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 London County Council (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 LONDON LABOUR 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.