Public Meeting: CEASEFIRE NOW-SAVE GAZA 31st October, Harrow with Jeremy Corbyn

 

Listening to Brent Labour thinking about tomorrow.

With the Labour Party moving to the right ahead of the next General Election I have met a great number of unhappy local members recently some of whom have left the party and are looking for a new 'home'. Others intend to stay and fight for the policies they believe in, so I was interested in last Saturday's talk by Mike Phipps of Brent Central CLP about his book 'Don't stop thinking about tomorrow - the Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn'.  The meeting was chaired by Alex Colas, Brent CLP Political Education Officer who posed several questions to Phipps before wider contributions and questions from the small audience. Several ex-Labour councillors were in the audeince but no current councillors.

 

Taken together Phipp's answers produce a narrative:

 

After the 2017 General Election although Labour lost the result was treated by the party as a victory because of its high vote for Corbyn's policies. Instead, the party should have analysed the missing demographics in its vote. Corbyn's rejection of personal attacks on rivals meant that he failed to address Johnson's dishonesty. The left no longer controls Labour Party policy but the right, bereft of policies of their own, are dipping into the left's. 

 

Starmer has developed an unpleasant, imposed regime but Labour can win the next election. The scale of the crisis means that you can't have a 'steady as you go' strategy - the crisis needs something more radical. In the recent local elections, the areas where Labour was most radical were the ones where Labour did proportionally better.  The move to the right means that Labour is losing graduate voters and the core vote is in danger.

 

Policies on housing, green transition and the NHS are important, but the real battle will be overfinancing them. The problem is that Labour is not committing to any more money. Will Starmer hit the rich or change the commitment?

 

The left needs to go on the attack over the money.

 

Differences between Welsh and Scottish Labour and UK Labour are widening with separate approaches. I don't support an alliance with the Liberal Democrats because of past history and thinks a trick was missed with the Greens in 2019. 

 

The Corbyn leadership was a once in a lifetime moment. More than 20,000 came into the party and about the same number have gone out. Some have stayed and got involved in local government, others have stepped back, and some have got involved in other parties. If Starmer fails to win a majority at the General Election, it is likely that the party will become factional.

 

The issue of the anti-semitism label should have been killed off immediately but Corbyn was poorly advised by his Comms people. After 2017 he should have brought in top-notch staff with a Chief of Staff committed to his agenda.  Instead, the staff had too many agendas of their own.

 

 Contributions from the audience were varied. Phipp's responses in brackets:

 

The fake allegations of anti-semitism were a step too far for me and I have kind of given up on parliamentary politics. Starmer is not challenging the establishment. I am despondent beyond measure. [Starmer is to the left of Blair on many issues. Labour began to lose votes under Miliband because of pro-Palestine policies. They should have been more aware of losing those votes. Surveys showed Labour voters queasy about Starmer.]

 

You said that you thought Labour would win the General Election. It is not likely to be an overall majority, and this strengthens the case for PR. What is the position of the local party on PR?  [Brent Central CLP narrowly passed a motion in support of PR. Personally in favour. Labour for PR doesn't punch its full weight and trade union support for PR has been more important. Unfortunately, after the last experience I don't think a Referendum on PR would be won.]

 

I am opposed to Starmer because he is not a good lawyer.  His record shows (e.g., Menezes shooting) that he has no moral sense regarding the big issues.

 

The reason for decline is the decline of trade unions. Need to build them up through developing single union across the sectors - multiple unions as in NHS means government/employers can divide and rule. Class politics should override identity politics.   I know others won’t agree but immigration should be opposed for class reasons as was initially the case with trade unions - it lowers wages and employers are therefore in favour. [Research evidence is that immigration does not depress wage levels.]

 

 John McDonnell gave a well-received talk here at the Learie Constantine Centre across parties. What is his role now and could the left coalesce around his leadership, particularly on economics. [Since Corbyn and McDonnell are following their separate interest of international issues and economic policy now. McDonnell is part of the old generation and there is a new generation from the Miliband era such as Richard Burgon. Such a person is more likely to come from the centre, rather than the centre-left.]

 

Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow - Mike Phipps, OR Books

 

The Left and the Labour Party After Jeremy Corbyn - Kensal Rise Library, Saturday May 20th 2pm-3.30pm

 

 

Dr Mike Phipps will be in conversation with Professor Alex Colas about Mike’s book Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: The Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn (OR Books, 2022).

With time for Q and A and contributions from the floor.

 

 

 

Much has been written about the four and a half years of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, but far less analysis has appeared on the tumultuous events since. This discussion will consider the reasons behind Labour’s 2019 defeat, from longer term factors like the international decline of social democracy and the loss of long-held Labour seats in the post-industrial ‘red wall’, to more immediate issues such as the leadership of Corbyn, the role played by Brexit, and Labour’s policies and campaign. We  will also look at how the left stands since then and what it needs to do to regain its sense of purpose.

 

Time; 2pm – 3.30pm

 

Date: Saturday May 20th

 

Venue: The Dave Williams Room, Kensal Rise Library, Bathurst Gardens, London NW10.

Nearest stations: Kensal Green; Kensal Rise. Buses: 187, 6, 52, 302, 18.

 

Refreshments provided.

 

Mike Phipps is a member of Brent Central Labour Party and of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy Executive Committee. He is co-editor of the Labour Hub website.

 

Alex Colas teaches international politics at Birkbeck, University of London and is political education officer for Brent Central Labour Party.

 

Signed copies of the book, which can also be ordered at https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/dont-stop-thinking-about-tomorrow/, will be available on the day.

Brent Central CLP 'deplores' removal of whip from Jeremy Corbyn and calls for its restoration

 

 

Brent Central Constituency Labour Party has passed the following motion regarding the removal of the parliamentary whip from Jeremy Corbyn:

Brent Central CLP welcomes the reinstatement of Jeremy Corbyn to the Labour Party.

We believe that Jeremy Corbyn is a man who has for decades championed powerfully the values of anti-racism, internationalism and solidarity, as both a Labour MP and the Leader of the Labour Party. We express our solidarity to him, and all those who have campaigned for his reinstatement.

We therefore deplore Keir Starmer's unwarranted intervention to deny Jeremy Corbyn's parliamentary whip. At a time when we should be fighting the pernicious effects of austerity, privatisation and failing capitalism, this decision – which does not seem to be grounded in truth nor justice – greatly damages the labour movement.

We call on Keir Starmer to immediately restore Jeremy Corbyn's parliamentary whip.

Barry Gardiner reacts to 'Beijing Bling' story with 'no impropriety' statement

Barry Gardiner Labour MP for Brent North is honoured today with a front page splash, double page inside splash and an editorial in the Times newspaper.

The story claims that Gardiner, currently Shadow International Trade Secretary has received more than £180,000 in staff costs from the law firm Christine Lee and Co that acts as chief legal adviser to the Chinese embassy.

Further it is claimed that this partly funds the salary of Lee's son who works in Gardiner's Westminster Office.

The Times draws attention to Gardiner's championing of Chinese involvement in the Hinckley Point nuclear project.  Clearly that is also sensitive to his previous role as Shadow Energy and Climate Change minister as well as his current international trade post.

In its editorial entitled Beijing Bling the Times says:

If the commercial relationship and Mr Gardiner's positions on China were merely coincidental, it betrays not venality so much as naivety.  China has repeatedly demonstrated its appetite for overt interference in the domestic affairs of other countries in order to further its commercial interests and buttress its ambition for global superpower status. Its world-beating credential in cyberespionage and penchant for intellectual property theft are well-established.

This blog has in the past been critical of Gardiner's close relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi LINK  and clearly in his current role as shadow international trade secretary he has to be very careful to avoid any accusations of bias.

On the other hand devoting all this space to a story which the Times itself admits includes 'no suggestion of impropriety' may be part of the anti-Corbyn strategy of the Murdoch press. Gardiner is the only survivor of the three Brent MPs who were in Corbyn's shadow team until the Article 50 vote and several other shadow ministers have resigned or may face sacking as a result of the rebellion. Adding to that turmoil the forced resignation or sacking of a Corbyn loyalist, who has recently received some plaudits for his media appearances, may be the intention.

Today Gardiner placed this statement on his website LINK:

“Christine Lee & Co have generously supported my work as a Member of Parliament over many years since we first worked together to fight against plans to redevelop Oriental City and the loss of homes, livelihoods and community ties in Brent. The firm has enabled me to appoint a strong research support team to hold the government to account. This has always been transparently and appropriately recorded in the register of members’ interests. The Times article has revealed nothing that was not already in the public domain and they themselves admit that the secondment of staff was properly declared and state that “there is no suggestion of impropriety”.

We are likely to know tomorrow whether a complaint to the parliamentary standards commissioner, Kathryn Hudson, will result in an investogation.                                                    

WANTED: Councils to take the lead in campaigning against cruel cuts to local government

-->

Just over a year ago Labour leaders Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell issued their instruction to Labour councillors that in the face of cuts to government funding of local authorities that they should set legal budgets - in effect implement cuts.   This was accompanied by talk of leading a mass movement of councillors against austerity and the cuts.    At the same time many independent activists and some from smaller left parties, including the Greens, had joined Labour or Momentum seeing it as the only way to oppose austerity.

The campaign never materialised but the 'legal budget' edict disarmed critics of Labour council cuts. The impact of cuts can be clearly seen in terms of  closure of  youth provision, closure of libraries, the increase in pot-holed roads in many city areas as well as the crisis in social care and the out-sourcing and privatisation of services.  Many activists who would have been in the forefront of campaigns are now involved in the debilitating  internal Labour and Momentum struggles.

At the time a Green Left colleague wrote LINK

No doubt JC & JM feel that they “have no choice” as 95%+ of their councillors support this approach. But it does undermine those trade unionists and campaigners actively arguing for them to stand up to the Tories. It implies there is no choice, when of course there is a choice. Labour has over 100 Councils. If Labour nationally opposed the cuts and organised some or all of its councils to refuse to implement them, there is absolutely no way the Government could send in Commissioners to run them all. It would provoke a huge national debate on the cuts and local democracy, and have the potential to force the Government to back down partly or wholly. As it is, right-wing Labour councillors are tweeting the letter to attack anyone on the Left campaigning against the cuts.  

In the end, the problem with the JC letter is that it completely understates the scale of the attack on local government and local democracy. This is not “business as usual”, a few nasty cuts etc.  This is a once in a lifetime, permanent dismantling and shrinkage of the local state, a huge extension of privatisation of local services and an undermining of local democracy itself - there is little point in having locally elected councillors if their job is (from Nicholas Ridley’s famous quote): “to meet once a year to hand out the contracts”.  

The only silver lining in the letter is its appeal for councillors to support local campaigners (even if this is clearly contradictory to their councillors supporting cuts budgets!) and to be organising mass campaigns against local government cuts. This gives an opportunity to campaigners to point out that Labour councillors are only doing one half of the message from the JC letter, and not the other.

Michael Calderbank, of Brent Central Labour Party and a Momentum supporter responded:

Well, yes, I tend to agree with your Green Left colleague. But in order to have dictated terms to local councillors, JC and JMc would have need there to be a mass campaign against local cuts. At long last they are trying to kick the Labour LGA into actually running a political campaign - all too often it's as though Labour councillors have forgotten they are members of a political party and just presented themselves as competent and compassionate administrators, powerless to do better in the circumstances. Frankly it's no good claiming to be an anti-austerity party in opposition whilst going along with it where we're in power.

Soon Brent Labour will be selecting candidates to stand in the 2018 local election and the candidate's stance on cuts will be a test for those who joined Labour in the Corbyn. One current anti-Corbyn councillor has already announced that he will not stand again and will move out of Brent. Those elected will have been left a legacy of cuts to be implemented in their first year:

Source Brent Budget Scrutiny Report

Bristol Green Party, in a city facing damaging cuts again this year, yesterday returned to the need for a national campaign LINK:

As January blues begin to kick in and the grim extent of the cuts to Bristol City Council becomes even clearer, Green councillors have responded to the Mayor’s Corporate Strategy consultation 2017-2022  calling for bold opposition and creative alternatives to the downward spiral of austerity. 

Greens are warning that the £92 million cuts forced on the Council by the Tory austerity programme will devastate public services across Bristol. The Greens are calling upon Bristol’s Mayor to take a leading role in opposing national austerity alongside other cities, networks, unions and progressive parties. They have also put forward an alternative vision for local government financing, including calls for a return of unallocated business rates to local government and for Bristol to receive its fair share of infrastructure spending. 

Leader of the Green Councillor Group, Charlie Bolton said:

Further cuts to the council will destroy many of the public services we all rely on. Services for older people, those with disabilities, our young people and children will all be slashed. Local traffic schemes that keep our children safe as they walk to school, well-loved library services and the parks that provide the ‘green lungs’ for our city will all be affected.

But it doesn’t have to be like this. These cruel cuts to our services are a choice that is being made by this Tory Government – to dismantle our public services instead of raising money by closing tax loopholes, reforming our finance system, bringing good growth to our economy or increasing tax for the top 1%. Essential public services are being abandoned, yet Government remains committed to the soaring costs of replacing Trident, building a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point and developing the HS2 vanity project.  

Molly Scott Cato, MEP, Green Party Economics Spokesperson and Green Parliamentary Candidate for Bristol West said:

We know austerity is a downward spiral. As you cut the state you reduce job quality and tax revenue, leading to less money available for investment, which in turn cuts the state still further. It’s time to say loud and clear that austerity has failed and that we value our public services and believe they should be properly funded. 

Tony Dyer, Green Party Local Government Spokesperson and Green Parliamentary candidate for Bristol South added: 

Many of our cities are being disproportionally affected by Tory cuts. Bristol has already suffered three times more cuts than neighbouring authorities. The 10 Core Cities outside London are all run by Labour. They are home to almost 19 million people and contribute more than a quarter of the combined wealth of England, Wales and Scotland – so why aren’t we seeing more vocal opposition to this latest unjust assault on our services? We call upon Bristol’s Mayor to take the leading role in opposing national austerity alongside other cities, networks, unions and progressive parties.

Figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies demonstrate that cuts have not been shared equally across the country LINK  

Political Literacy – An end to apathy?

Matteo Bergamini of Shout Out UK

The need for political education is an issue that has become more pressing as a result of the events of 2016 both here and in the US.  In this guest blog Matteo Bergamini outlines the case for Political Literacy.

It has been an incredible year for politics. Pre-2016 we had the first coalition government to grace No.10 since the Second World War; we have witnessed the utter obliteration of the third largest party in the UK, the Liberal Democrats who, in 2015 shrank into irrelevance. We also witnessed the resurgence of the great left and right debate with the growth or right wing movements like UKIP and the rise of Jeremy Corbyn. This year alone, we saw two incredible anti-establishment votes, with Britain deciding to leave the European Union and Donald Trump being elected as the next US president, both occurring after two tumultuous campaigns. The referendum had a profound effect on the country and us, the British People. Yet were we qualified to make such a decision?

We live in a society where the majority of people gain their political information from their parents, whom vote Labour or Conservative because of their out of date belief in what the parties stood for years ago, the media, and vote due to vague social customs. Politics unfortunately has remained the playground of the financially better off and while the sons and daughters of the higher echelons of society are educated in politics, the rest of us are not, creating a division, which can be seen when looking at the background of MPs and the ever expanding Oxbridge bubble in Parliament.

Yet, the issue becomes bigger because everyone in our democracy is entitled to a vote, hence, the divide not only secures the political industry for the elite, but it also lets loose a very politically illiterate populace during elections and referendums, leaving us vulnerable to decisions fuelled by misinformation, media spins, and ignorance. It is clear that this can't carry on if we wish to have and continue to hold on to a healthy democracy. The real issue here is a lack of political education in all but the top end schools.

From my experience, people, especially young people, are interested in politics, but lack an understanding due to this society-induced ignorance. Currently, we assume that once we hit 18 years of age we suddenly become enlightened with all the political knowledge one needs to vote and engage. Of course, this not the case, it needs to be taught and understood in school as a compulsory subject. We treat English and Maths in very high regard, as two of the most important subjects. However, the one subject that allows us to be who we want to be, gives us a voice and creates a society we wish to live in, we give no time to in schools.

The issue is that political literacy would give us, the next generation, a clear understanding of what politics is, how our society works and why voting is relevant and important. There have been some incredible initiatives recently by the UK government around voter registration and getting young people to vote. Yet, screaming at us to vote without telling us why or how society and politics works seems a little premature. Like asking someone to run a marathon before being able to walk. You can't get an entire generation mobilized without first giving them the instruments to understand the system they are supposed to be influencing.

We, Shout Out UK, aim to combat this, and this year we launched our course entitled Political Literacy. The course aims to get more young people interested and engaged in Politics, by teaching them about the processes in Politics, public speaking and debating. The young people we taught were more engaged and passionate about politics because they were taught it, they understand it now and even more important than that was longevity, they stuck with it rather than being involved sporadically over the course of one election or referendum. Politics takes times and only when you are taught this, will you have the patience to stomach it.

Roisin Murray a Teacher at Bentley Wood High School, Harrow, said,  “Understanding Politics is key to understanding how society works. Shout Out UK’s Political Literacy Course supports students in developing their political awareness so they can take a more active role in society. After sitting in on several lessons with Shout Out UK and our students, I can honestly say it has been a fantastic opportunity for our students to develop their knowledge and awareness of current affairs as well as their ability to speak in public, debate and present a discussion coherently. This has also helped students to develop their self-esteem and confidence.”

Maybe it’s time we look at the issue seriously, rather than just around elections and referendums. The issue is not apathy itself, it’s why apathy happens. Apathy amongst young people happens because the system has become so complex, that people no longer understand it and so get frustrated by it. We must give schools the tools necessary to deal with this issue because no matter how many times you scream at someone to vote, if that person does not understand the system or why you should vote, he or she will never be engaged in the long run, even though they may vote the one time you asked them to.

It’s the modern equivalent to the old proverb, 'give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and you feed him for a life time'. In a similar fashion, if we ask them to vote, they will do it once before getting bored or disillusioned, but if we give them the tools to understand the system they will remain engaged for a life time.

About the Author: Matteo Bergamini

Matteo Bergamini is a multi-award winning entrepreneur and political literacy activist. He has a degree in Politics & History, as well as a Graduate Diploma in Law from the University of Brunel. He has worked on a number of projects from the Channel 4 Youth Leaders’ Debate to the creation of a Political Literacy Course, accredited by AQA. An avid promoter of political discourse and literacy amongst young people, he was invited to become a fellow of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce for his work in encouraging political education amongst young people.

This year, Shout Out UK launched their AQA endorsed political literacy course to local schools in order to better educate young people in politics and encourage a longstanding interest and understanding politics. The course covers British Politics, International Relations as well as Employability. If you would like more information on the course please visit: http://www.shoutoutuk.org/political-literacy-course/  

Labour stifles the anti-cuts movement

A year ago I published a piece on Wembley Matters which asked what Jeremy Corbyn, then the new Labour leader, would do about local council cuts.  I drew attention to the contradiction that under him Labour claimed to be an anti-austerity party while local Labour councils were implementing the Tory austerity agenda by making cuts to services. LINK

In December last year Corbyn and McDonnell, responding to pressure from local council leaders who in turn were under pressure from anticuts campaigns, threw the towel in and wrote to Labour councillors telling them to set 'legal' budgets:

Failing to do so can lead to complaints against councillors under the Code of Conduct, judicial review of the council and, most significantly, government intervention by the Secretary of State.

It would mean either council officers or, worse still, Tory ministers deciding council spending priorities. Their priorities would certainly not meet the needs of the communities which elected us.

In effect this meant implenting cuts.

In March this year, just as Councils were formally approving budgets, the People's Assembly Against Austerity LINK  asked councillors to sign the following letter:

As Councillors we believe this Tory Government's ideological opposition to public services lies behind the deliberate underfunding of Local Authorities.

Councils have faced unprecedented cuts; Local Authority grants in England have been slashed, with £12.5 billion of cuts and half a million Council workers losing their jobs since 2010. Osborne has forced through 40% cuts to Council budgets meaning that local authorities face the reality of cutting frontline services including Adult Social Care and Children's Services, leaving those that rely on them at risk.

We believe that austerity is a political choice. We oppose all cuts from Westminster and believe Osborne’s plans for Local Government will only make a bad situation worse.

We call on the government to reverse cuts to council funding so we are able to provide essential services our communities rely on. Furthermore we call for an end to austerity that is seeing living standards for the majority fall.

Given the Labour leadership's instruction this meant paper opposition only, although councils tried to find alternatives by rising charges and rents and finally raising council tax. This still meant of course that the poor were paying for austerity - but by a different route.

The situation is now worse as a result of cuts in real terms to local authority education grants. LA education budgets have not been increased to take account of increased pension and national insurance contributions or the increasing number of pupils in schools.

The anti-cuts movement had argued for councils to refuse to set budgets, set illegal budgets or devise a needs based budget, as an alternative to making cuts. This to be accompanied by a mass campaign involving councillors, trade unions, voluntary organisations and the public. 

In practical terms combining the two approaches didn't work because no group of councillors took the former approach although some individual councillors voted against budgets losing the whip as a consequence.  It was then difficult for local Labour parties to mobilise the public against cuts when they themselves had implemented them.

This year, by agreeing to the freezing of the Revenue Support Grant and the associated four year action plans, councils have accepted the government cuts and boxed gthemselves in for 4 years.

The Labour National Executive Committee has now strengthened control over Labour councillors with the following  rule change:

Members of the Labour group in administration must comply with the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and subsequent revisions and shall not vote against or abstain on a vote in full council to set a legal budget proposed by the administration.

Members of the Labour group shall not support any proposal to set an illegal budget. Any councillor who votes against or abstains on a Labour group policy decision in this matter may face disciplinary action.

My interpretation of this is that when in opposition Labour groups can decide to vote against cuts budgets but where Labour is in power individual Labour councillors cannot vote against cuts budget.  These are not just any cuts, these are Labour cuts - and therefore preferable?

I searched in vain for any reference to challenging cuts and mobilising mass campaings in Jeremy Corbyn's Conference speech.  I publish the section on local councils in full. He praises local councils for what they have done despite the cuts and describes (rather than advocates) some councils' decisions to take services back in-house. In doing so he says that this is cheaper and preserves working conditions. However this presents difficulties as year after year Labour administrations have argued that out-sourcing to private providers has saved council tax payers money whilst not acknowledging that lowert costs have been achieved by lower wages, worse working conditions, poor pensions etc.  

Even worse some councils have argued that the private and voluntary sector is more able to respond to local need in araes such as youth provision and social care.

Already, across the country, Labour councils are putting Labour values into action, in a way that makes a real difference to millions of people, despite cynical government funding cuts that have hit Labour councils five times as hard as Tory-run areas.

Like Nottingham City Council setting up the not-for-profit Robin Hood Energy company to provide affordable energy;

Or Cardiff Bus Company taking 100,000 passengers every day, publicly owned with a passenger panel to hold its directors to account;

Or Preston Council working to favour local procurement, and keep money in the town;

Or Newcastle Council providing free wi-fi in 69 public buildings across the city;

Or Croydon Council which has set up a company to build 1,000 new homes, as Cllr Alison Butler said: “We can no longer afford to sit back and let the market take its course”.

Or Glasgow that has established high quality and flexible workspaces for start-up, high growth companies in dynamic new sectors.

Or here in Liverpool, set to be at the global forefront of a new wave of technology and home to Sensor City, a £15million business hub that aims to create 300 start-up businesses and 1,000 jobs over the next decade.

It is a proud Labour record each and every Labour councillor deserves our heartfelt thanks for the work they do.

But I want to go further because we want local government to go further and put public enterprise back into the heart of our economy and services to meet the needs of local communities, municipal socialism for the 21st century, as an engine of local growth and development.

So today I’m announcing that Labour will remove the artificial local borrowing cap and allow councils to borrow against their housing stock.

That single measure alone would allow them to build an extra 12,000 council homes a year.

Labour councils increasingly have a policy of in-house as the preferred provider and many councils have brought bin collections, cleaners, and IT services back in-house, insourcing privatized contracts to save money for council tax payers and to ensure good terms and conditions for staff.

Corbyn's election campaign inspired many independent activists (and not a few Green Party members) to join the Labour Party and gave the left inside the Labour Party fresh energy. 

The problem now is that on the ground, and impacting on the poor, they face 4 more years of local government cuts, 'efficiencies' where fewer workers do the same or increased amounts of work, council tax rises, increased service charges, dodgy regeneration projects to increase the council tax base and privatisation.

Maintaining the morale of new recruits in such circumstances will present a real challenge.

A homogeneous Green Party leadership?

The possible new Green Party leadership trio

The results of the Green Party leadership will be announced at the Green Party Conference in Birmingham today and I am 99% sure that Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley will be crowned as the new co-leaders of the party.

Party rules mean that there will therefore be only one deputy leader.  In many ways the deputy leadership contest was more interesting than the leader contest with a wider field of candidates in terms of ethnicity and class.

The front runners for deputy are the incumbents Amelia Womack and Shahrar Ali. Womack rose up through the Young Greens and Ali was the first BME deputy leader of a British political party.

Only one can become deputy if Lucas-Bartley wins the leadership as Womack pointed out at the Cardiff hustings:

'I also see, as many of you might realise, if job share wins the leadership there will only be one deputy leader. And I'd like to see the money that goes for two deputy leaders at the moment - if that does happen then that money goes towards payment for the leader of Wales Green Party..'

Some observers see that as possibly inadvertently infringing party rules which forbid candidates from implying or promising 'in any statement to voters, including at hustings, that they will give any monies, goods or services to any part of the Party dependent on their election....' although, unless the vote is very close, numbers at the hustings were unlikely to be sufficient to affect the result.

On-line voting has been used for the leadership for the first time this year and it has increased turn-out significantly in a party with increased membership. My hunch, with on-line voting complemented by strong social media, particularly that of the Young Greens, is that Womack, widely seen as very capable and an excellent communicator, is likely to win the  deputy leadership.

It is right that 'capability' is a major factor when electing leaders but Lucas-Bartley-Womack does present a homogenous white middle-class profile at a time when the Green Party has been attacked for being less diverse than UKIP - a jibe with more than an element of truth.

To make an electoral breakthrough the Greens need to appeal to working class and BME voters. Our policies are relevant to both groups but the task has been to put those over to voters beyond our 'natural constituency'. This has been accomplished by some Green Party actvists, including deputy candidates such as Andrew Cooper and Shahrar Ali,  but the challenge remains.

There is another factor which relates to leadership style. Ali contributed a combatative approach to media interviews taking on some very difficult tasks such as the situation around the attacks on Stop the War.  His approach has come in for some criticism - 'coming out fighting' is not the Green Party style according to some- but it added a vital ingredient to the leadership mix that may now be missing.

Whatever the result later today it is clear that the membership, as well as the leadership, has a challenging task on its hands, particularly when Jeremy Corbyn is attracting many who previously voted for the Green Party.