24 December 1983 Marxism Today Labour's Capital Gains: The GLC Experience The Labour GLC is something different. It heralds a new kind of municipal socialism. WITHIN TEN YEARS of the creation of Michael Ward Westminster Bridge I can almost hear it the (LCC) in ticking.'3 1889, the existence of a democratic local Under Morrison's successors the mac­ council for London under radical control hine ticked on until the 60s. But London had so alarmed the Conservative Party that Tory Party opinion was inflamed by the Lord Salisbury's government introduced a unbroken 30 years of Labour control. The drastic curtailment of its powers. When, 1963 London Government Act at once after 1934, Labour control of the LCC weakened the strong executive operations seemed permanent, another Conservative the LCC had developed, by transferring government, in 1963, created the Greater functions to the new, enlarged London London Council, bringing within London boroughs, and, by increasing the electoral suburban (and Conservative voting) areas. area, created scope for Conservative Now that the GLC itself has in turn proved advance. an unreliable vehicle for conservative rule, The first LCC, elected in 1889, was yet another Conservative government pro­ controlled by an alliance of liberals and The GLC poses to abolish the GLC. socialists. But in 1907, after a vicious The GLC created in this way was a strange The pattern of nineteenth century urban campaign, the Tories won control of the institution. The social services functions of development in London produced a city in LCC and retained it until 1934. 1934 was the LCC — child care and welfare — were which rich and poor neighbourhoods were the culmination of Herbert Morrison's long devolved to the new London borough sharply distinguished. Commercial pres­ campaign to win London for Labour, by councils (themselves mostly amalgama­ sures to replace the homes of the poor in welding the essential base of inner city tions of smaller previous councils). The Central London with shops, warehouses Labour votes to enough middle class, LCC education service was preserved, but and offices drove them either into worse suburban support to succeed. Morrison's transferred to a new Inner London overcrowding or into the inner suburbs. manifesto was mild in content and far from Education Authority. It was the Govern­ Which suburbs they went to depended on detailed: apart from the increase in ment's intention that all the housing the type of housing that existed — or was housebuilding, the main pledge was to activities should be transferred to the being built — in each suburb, and on its improve administration. At the time of the borough councils, and by 1981 most price, and on the availability of public 1934 victory, Beatrice Webb herself said housing management (though not all transport. that Morrison represented 'the very housebuilding) had been so transferred. quintessence of Fabianism''. The manifesto The new Council was to deal with strategic Redistribution does, however, contain a forthright defence planning, and the preparation of a Greater This clear geographical distinction between of rate-borne public spending: the Labour London Development Plan; with major rich and poor communities has substantial Party 'will not agree to restrict municipal roads; with rubbish disposal, the fire implications for a system of local govern­ services which benefit the working and service, and flood defences; and the overall ment funded by the rates: a tax on middle, class for the purpose of saving the planning of housing provision. To these property. Poor people are concentrated in money of the wealthy.'2 functions was added in 1969 responsibility areas with a low tax base, poor housing and Morrison's political project in London for London Transport. high unemployment. They vote for politi­ was not, however, only to provide London 1964 was a good year for the Labour cians who promise to do something about itself with good government: it was to Party: in the first GLC elections in April their poverty, their housing, and their un­ demonstrate the Labour Party's capacity to that year a Labour majority was secured. employment. But as long as government administer and govern. As such, the The reorganisation that had been intended is purely local — the vestries before 1900, continuing existence of the Labour LCC to secure Tory control in fact created a far the 28 metropolitan boroughs from was a standing affront to Tory opinion. more volatile political entity — Labour in 1900-63, and the 32 London boroughs Morrison was always clear about this 1964, 1973 and 1981, Tory in 1967, 1970 since 1963 — a progressive local adminis­ objective. As early as 1935 he said in a and 1977. The politics of the new authority tration can only improve the position of the lecture: 'You will wonder whether I am revolved, as ever, around questions of poor people who elected them by taxing talking about running a government or a redistribution: the attempt to use the land them more and more. municipality. It is a municipality, but so of outer London to provide housing for Hence the importance of a London-wide large that it is bound to resemble a people in bad conditions in inner London: authority. The resources of the City and government. I believe the London County the attempt to plan, through the Greater Westminster — and to a far less extent the Council is, in many ways, a model of public 1 B Wells quoted in B Donoghue and GW Jones outer suburbs — can be brought to bear on administration: it is clean, it is upright, and Herbert Morrison, Portrait of a Politician 1973. the problems of London's poor communi­ the machine works with precision, good 2 Labour LCC Manifesto 1934. ties. sense and humanity. Whenever I go over 3 H Morrison How the London County Council does its work 1935. December 1983 Marxism Today 25

London Development Plan; and gradually, parties. In 1977 — two months before the born of a twin distrust: of Labour elected after 1969 when London Transport came Labour GLC was defeated at the polls — representatives in power, and of the under GLC control, the recognition of the the Left won the chair of the Executive attitude of the permanent GLC officials. scope that existed to support the public Committee on Mellish's retirement, and at The experience of other administrations transport system from the GLC tax base. the same time achieved a left majority. local and national, led to the belief that The Labour GLC elected in 1973 was After the winning of the executive, the neither group could be trusted. In what elected on a platform of a massive increase next stage was the development of an follows two areas of policy — public in house building and a radical reform of effective rank and file organisation in transport, and the London economy — are public transport— 'low flat fares leading to London around local government issues. examined both at the policy-making stage, free fares'. It delivered on neither, partly The London borough elections of 1971 and and in the period of implementation after because of pressure from the 1974-9 1974 had been particularly good for the May 1981. Labour government, and partly because it Labour Party, and in a number of boroughs lacked the political will to do so. The new left wing councillors were elected, Public transport failure of the 1973-7 Labour Council to untrammelled by hidebound ideas on how From 1969, when the GLC first took over fulfil either of its main promises led to an to operate. The first organised move came responsibility for London Transport, the increasing gulf between the party and the in 1975, with a conference entitled 'Labour fares level had preoccupied the Labour Council. Against the Housing Cuts', called to protest Party in London. After the shortcomings both at the Labour government's restriction and disappointments of the 1973-77 THE BATTLE FOR of funds for housebuilding, and at the period, the transport working party that THE PARTY Labour GLC's cuts in its own housing began, from the middle of 1979, to review Left wingers who decided to join the programme. In the summer of 1978 came the policy, had two conflicting interests to Labour Party in the late 1960s did so in the first conference organised around the balance. The constituency parties, smart­ spite of the record of the Wilson group that later started the paper London ing under the betrayal of the previous government, and they joined with a Labour Briefing. Labour administration, remained com­ determination to change the party. Disgus­ From that first conference developed a mitted to free fares. The transport unions ted with government policy over the loose political grouping, held together by (and the London Labour Party works on a Vietnam war, fired in many cases by the the well-produced monthly Briefing. Fur­ block vote system like that in the national enthusiasms generated by the international ther conferences followed, and the network Labour Party, and the Transport and upsurge of student revolutionary socialism that emerged played a crucial role in the General Workers Union is similarly the in 1968, they came to the Labour Party selection of candidates for the 1981 GLC largest affiliate) feared the loss of bus with immediate experience of the betrayals election. conductors' and ticket collectors' jobs. text books taught them to expect from Gradually, through the discussions of the social democratic leaders. THE 1981 GLC working party, there emerged the possi­ The retreat in London was not an iso­ ELECTION MANIFESTO bility of a substantial reduction in fares lated case. The Labour government elected In the autumn of 1977 David Nicholas, the — large enough to make public transport in February 1974 also began to go back on vice chairperson of the Executive, drew up immediately more attractive. This was its promises — on industrial policy, on a set of proposals on future manifestos. combined with a forthright commitment to housing and on incomes policy. The Central to the plan — which was agreed by public transport rather than to road experience, both locally and nationally, the Executive — was the idea that the building. contributed to the growth of the Campaign manifesto should be voted upon, in detail, An area in which previously there had for Labour Party Democracy, committed by a full party conference. This was a been little specific policy was the London to changing the internal organisation of direct product of the disillusionment felt economy. Rapidly losing its manufacturing the party, to achieving mandatory re- not only with the Labour GLC but with base, with mounting levels of unemploy­ selection of MPs and — later — the national government too. Every detailed ment, London was not exempt from the election of the party leader on a wider promise in the election manifesto was to slump of the late 1970s. The manifesto franchise. have the mandatory force of a conference proposed that a Labour GLC should take decision. responsibility for the preparation of an The rise of the Labour Left economic plan for London — the London A series of organisational campaigns was Industrial Strategy and Manpower Plan — waged in London. The first of these was to Many different streams of and that it should itself create the institu­ win control of the Executive Committee of socialist thought contributed tions to implement the plan: a training the London Labour Party, controlled for board to develop new training schemes, most of the 1970s by the right wing under to the programme of the and an Enterprise Board to carry out the the chairmanship of MP. In Labour GLC. necessary programme of public sector the early 1970s there was only a handful of investment in London employment. left wingers on the Executive — one or two Over the summer of 1980 the draft from cooperative societies, one or two The 1981 manifesto represented the manifesto was circulated widely for trade unionists. The initial advance came most comprehensive attempt by the discussion in the London labour move­ in the constituency party section: from London Labour Party to outline the ment. Comments and amendments came 1974 onwards, there was a steady rate of political role of the GLC: nothing on the in, not only from formally affiliated change, as leading GLC members either same scale had been tried since the first organisations and constituency Labour lost their seats or failed to be nominated for years of the LCC. The detail of the Parties, but also from trades councils and a further term by increasingly radical manifesto (over 100 pages in length) was the regional TUC. Indeed, important new 26 December 1983 Marxism Today themes were developed as a result of such House of Lords. The effects of the arguments put to London Transport: it contributions — such as the stress on judgement were far-reaching. The Council, seemed that fares could again be cut by ethnic minority communities. The com­ it was held, had broken its 'fiduciary duty' 25%, bringing them back to the same level, mitment on the 25% fares cut drew to the ratepayers by benefitting one group in money terms, as had existed before the together the previously divided transport of people (users of public transport) to the 1981 reduction. London Transport demur­ interests, and the manifesto as a whole was detriment of the ratepayers as a whole. It red — they would be delighted to see the unanimously endorsed by the Conference was a classic case of the redistributive fares go down, but did not accept that the in October. power of the London-wide authority. new advice could overcome the rigours of Many different streams of socialist Furthermore, it appeared that London the Lords judgement. A further court case thought contributed to the programme of Transport had a duty to break even: fares, ensued, in which the Council's view the Labour GLC — the ideas as well as it was now said, must double at once in prevailed. Fares came down again in May the political practice of the women's order to comply with the law, and might 1983 — ironically, at the height of the movement, later to be recognised by the well have to double again within the year. general election campaign. establishment of a women's committee; the Opinion in the Labour Group was radical critique of industrial policy under divided: some were for refusing to imple­ Mistakes the previous Labour government; and the ment the decisions of the Court. Others There can be little doubt that in 1981 the changing approach to socialist organisation thought that, as the implication of the law — resurrection of an antiquated legal epitomised by the book Beyond the Frag­ decision was that London Transport would doctrine combined with a stretched and ments among them. have to double the fares anyhow, there was tortuous interpretation of the Transport no real option in not implementing. (London) Act 1969 — was used to overturn POWER: THE LABOUR Finally, in its budget, the Council accept­ the decision of the electorate. The GLC GLC OF MAY 1981 ed the increases. Resistance however never set out to claim that because After the election, the Labour Group continued, with a campaign of massive something had been promised at an proceeded at once to the implementa­ public meetings around London in the election, and the election had been won, it tion of its transport pledge. By the end of period leading up to the renewed fares was therefore legal — although the judges July, the details of the 25% fares cut were increase in March. Others, without the implied that this formed part of the case. settled, the supplementary rate necessary support of the GLC Labour Group, called Rather, the argument was that a common to pay for it levied, and the instructions on individuals to withhold the increased sense interpretation of the law, common­ issued to London Transport. Even the fares and risk prosecution: a stream of place for the previous twelve years, was alterations to the ticket machines were in court cases ensued. challenged by Bromley on political grounds hand. Fares came down at the start of October, and the reduction was generally welcomed. The relationship between the GLC and London Transport is a complex one: the GLC is responsible for 'overall policy' while London Transport is responsible for 'day to day management'. London Transport is not a council department, but a separately constituted organisation, separately set up by law. The relationship was, in 1981, further complicated by changes in local government finance: the fares cut was achieved by a further subsidy from GLC rates, but the Government, while not intervening directly against the fares cut, had taken powers to deduct grant-aid from councils spending more than a stipulated limit. Neither tactic, however, changed the — and that the decisions of the Court of situation: public support was mobilised Appeal and the House of Lords were Legal resistance behind the low fares policy, but the themselves political as much as judicial Throughout the election campaign, and Government was unmoved. After the decisions. Perhaps the key mistake made over the summer, the fares cut had been increase, however, a quiet, slow and by the Labour GLC was in the month opposed by the GLC Tories and by the painstaking campaign began, to find a way between the Appeal Court and the Lords Minister of Transport. They did not, round the apparent impasse. Gradually, it decision (November/December 1981), however, suggest that it was illegal. This emerged that a case based on the Greater when, assured by the lawyers that it was was left to the suburban, Tory, London London Development Plan could be better not to be too conspicuous, and that it Borough of Bromley, whose Council took to established, which allowed the question of would all be all right on the night, no the courts to obtain a declaration that the need for public transport services to again political campaign was waged. The subse­ rate increase required to pay for the fares enter into consideration — as opposed to quent political campaign may not have cut was unlawful. Losing at the first stage, the narrower, financial criteria upon which succeeded in forcing the Government to Bromley appealed, winning first in the the House of Lords judgement had been pass legislation to enable the 1981 low fares Court of Appeal and then, decisively, in the based. Lawyers were briefed, and the to be restored: it did, however, sustain the December' 1983 Marxism Today 27

public support for low fares and thus help of deindustrialisation. London unemploy­ Where the bureaucracy thought that the to create a climate in public opinion in ment, as a result of that long period of transport policies of the new Labour which the second fares cut could pass decline and of two years of the Thatcher administration were wrong, but lawful, without further challenge. government, was already over 250,000. The they thought that the employment propos­ The transport campaign of early 1982 central conclusions of the Labour election als were not even lawful. They refused to was the model for later GLC publicity manifesto had been that there needed to be contemplate the possibility that members campaigns. Its hallmarks were a massive a new programme of public investment in of the Labour Party, not previously elected and imaginative use of press advertising, both job creation and training, backed up to the Council, without the benefit of their and GLC production of leaflets and by an economic plan. To carry out this advice, had devised a programme that was posters. The GLC newspaper — The programme, new institutions were pro­ perfectly capable of implementation within Londoner, delivered regularly to every posed — an Industry and Employment the existing legal framework. house in London — also carried the same Committee, staffed by an Economic Policy Central to the manifesto proposals for message. The public meetings were called Group; an enterprise board, and a training implementing policy had been the creation either by local action groups or by the GLC board. of the Economic Policy Group, a group itself. The GLC established its enterprise of staff working to the Industry and In the early months of the Labour GLC board in 1982, and in 1983/4 it has a budget Employment Committee, working on there was continual criticism of the of £30 million. In East London, for ex­ strategy and planning, and advising on the administration — often over political issues ample, GLEB was able to purchase out of programmes of the Enterprise Board. not linked to the direct work of the GLC. receivership Bassetts, a factory making Yet it took nine months to bring this in. But the implementation of the fares industrial clothing. With new management, They were, perhaps, one of the crucial promise in October, and the subsequent the original workforce of 60 were re­ innovations. In central government, inter­ court cases, led to a period of growing employed, and the company transformed ventionist agencies had been constrained popularity, clearly shown by the response so that, following negotiations with the by traditionalist ministries: the London to the fares campaign in early 1982. Tailors and Garment Workers Union, it was proposals had grown in part from the effectively controlled by the workforce. Six critique of the hamstringing of the Future of London Transport months after GLEB's intervention, Bas­ National Enterprise Board by the Depart­ What were the weaknesses in the GLC setts was poised to double in size. ment of Industry between 1974 and 1979. position in the fares campaign? First, Where the labour movement nationally There was to be no equivalent of the that central government did not have to do had developed the concept of the planning Department of Industry in the GLC: anything. They could — and did — just agreement, GLEB has developed this into instead, the aim was to ensure that as far wait for the fares to go up. Neither the GLC the 'Enterprise Plan'. Whenever GLEB as possible achievement matched intent by nor the users of public transport had any intervenes, its assistance is conditional putting at the heart of the machine a unit sanction against the Government. Second, upon joint planning between the unions whose function was to implement the and critically, no amount of publicly involved, the management of the enterprise policy. The fact that it took nine months funded propaganda could effectively re­ concerned and GLEB. The work of the to establish the team gave time for other place a political organisation. Never was enterprise board is not undertaken in units in the bureaucracy to play the part the organisational weakness of the London isolation. The Economic Policy Group in of the Department of Industry. During Labour Party so devastatingly exposed: the Council had by the autumn of 1983 those nine months considerable progress ever vigilant to ensure the GLC was loyal to produced many of the basic documents for was made with some aspects of policy — its manifesto, the party was utterly the London Industrial Strategy — looking, for example, a legal framework for the incapable of organising popular support sector by sector, area by area, at the enterprise board was ultimately established behind that manifesto. And so, uncer­ prospects for future employment in and agreed. But until well after the Lords tainly, ambivalently, the Labour GLC London. The first comprehensive strategy decision on fares, the Economic Policy acted in some way as a substitute for the is due to be finalised early in the new year. Group did not exist. After February 1982 party organisations. In addition, a substantial training pro­ there followed a three month period of When, after the June 1983 general gramme has been initiated, both providing struggle within the machine before the election, the Government published its direct training places and assisting other new staff team had control over the im­ White Paper on the proposal to take organisations to do likewise. An industrial plementation of the Council's economic responsibility for London Transport away building programme of over a million programme. Much as it had resisted their from the GLC, and hand it to a nominated square feet is underway, a network of arrival, the bureaucracy in the end could board of business representatives, the cooperative development agencies has been cope with advisers: it could sidetrack justification was that, under the GLC, funded, and support provided for unem­ them, ignore them, and deny them sight of London Transport was the victim of abrupt ployed workers organisations and for local relevant documents. Effective implementa­ changes of direction. As these policy trade union support units. tion of policy meant having the lead. changes were the result of calculated The experience of setting out to interventions, first by the electorate and Bureaucratic resistance transform a machine like the GLC, in subsequently by the judiciary, it is more This was not accomplished without a particular in the economic area, has led than a little disingenuous to present them period of intense struggle with the GLC many of those involved to question whether as capricious acts by elected GLC bureaucracy. Unlike other local authorities, any radical administration can carry out its councillors. the GLC is not primarily staffed by programmes without ensuring — as a specialists in particular departments, but minimum — that people who understand An economic strategy by a career service of generalist adminis­ the programmes are in charge of implemen­ By 1981 London had endured thirty years trators. ting them. 28 December 1983 Marxism Today

The results ect, each Bassetts, is a demonstration that particular in relation to childcare — and By the end of 1983 the economic there can be an alternative: where the sought to apply them. Within the GLC's programme was beginning to show propaganda of words has failed, we must work on planning and transport, there has tangible, quantitative results: 1100 jobs turn to the propaganda of practice. The been support for community and neigh­ created or saved by the Enterprise Board; planned use of public resources under bourhood groups fighting road schemes 2000 training places assisted; space in new democratic control can provide a fairer and property development. In East factories for 4000 jobs in good working society, and a higher level of employment. London, where business interests have conditions. been seeking to convert part of the Royal But quantitative measures are not the THE GLC EXPERIENCE Docks into an airport for executives, the only relevant ones. In the first place, there The consideration given above to the GLC has worked with local groups in sup­ is a widespread commitment on the Left to GLC's transport and employment pro­ port of a 'People's Plan' alternative. With­ economic planning. But it is neither widely grammes could be parallelled by discus­ in the Industry and Employment work, understood nor — among people at large — sions of the reestablishment of the housing initiatives have been taken in support of particularly popular. The institutions of programme, the efforts to introduce re­ national and international trade union economic planning at a national level have cruitment practices that are fair to women links. For example, the GLC has worked been remote and alienating. The industrial and to minorities, the new planning poli­ closely with the Communist/Socialist strategy being developed in London aims to cies, the community arts policy, and many administration of the Val de Marne region, take the concept of economic planning and others. If this is scarcely the Labour GLC near Paris, and with British and French break it down to an industry, a workplace, so avidly followed by the popular press, trade unionists, to develop a joint trade a neighbourhood and community level — the fault lies as much with the press as union organisation linking the London and planning with workforces and groups to with the councillors. Paris plants of Kodak, which face similar apply existing skills and resources to the The distinctive contribution of the GLC problems in their relationship with the meeting of needs, the retention of existing and the other local councils that share a American parent company. Extensive sup­ jobs and the creation of new ones. Linked similar approach has been to reach out to port has been given to black groups. to the planning process has been the groups previously excluded, not only from All this amounts to a belief in more establishment of Technology Networks — power but from the Left's understanding of radical forms of participation and the resources, linked to polytechnics, where and approach to power. The central decentralisation of power unlike any people can use research and development example of this has been the encounter previous approaches. Seldom articulated facilities to test and develop new products. with the women's movement: not without into a single body of thought, it represents a Second, however, the Government is conflict, the GLC, partly through the thread running through all the GLC's committed to the free play of market forces women's committee and partly through the practice. Elected power is not an end in as the dominant principle of social work of other committees, has taken up the itself, but a resource, to be shared with organisation. Each successful GLEB proj­ demands of the women's movement — in other groups and movements, and used in December 1983 Marxism Today 29 alliance with them to achieve social change. Board has turned out a failure. The even before the White paper had been Government has shuffled off its own published. Abolition is almost certain to Weakness of the party base responsibility upon a body which is at once cost money; ratepayers would end up But if the commitment to develop a new incompetent and irresponsible '4. paying rates to many different organisat­ approach to the wielding of political power There are good constitutional arguments ions. Most borough councils would find is both central and unique, it is not against the Government's plans. To remove their residents paying higher rates for the accompanied by a strong party base. public services in London from democratic same services. Support for arts organisat­ Since 1977 the voice of the party itself in control, after nearly a hundred years of ions and voluntary groups would be at risk. London has been curiously muted. Only in direct elections, is a drastic step for a The campaign is also linked to the fight the period of manifesto drafting, from government to take simply because they do against current government proposals to 1979-80, did the Regional Executive really not like the politics of those who win the limit council budgets. Not content with the come into its own. Indeed, it scarcely elections. It is likely that a bill will be previous 'penalty' measures, to 'fine' maintained the level of authority and introduced to cancel the 1985 elections, councils which 'overspend', the Govern­ legitimacy that it had had under the control and to replace the present Council by ment is now seeking powers for 'rate of the Right. For the Left on the executive nominees from the predominantly Tory capping' — stipulating the maximum rate a has found it hard to lose the habits of London boroughs. To set aside the result of council can levy. Most Labour Councils opposition: for a minority to always urge its an election by passing a law is an unusual have been told they are 3% or 6% above point of view by pressing a resolution is course of action. There will need to be a target: the GLC have been told they are common tactic — but for a majority to campaign around the simple slogan 'Hold 34% above. Indeed, if the government simply carry resolution after resolution is to the elections' — a demand which ought to succeeds on rate capping, they will scarcely neglect the chance to shape and develop unite a wide range of opinion. In addition, need abolition as a sop to the prime Labour in London as a coherent, if this step was taken, London would be the minister. And therefore the GLC has disciplined political force. The Left in the only major capital city without some form established, jointly with the other councils London Labour Party has failed to shed the of elected, city-wide authority. But the most affected (mostly Metropolitan Coun­ political style of an insurgent minority, and heart of the campaign must be around the cils and Districts, and London Boroughs), to decide on the objectives it has for the services and the policies, not the institu­ a group, chaired by Sheffield's David party, and to set priorities. As a result, it tions. The Government is not taking this Blunkett, to fight rate capping with a has weakened the potential impact of the step because of a dispassionate concern campaign team concentrating on MPs, London party. with the principles of public administra­ voluntary and community organisations, This has considerable implications for tion. They are taking it because they are and the media. the GLC's need to build a popular base: the outraged by the display of the London The Conservative Party has always been language of participation is not backed up unemployment figures on the river front of wary of democratic institutions of London by a strong, independent political organi­ County Hall, in full view of the Houses of local government, and has not hesitated to sation — able to criticise the GLC, but Parliament. They are hostile to the policies move against them when they provoke Tory also build real external political support. of low fares public transport, job creation anger by their policies, or challenge Tory Another limitation of the GLC approach and economic planning, public sector political hegemony: the Tory Party does not is the continuing role of the GLC housing, and support for the rights of black take lightly the political symbolism of bureaucracy. A shortcoming of the election people and women. That distinctive GLC control of the capital city. Morrison, in the manifesto as much as of subsequent sytle, matched against the Government's passage quoted earlier, was neither the first practice was failure to bring forward own style, angers them. nor the last person to compare the proposals for more drastic restructuring — government of London with the govern­ increasing political accountability, and Broad alliances ment of a country. The present proposals, bringing wages in line with those paid And the struggle will only be won in forming as they do but one offensive in a elsewhere in the public service. alliance with others fighting for more jobs, government-inspired war on local demo­ more houses, and better public transport. cracy, are simply the latest in a long series. THE CAMPAIGN FOR SURVIVAL Cuts in the National Health Service mean The Labour GLC of 1981 has inspired Just two years after the election of the the loss of 3000 jobs in London, the closure warm affection and provoked fierce Labour GLC the Thatcher government was of 20 London hospitals, longer waiting lists hostility by its policies and its style. reelected with a promise to abolish the and poorer standards of service. So Council To win the abolition battle it now needs Council. Whatever popular support had resources are being put behind a campaign to attract wider support than voted for it been built for the GLC's work, the 1983 of resistance with publicity material and in the 1981 election, wider support than general election saw only 26 Labour MPs support for health campaigns. Privatisation that of the groups it has worked with, and elected in London. In October a White of British Telecommunications would lose wider support than it built in the fares Paper was published, outlining the mecha­ over 15000 London jobs — so support is campaign. But the prize, if it succeeds, nism of replacing the GLC — a plethora of being given to the Post Office Engineers. will be a far greater victory than simply joint boards, commissions, and residual Other possibilities include the holding of retaining democratic elections in London: bodies. It was, in all essentials, a return to open 'hearings' around the improvement it will be a victory for an alternative to the pre-democratic form of government in of public services. A major conference for the politics of the present government. London; before the establishment of the public sector users and workers is being The question is whether that alternative LCC a nominated body, the Metropolitan held to fight the threat of privatisation. can be defined and presented in terms Board of Works, had run council services The defence of the GLC as an institution that will win that wider support. • from 1855-1889. In 1859 The Times said of can run alongside the political campaign, it: 'The fact is, the constitution of the and considerable headway had been made 4 The Times 1 Dec 1859.