Labour London ?
By EDWARD HODGKIN
LONDONERS may be relied on to betray less interest in the London County Council elections than they do in the almost simultaneous Boat Race. In one way this is illogical of them, since the election results concern them a good deal, and the result of the Boat Race not at all. Yet in another way this indifference is understandable, simply because local government in this country is not conducted, as it is in some other countries, along lines designed to stir the passions. Perhaps if it was pointed out to the people of London that the elections on April 3rd have certain similarities with the race on March 29th, their interest might perk up. The elections are a triennial affair; it is a contest between Left and Right, and has been going on since 1888. In the course of these 68 years there have been some exciting races, some boats have almost sunk, and there has been one dead-heat. There has also in the last eighteen years been an unbroken line of Labour successes, which prompts the question, " What is wrong with Conservative electioneering ? "
To do the Conservatives justice, they came very near last time—in 1949—to breaking the Labour sequence of victories. Nineteen-forty-nine was dead-heat year. When the last votes had been counted, it was discovered that 64 Labour Councillors and 64 Conservative Councillors had been elected. The balance of power was held by the solitary Liberal Councillor, Sir Percy Harris. While the Conservatives were busily engaged in proving themselves the spiritual heirs of Lord Rosebery, the Council proceeded to the first business of the day, which was to elect a new Chairman. As Aldermen who are not due to retire are able to vote on this question, Labour had no difficulty in securing the election of one of its defeated candi- dates as Chairman, and after that all was plain sailing. His casting vote was used to create new Labour Aldermen, and the Labour majority was secure for another three years. The gentlest thing that can be said about this piece of sharp practice is that it was not wholly consistent with the ideals of the men and women who brought the L.C.C. into being.
On the analogy of the "one more good heave" technique, next week's elections should put Labour out of County Hall. But hardly anybody seems to expect that this will happen. Nobody, whatever party he may belong to, likes to prophesy about local government elections, because the only safe prophecy he can make is that less than half the electorate will bother to vote. And the reasons which do bring people out to vote are usually not the sort that can be predicted in advance by public-opinion pollsters. It is difficult to picture a citizen of London closing his door behind him and marching off to record his vote against the civic restaurants, for example, or in favour of the comprehensive schools. If he votes at all it is more likely to be because he happens to pass the polling- booth, or because something not connected with local politics at all has stirred him into action—and usually to the action of a protest. Thus there can be little doubt that one of the main reasons why the Conservatives came so near to success in 1949, and why the poll was so unusually heavy (40 per cent.), was that on the day before the elections Sir Stafford Cripps had introduced a Budget which, because among other things it put a ceiling on food subsidies, was Considered a severe one. If there are Labour supporters in London today who think that Mr. Butler has been unfair to them they may well prefer to register a protest now rather than wait a few years for a Parliamentary opportunity for doing so. This may be all very muddle-headed, but then local govern- ment is muddled. The two most important subjects which are dealt with by any County Council are housing and educa- don. But it is extremely difficult for any elector to find out whom to praise or blame for the house he can't get or the school his child goes to. Policy and finance are the mixed responsibility of Whitehall, the L.C.C. and the local Borough Councils; there is no clear-cut division. In the same way the National Health Service Act has created (for the voter at any rate) an inextricable muddle in the health services; the L.C.C. is responsible for the ambulance services but not for hospitals; for midwives but not for dentists, and so on. The L.C.C. is also an exception among County Councils in that it has a responsibility for sewers, but unless there is a cholera epidemic most Londoners will remain ignorant of this hereditary distinction of theirs.
So what are • the issues at next week's election? A com- parison of the Labour and Conservative election manifestos shows that as far as civic pride goes there is nothing to choose between the two parties. "London," says the Labour manifesto. "The name calls forth a response in the hearts of all true Londoners. Our city is famed throughout the world." "London," says the Conservative manifesto, "is a fine city. It deserves to be finely governed." So far, so good. The Labour Party has also produced a sixpenny pamphlet, called Carry on Labour L.C.C.!, wilich, from its illustrations and much of its letter-press, gives the impression that all the inhabitants of London are either under five years of age or over eighty. All these helpless citizens are being splendidly looked after with sand-pits and rest-homes—amenities which the " mean-souled Tory politicians" would like to see ruth- lessly slashed. This is a hint at the theme of economy which runs through the Conservative manifesto. It is certainly true that Labour in London shares the belief of Labour in the rest of the country that the best of everything is not only desirable but also possible. It would be very strange if, after eighteen years of Labour rule, there was not room for painless economies, and the Labour Council's chronic over-budgeting suggests that their own plans have frequently been over- ambitious—and, incidentally, suggests one obvious method of reducing the rates.
On the two most important issues—housing and education— the argument is, however, more a national than a local one. The figures of houses built and families still waiting in London are of the sort which can be paralleled from almost every Council in Britain. Labour claims to have built nearly 50,000 homes in London since the war; the Conservatives point out that there are still 169,000 families on the L.C.C. waiting-list. What is more important is the sort of homes that are to be built. Labour has built mainly flats; the Conservatives want to build more houses. London is the only housing authority in England which lacks the power to issue private building licences. The Conservatives would like to remedy this to take full advantage of the 50.-50 ratio between private and municipal building which is permissible everywhere else. In the same way the argument about education mainly centres around the merits of comprehensive secondary-schools. It is an argument which has been heard at great length up and down the country, and which is probably still very little understood by the parents of the children who will be affected by its outcome. It is an argument which is not made any clearer by being mixed up in politics.
Perhaps what helps to give a sense of unreality to everything connected with the L.C.C. is the apparent remoteness of the ultimate problems. Now that we are in for, at best, a fairly long period of financial stringency, these ultimate problems fade into the remotest future. But in the long run they are the only ones that matter. Does the Abercrombie Plan make sense ? Is a planned and zoned community likely to be better or happier than one which isn't ? How many people should be allowed to live in London, and• who should have the power to decide which families to include and which to exclude. Is the L.C.C. the right body to decide any of these problems ? Should not its admittedly ridiculous boundaries be redrawn, and if so how ? Some, of these questions may be asked before April 3rd, but what happens on that date is unlikely to answer any of them.
Previous page
