Joe Salmon, 09 December 2023, Tags:
AS EVER THIS BLOG ONLY REPRESENTS MY THOUGHTS AT TIME OF WRITING RATHER THAN THE GREEN GROUP OR ANYBODY ELSE.
So this week I’ve updated my public to do list finally https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sd6-F8V4HvaMJZ8hx1XkWNNn_-4Iat-sk4FTTB9roSo/edit?usp=sharing as ever feedback on this and what I’m working on is very welcome. Obv this public document doesn’t include casework etc.
On Friday I attended a wonderful ‘hustings’ style event at Bournemouth University. This time I was allowed to speak and answer questions properly, which was a big step forward from last time when I subbed for our candidates in East and West Southbourne earlier this year and was told at the last moment this wouldn't be acceptable because the Conservative councillors about to lose their seats thought this was unfair. You can view the video of the hustings here kindly recorded by Gordon Fong
(204) Introductions: 2023 BCP Council hustings for the West and East Southbourne wards. - YouTube
(204) Questions and Answers - West and East Southbourne hustings. - YouTube
Anyhow this hustings we were given the questions in advance, but sadly we couldn’t cover all of them or cover them in as much detail as I would have liked, so I’ve written out my responses here and will forward this post on to the organiser so they can share with the students who wrote the questions, as I think they deserve answering in full, although I would argue they are focused on the symptoms rather than root causes of our current problems. Vikki turned up for the Lib Dems, Mark for Poole People, Phil for the Tories and Sue for Labour.
One of the most frustrating things about these campaigns is how much effort Phil and Sue put into obscuring the position they / their party takes on issues. Both of them represent organisations full of xenophobic and transphobic ideas and individuals that are wedded to further austerity and the destruction of the welfare state through further austerity and marketisation, however neither of them attempt to defend this position, and instead claimed to personally mirror the position of either progressive organisations like the Lib-Dems or more radical organisations like the Greens despite being active members of political parties who oppose those positions.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/09/24/labour-party-transphobia-keir-starmer-rosie-duffield/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/racism-tory-party-allegations-b1825149.html
I thought it was interesting at one point Vikki claimed her position was occasionally seen as wishy washy (which I don't think is fair, she is consistent in her decidedly centerist principles) when frankly I find local politicians who are members of the mainstream parties inability to advocate for their own parties positions on things like immigration, economics or genocide to be far more wishy washy. Anyhow, here are the specific questions we were asked.
The short answer is No. Not within the current framework anyhow. The council is technically insolvent, in 2025 as things stand the council will be issued with a Section 114 notice, and the only reason that hasn’t happened yet is that we are currently, temporarily allowed to write off our overspend on SEND. This is the same for many councils as covered here
Revealed: The spiralling cost of a SEND broken system (schoolsweek.co.uk)
Unless we address the shortfalls in funding we cannot do anything as a local council. It also costs money to save money, and if nothing else we need to raise funds to cover the cost of repairing our local councils which currently act as little more than tendering machines for the most part, with the biggest parts of almost all department budgets being payments to third party providers.
Ultimately this can only be done through proper taxation of the wealthy, and cracking down on tax evasion via offshore banking and transnational operations. In part I think we must shift the tax burden away from wages and profits onto purchases given how easily transnational organisations mask their true profits and economic activity.
Anyhow it was very frustrating to see Labour and the Tories attempt to wiggle out of their commitment to austerity which will doom local councils and all other public services to death by underfunding when answering this question, and indeed all others. Richard Murphy sets out Labour's position much more clearly than I can here, and I’m never sure if it is cynical dishonesty or just ignorance that prompts Labour members and councillors to try to position their economic stance as something meaningfully different to that of the Tories.
Similarly the Tories have made it clear they won’t fund local councils by not funding them for the past 13 years. I’m really bad at forecasting how elections will go as I just can’t get my head around why anybody would vote for them given the destruction they’ve wrecked on our country or how people can take their promises seriously given how infrequently they deliver.
This is a straightforward question for me to answer, ultimately I want our economy reformed to put an end to the opportunities for ‘rent seeking’ behaviour. I want to see the private rental sector regulated out of existence eventually, homes are homes, not investment opportunities. We need more council houses. There just isn’t an alternative. While there is very little we can do as a council on this topic because we are flat broke and really we just need to build more council houses.
However Greens in Oxford have recently got a motion passed on bringing in rent controls Oxford City Council motion backs private tenants rent controls - BBC News
This is something I’d be very up for bringing to BCP council ASAP to pass, and I know fellow Green Sara Armstrong is working on something which I’ll be happy to support.
I thought about this question a lot, I’ve got a lot of privilege myself, and I think it’s pretty hard for me to understand voices of vulnerable groups fully, even when I hear them. I like to think I’m very visible in the community and easy to engage with, and knock on my fair share of doors, run surgeries etc.
However really I think while understanding should be the gold standard I strive towards, I think respect is a more realistic target than understanding. I think really understanding any other human is pretty much impossible, I barely understand myself let alone others. I can however treat people with respect, especially those with less privilege than myself or who are in more vulnerable positions. I can do this by giving them space to be heard, reaching out to them for their opinions, and questioning myself before questioning them.
I also think it’s very important for me to recognise my own unconscious bias. I’m a Dorset lad who lived down here until I was in my 20s and must accept subconsciously that I'm going to act on prejudiced ideas and preconceptions of people unfairly at times. To mitigate this I think it’s key that I make sure the institutions I operate within have policies in place that proactively address this inherent bias in me and others. There is a cartoon on this topic I quite like you can find here Permission to Reproduce — Center for Story-based Strategy (storybasedstrategy.org)
However I think the metaphor is a little stretched especially when it comes to ‘liberation’ etc. While I have pretty much always been in positions of privilege there have been times when I have benefited from schemes of positive discrimination. This hasn’t ever really felt like a positive experience for me, and while I recognise my experience isn’t universal, I have yet to meet anyone who had actually advocated for positive discrimination for themselves bar some of the most privileged people I’ve known who I met when I was at university studying sociology. I’ve always felt like experiencing positive discrimination has given me feelings of imposter syndrome in the spaces I’ve gained access to as a result, and given me a nagging worry that I’m resented by others who have gained access to the space on ‘merit’.
When it comes to applications of this idea I always think that rather than lower the pass mark for people from less privileged backgrounds it would be better to instead give them access to more coaching and support in advance of the exam.
I also think you need to examine the context in which the privilege / vulnerability / disadvantage exists. I think the way we approach solving this problem in the Green Party is the best if not perfect approach. For example when we select candidates we don’t insist on all female shortlists or similar, instead if the candidates who come forward aren’t as diverse as we would aim for we’ll reopen the call for nominations and make sure support is being offered to people to stand to ensure everyone is able to have the best chance possible to participate in the process. Sadly however we cannot hope to totally counterbalance the discrimination present in society given our meagre funding compared to the millions given to the mainstream political parties
General election 2019: Who is paying for the election? - BBC News
I’m always struck by the need other parties have to run all female or all non white shortlists to ensure they have representation, and think this indicates a need for their own members to examine possible bias they and their colleagues have. All women shortlists, or the tokenism of the Tories are no solution
Left behind: sexism in the Labour movement (politicshome.com)
Anyhow ultimately aside from respect, I think empowerment should be what people in positions of elected power should be looking to bring to the less privileged and vulnerable. Rather than looking to simply be an advocate for others I’d be happier creating space for them to advocate for themselves. If there is anybody reading this who wants to get elected or get their voice heard in some other way just get in touch and I’ll help you however I can.
WE WERE ONLY ALLOWED TO ANSWER YES OR NO TO THIS QUESTION!!
I was gutted about this, as I would have been very curious to hear the full opinions of others, especially given Phil’s opposition to the site proposed in his ward. I’m always amazed at how frequently people chairing these events frequently end up giving candidates from the mainstream parties an easy ride as happened today. His empathic monosyllabic yes could have done with a lot more clarification. To be fair to Phil I have been pestering him to tell me where he would rather see this site within the conurbation and he has emailed me detailing where he thinks would be a suitable alternative with a reasonable explanation as to why he hasn’t gone public yet with his thoughts, and I’m minded to respect his thinking on the topic (much as I do approach being a councillor like a bull in a chinashop sometimes I do act with some degree of caution).
His answer wouldn’t have been the only answer I’d have liked to have heard and interrogated however. The traveller community has endured generation upon generation of systematic institutional discrimination and prejudice which has made their participation in mainstream society impossible. This means, well I’m not particularly eloquent and I’ve been told I’m an awful racist anti-semite enough recently so I’ll pinch Coretta Phillips words instead given she is more informed on the topic. She explains:
“Gypsies and Travellers’ exposure to risk factors commonly associated with criminal offending put them at higher risk of engaging in crime but also being the victim of it.”
The lived experience of many people in communities that host sites for transient or settled Gypsy, Roma & Traveller groups is sometimes one of increased crime and antisocial behaviour. Instead of attempting to address or even acknowledging this problem however the ‘left’ can only ignore these issues, dismissing them as moral panics born of ignorance and prejudice. Acknowledging or addressing them would mean acknowledging and addressing the issues inherent in our capitalist system, something the mainstream ‘left’ is unable to do. Conversely the ‘right’ gleefully highlights and exaggerates any issues, but focuses only on cultural explanations rather than structural ones, and they only offer solutions that amount to little more than more institutional discrimination.
This dynamic between the left and right I would say exists for many similar problems within society which we can see play out again and again. It reminds me of one of my favourite quotes (no idea who it is from and google doesn’t help) “In the game of Patriarchy women are not the opposing team. They are the ball.".
It reminds me of how ‘left’ wing activists would dismiss concerns of working class communities about migration as racist. Again these people almost always occupied positions of privilege, they did not have to compete for work with migrants in their fields of employment, and their kids went to well funded grammar or fee paying schools where their children didn’t complain of the influx of pupils who have English as a second language.
By design the negative externalities of multiculturalism and migration are pushed onto less privileged communities, and only the ‘right’ is willing to talk about this, but again does this dishonestly ignoring the structural issues at work.
Interestingly when we covered a question on what the benefits of refugees and asylum seekers were I was reminded of the closing paragraph of this excellent article on the class politics of immigration etc
“Liberals focus only on consumer choices to celebrate other cultures: what a wonderful range of foods is now available in shops!”
Anyhow within this context I would have liked to hear how both those on the ‘left’ and ‘right’ in the room felt about the placement of the site in Phil’s ward, and what steps they felt would need to be taken to ensure this scheme works for both the Gypsy, Roma & Traveller community and the residents already present in the area. Ah well one can dream, hopefully we’ll have a chance to see this question more fully answered before too long.
Ultimately I think the ‘left’ in this country does a great disservice to vulnerable communities in this country by simply dismissing and ignoring issues they face, and leaving them ripe for exploitation by the fascist ideologies and arguments. That said at least it isn’t as bad as the dangerous approach Starmer has taken of adopting the same narrative as those on the right, looking to position Labour as just a more competent version of the Tories. Recent events in Europe and beyond have shown us that when fascist messages are co-opted by mainstream political parties this doesn’t mean more votes from the disenfranchised for those parties, but instead the mainstreaming of fascist organisations potentially leading them to thrive as rich and powerful capitalists turn to fascists to protect them from the masses attempting to use democracy to redistribute their extreme wealth.
Again this is a money issue. The council is flat broke and cannot afford to carry these out at the required rate. The same question could be asked of what we would have each done to clear the backlog of applications for school crossings, new park equipment and a host of other services provided by the council.
I think I’ve probably said above already that the solution is a wealth tax, something that Labour and the Tories will not do (despite this being a very popular policy, Labour are simply controlled opposition).
Labour rules out wealth tax if party wins next election - BBC News
Aside from the environment the economy is the next big topic, and taxing the very rich, wealth redistribution and a citizens’ income are the only genuine solutions.
Mark said exactly what I thought on this question. Refugees and Asylum Seekers are set up to fail by our government. It is impossible for them to contribute to any community effectively.
The truth about asylum - Refugee Council
I’m very happy to support the ‘lift the ban’ campaign, and again would be very happy to bring a motion to council on this
Lift the Ban - Activism Pack (refugee-action.org.uk)
However ultimately we can do naff all as a council. There is a much more interesting debate to be had about how we empower our communities, and I am fast coming to the conclusion this can only be done, and will be done outside of our existing political system. As I’ve already hinted at before I’m a little uncomfortable with the fetishisation of other cultures that you find within liberal circles. I also have to admit to being very impressed by Vikki’s answer explaining how she and Paul have taken on Ukraininan and Iranian refugees. I don’t agree with her neoliberal ideas, but cannot fault her work ethic and principles.
A joined up approach is key here. We cannot currently identify innovations that scale because our data maturity isn’t there. Even when we do get the funding once we’ve taken control of the economy again we’d need to do this first to determine what would be sensible to do
Anybody interested in this topic would do well to check out Spreading & scaling innovation in the NHS - Innovation Unit
Back to more concrete solutions though I am very interested in trying something like the ‘give me some credit’ scheme that was tried up in Leeds. I have mentioned it to Kieron who is the responsible portfolio holder, but I’ve not chased it up.
The Leeds teams up with St George's Crypt | BestAdvice
I’m well aware this is probably unreadably long already, so I’ll just stress again that the solution to this problem is ultimately an economic one.
Legalising drugs is key in breaking the hold criminal gangs have on sections of public life. Alongside this a public health approach to addiction, rather than criminalising it, is the best way to help reduce direct harm through the consumption of drugs. There is a lot I’d like to write here but I’m going to attempt to get out bright and early today with the kids so we’re done in time to make it to the Brass Haus to watch Liverpool play. So I’m going to point you towards this Q&A document on Green Policy on the topic rather than regurgitate these ideas at you
https://livingroom.greenparty.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/83/2021/07/Drug-Policy-Doorstep-QA.pdf
The only thing I’d add is that removing the sale of drugs as a way for criminals to make money would go a long way to tackling police corruption, which I believe is key to the successful operation of organised crime in this country. We accept now that in the 60s 70s and 80s police corruption was rife, with the murder of Daniel Morgan by corrupt police finally now coming to light
However within popular culture and political discourse we imagine this disappeared without any major change or reforms. I know I’m often accused of being cynical, but I can’t help but feel that given the chronic underfunding of the police and huge amounts of money sloshing about in organised crime that there are still massive problems with police corruption.
Every meeting I've had with the police since being elected has been positive, but frustrating. Officers almost always know what they need to do to tackle a problem, but then explain they cannot do this due to being constrained by resources. I’m still very disappointed at the crazy insistence by Tory local councillors at having a massive police presence at the last full council meeting because there were some noisy protests outside when resources are so stretched, every officer there that evening would have otherwise been working elsewhere across Dorset doing genuine police work.
I’m not sure if it came across but I would say there was a clear difference between myself and Mark compared to the other politicians in my mind. At one point Phil characterised my position as “wanting to blow everything up and start again”. I’d say my position is that of recognising that the system is falling apart regardless and that we need to build something new now instead. Similarly while Vikki, Sue and Phil all seem to start from a position of what they think can be done within our broken system, myself and Mark start from a position of identifying what needs to be done, and then overcoming any barriers to doing so, rather than considering those barriers as reason enough to abandon hope. That said I didn’t speak to Mark much after the event, so may well be unfairly lumping him in with me.
NON HUSTING STUFF
Anyhow that’s my slightly more collected thoughts on the questions I was asked. On the budget I’m still waiting on a meeting with the relevant officer to talk through the budget and if it does cover the required spending for net zero in a realistic timeframe, and once we’ve had that discussion I think we’ll take a position as a Green Group.
On the local plan I’ve emailed the relevant officers about the local plan, following its discussion at O&S (where I must say Kate did a fantastic job of bringing the voice of reason). It was seems pretty clear to me the document is lacking. You can watch the discussion and meeting here
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=609&MId=5779&Ver=4
I’ll bring this up hopefully when the plan comes to cabinet, although I’m not sure if I've passed a silly arbitrary deadline on making comments or asking questions at cabinet (I’m still not enjoying council bureaucracy or processes). I was surprised that a couple of developers were asked to rock up to the meeting to give their opinions, and at times wondered if it was a piece of performance art, such did they embody many of the negative stereotypes about ignorant greedy developers. I was also very disappointed the meeting took so long, especially as you could feel people in the room grow tired and the quality of discussion and decision making drop while there was still important material to be covered. I really felt for poor Stephen as Chair towards the end, he’d done his reading and prepared some high quality material, but by the time it was covered I wouldn’t have trusted the group to collectively do their weekly shop online let alone scrutinise such a complex document. I’m reminded of my first thoughts on hearing the council had such silly long meetings and the proposal I came up with
https://docs.google.com/document/d/109eAEWquV59OEvaM8XKpDwOZyX-hde6Uh5XDkwzoTGQ/edit?usp=sharing
I really think we should think about doing something to avoid this happening again. Splitting the session into two three hour meetings would have been much more sensible.
Aside from that I’m still concerned we’re not addressing the climate emergency or the economic crisis. In part this is due to a lack of political will and understanding, with some councillors in denial about the urgency of the situation, but also in part this is simply due to our political systems and structure not being set up to respond quickly or radically enough. Addressing these systematic issues is becoming more and more urgent. In my gut I feel we are going to simply have to stand up to the central government as local authorities sooner rather than later, we’re far more representative of the electorate, and the conflict I feel is inevitable while we have this zombie government in charge.
For example the only arguments I’ve heard against setting a sensible budget that covers the spending we need to achieve net zero, mitigate against climate change and maintain decent standards of council services through demanding more money from central government to cover that spend or simply ignoring the existing rules and borrowing to fund this spending is that as soon as we embark on this course of action we would be issued with a section 114 notice and some evil commissioners will come in and shut down all the council services.
This feels like bullying and coercion to me, and I’m not really up for being bullied into making stupid decisions.
Find out more
