set of movements beneath the surface.

The results in Scotland redrew political lines to reflect the new reality of debate in the country. The SNP, now without a majority but still in position for a strong minority government, have set out Scottish separatism as the movement with the momentum. The Conservatives are the opposition, and Unionism is their opposing force.

In that debate, other issues are being sidelined and with them the other parties. Labour, who are really struggling to distinguish themselves in the separatism-unionism debate, look the most lost. The social democratic Centre-Left have seemingly rallied around the SNP, while the those following the Unionist cause have unsurprisingly gathered about the Conservatives. The principled opposition to the SNP approach to governing, on issues of civil liberties and the environment, has gathered around the Greens and the Lib Dems. That doesn't leave much room for the Labour Party.

The Liberal Democrats night in Scotland lays out their own particularly strange journey. While across Scotland their support seemed to settle to the national average of around 8%, in particular constituencies they won huge victories, even against the SNP, with 15% wings bringing thousands of voters. That was enough to give Will Rennie a constituency seat with a 3500 vote majority in North East Fife, along with gaining Edinburgh Western.

By contrast with Scotland, the election in Wales almost felt like a delayed continuation from the 2015 general election. The Lib Dem vote levelled out at around the 8% margin seen elsewhere, and in Wales, last year, but in this situation that meant Lib Dem seat losses suited to the 2015 slaughter. And yet, party leader Kirsty Williams won her constituency with a 10% swing to increase her majority by thousands of votes.

Meanwhile UKIP gained representation in Wales through the regional list vote, taking seats at the expense of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, thanks to 13% of the vote gained mostly at the expense of Labour. That number reflected their Britain-wide 2015 performance, and seemed to confirm the Senedd election as almost a rebalancing - representation adjusting to match their performance.

In the local council elections in England, Labour lost seats but - again - largely held their ground. The Lib Dems showed more surprising resilience, taking a projected 15% of the national vote share and even an overall gain of more than forty council seats and control of a council. As in Wales, UKIP appear to be rebalancing, losing votes but claiming some council seats, in seeming redress from a year ago. The Conservatives lost almost fifty seats and control of a council, but for a sitting government the results are as undramatic as could be hoped.

That stands in contrast to London. After eight years of Boris Johnson, with Labour struggling, the Conservatives must have thought that this was a clear cut opportunity. Yet it was Sadiq Khan's campaign that has had all the momentum, despite the dirty tricks and negative campaigning of the Conservatives - run not only by Khan's opponent Zac Goldsmith, but endorsed from on high by Conservative leadership (Hattenstone, 2016).

As the dust settled, Sadiq Khan had become the new Mayor of London and Labour hold a commanding position in the London Assembly. Presented as the candidate representing a diverse and inclusive London, his election confirms the stark contrast between the politics of London and the Conservative majority in Southern England won in May 2015.

The sum of these results is to say that Conservatism is far from dominant in the UK because Britain is, beyond the simplistic divisions of Westminster majorities, composed of a number of different provinces over which Conservatives do not hold sway. London is a progressive beacon in the conservative South. Scotland is dominated by a fundamental question of its identity, while Wales seems to be struggling to find its own in a post-industrial world. Across the North, Labour's former heartlands, that post-industrial world has left Labour increasingly locked in a struggle with UKIP for its soul.

The results show conservatism to be an ideology ruling others from outside, at arms reach. But they also suggest that people are still waiting for a real and clear alternative to be put forward - and for someone to stand behind it. At the moment, progressives do not have a clear alternative pitch to offer and they are too divided into factions, and parties seemingly incapable of cooperating.

There are sparks here and there that show a pitch might be formulated in time for the 2020 general election. Support for Proportional representation is widening. There is growing acknowledgement of the need to tackle the housing crisis, including the rental sector. Welfare, inequality, austerity, basic income - these are all showing up on the public radar.

The future of these ideas, of turning them into policies, will require progressives to recognise the necessity for an alliance backing a clear positive alternative. An alliance internally within Labour, an alliance between Labour and other parties, an alliance between different parties in different provinces. Britain is divided, but progressives can do what conservatives can't and unite it behind a common cause.

Local Elections: What can local government do about the housing crisis?

Government's 'Right-to-Buy' policy is a parasite feeding itself on social housing stock, another drain on the scarce resources at the disposal of local government to protect the public welfare of their communities.

Few things symbolise the UK's problems like the housing crisis. The escalating price of housing has plagued Britain for more than a decade, and has roots even deeper than the housing bubble that contributed to the 2008 Financial Crisis.

Beveridge, who had answers for so many other issues of social welfare, struggled to address the complications and implications of the housing sector (Birch, 2012). The housing benefit bill, his stop solution gap, has only escalated.

The housing crisis will be a key issue in this week's local and assembly elections. Studies released suggest confusion over the nature of the crisis, with a misplaced belief that immigrants are somehow responsible for the housing shortages and rising prices (Tigar, 2016) - rather than the more complicated reality behind the broader issue of cost living.

But there are fewer doubts about the impact of the crisis. The overwhelming majority, in a society that places emphasis on home ownership, have been disenfranchised (Helm & Doward, 2016), being effectively priced out of ever taking part. More division and social strife are not going to solve that problem.

The housing crisis, beneath the murky layer of divisive negative politics (Oborne, 2016), has dominated the London Assembly debate. As expected, that has led to candidates making grand promises and trying to find ways to work around Westminster-imposed austerity.

For instance Caroline Pidgeon, the Liberal Democrat candidate for Mayor of London, has proposed using the Olympic levy to fund the building of 50,000 homes under direct Mayor's office supervision (Hill, 2016) - to be council houses kept safe from the government's social housing draining Rent-to-Buy policy.

A similar pattern has emerged in Scotland. Devolved control over taxation is being taken as an opportunity to differentiate the country from Westminster government policy.

The opposition Labour and Lib Dems have both proposed to use new tax powers to raise tax, by a penny in the pound, to increase education funding - in stark differentiation from the cuts policy of the Westminster government. This follows into housing.

The Liberal Democrats have pledged 50,000 new homes for Scotland, with four fifths being for social rent (BBC, 2016), while Labour have pledged 60,000, with three quarters to be rented out by councils, housing associations and co-operatives (BBC, 2016{2}).

Increasing social housing stock is definitely a good idea, not least for the social security it offers. It is also one of the few ways that has been shown to help in keeping the housing benefit budget under some semblance of control (Johnson, 2015).

So far government aims to encourage home building has stalled in private hands, regardless of policy (Wright, 2016). So the question remains if these devolved institutions will have more luck than Westminster in getting developers to, effectively, act against their own interests and increase the housing supply.

That is a particularly tough ask when councils have been dealt an even shorter leash than other devolved bodies. While some powers have been handed over for various areas, the capacity to fund them has been decreased and the level to which democratic authority extends is being curtailed.

From alterations to local business rates or the administration of schools being made centrally at Westminster and imposed on local bodies (Butler, 2016; Cook, 2016), to responsibility for social care being added to the jobs of protecting front line services even as council funding is being dramatically slashed (Wintour, 2016; Oliver, 2015), local bodies are being handed new responsibilities and poor funding hand in hand.

In the face of these restrictions, how much can councils really do to help ease the housing crisis?

Well, elsewhere in Europe, municipal governments are getting organised - building horizontal alliances with other councils, pooling funds and looking for innovative solutions during times that have imposed thrift on an entire continent (Zechner & Hansen, 2016).

In Spain, Barcelona En Comu have been leading a municipalism movement that has seen it working with local citizens and other cities to overcome the hindrance of austerity. The movement, of whom Mayor Ada Colau is a member, has found innovative and resourceful solutions to increase social housing availability in the city (Rodriguez, 2016).

Westminster's support for local government has been sporadic and erratic (Wainright, 2016). To fill the gaps left in budgets, local government has to look to build new kinds of partnerships. And a spirit of cooperation will have to be a part of that.

Regardless of who wins where, all councillors and assembly members will have to be willing to work across party boundaries, and even across local government boundaries. To overcome the challenges ahead, local government needs elected figures with constructive voices who are prepared to cooperate and build alliances across the usual borderlines and divisions, in order to protect vital services and the welfare of their communities.

The Met Police's water cannon and the dangers of ideology, escalation and suppression

Earlier this week came the news that London's Metropolitan Police want permission to deploy water cannon. On their behalf, London Mayor Boris Johnson has petitioned the Home Secretary Teresa May, and it seems that a public consultation is soon to follow (Dodd, 2014; Merrill, 2014).

If the growing publicity that protests have received in the last few years, and the obvious tensions that there have been between protesters and the police at those events, are taken into account, this response from the capital's police force should not be a surprise. It should, however, make you wary.

The British Police does already employ water cannon, but only in Northern Ireland - and there only controversially. The police of many European countries use water cannon too, alongside their armed officers, their Gendarmes. Yet, so far, since their introduction by Robert Peel, the British Met Police have largely managed to refrain from becoming militarised.

Water cannon being made available for policing in the capital would mark the passing of a watershed. It marks a step towards the abandonment of civilian policing and a step towards turning the police into a paramilitary force. It would be a step towards abandoning the principle of 'policing by consent' that has underwritten law enforcement in Britain, as point four on the policing principles stresses:

'To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.'

Abandoning those principles in favour of a more militarised force risks throwing away consent in favour of suppression. That problem is only enhanced by making the extent to which the police enforce the law a political issue. Unfortunately, opinions on that matter are very much subject to ideology.

Conservatism is an ideology deeply wed to the idea that society is something constructed out of chaos by the imposition of order. The wealth of capitalism, the traditions of the establishment and the dogmas of the church all depend upon that order to function. And so, despite some apparent hypocrisy, it makes sense that the same voices that might decry 'meddling governments' for getting in the way of the unrestricted pursuit of wealth, are also the voices that are now calling for the increased armaments for the police to deal with civil unrest (Watt, 2013).

The widening gap between rich and poor is a source of fear for the poor, but it is also a source of fear for the rich. When the wealth gap is greater, the inequalities of a society are more starkly visible and more likely to provoke bitter resentment.  The struggles of the poor, as Thomas Paine (1797) pointed out, is of the deepest concern to the rich, since their affluence is directly won with the acquiescence of the poor to remaining orderly within an unequal social structure, that offers them little in the way of benefits for doing so.

As such it is unsurprising that those affiliated with conservative ideology, or those institutions such as the police, whose role is to maintain the order that conservatism craves, should want these enhanced weapons for the keeping of order. The problem with the ideologically conservative perception, though, is that it is based on an essentially negative view of human kind. Through that negative perspective it would be dangerously easy to coalesce incidents like the English Riots of 2011, with the massive political protests over the last few years in which a small minority became violent or damaged private property.

We must be wary of allowing conflicts to escalate, as the expansion of the available suppressive weapons to the police surely only encourages. We must be wary of the potential for those weapons to be missapplied, and dangers of injuries and resentments that would follow. We must be wary not to let these steps infringe upon the rights of people to protest in the name of reform, in the name of a cause, or in the name of broad institutional changes - all essential in a political process that continues to isolate people from power that is wielded nominally in their name.

We must not lose sight of the point of order. We must keep in mind what our methods say of us, of what we say to one another when we give a green light to using ever more dangerous weapons and tactics to enforce the law.