The May 5 elections were game-changers for all three main parties. They have also raised the chance of strong debates on local and national issues
It always seems poor form to analyse local elections through the prism of national politics. It’s unfair on those hardworking council candidates knocking on the doors in their local neighbourhoods, campaigning on important local causes and hoping to make local decisions in the interests of local people.
Yet this year’s local elections in England and Wales showed that not only do the decisions of the national government have a profound impact on local communities but also that people use their votes to get through to the national parties. What’s more, the repercussions of their decisions are felt just as keenly in Westminster as in the town halls on the night of the count. The elections on May 5 were game-changers for all three main parties.
The disastrous night for the LibDems has been well documented, yet the loss of so many council seats and the leadership of so many councils (not to mention the AV result) may not weaken their position on the national stage as expected.
Cameron will know that if the coalition is to survive, he will have to shore up his beleaguered deputy and prevent the further weakening of the LibDem ‘human shield’ before it becomes a liability. Nick Clegg has declared a new era of ‘muscular liberalism’ in the coalition in an attempt to restore his party’s credibility and to create some clear blue/yellow water between the two parties.
This could mean public disagreements that the LibDems would never have dared to air previously. It is no coincidence that, within a week of the election, LibDem peers had the confidence to rebel against the proposal for directly elected police commissioners. This is significant as it was a key plank of the Conservative manifesto and a bone of contention within the local government sector.
Local government issues are high on the LibDem agenda, mainly because, compared with their national status, they had been disproportionately strong in local councils. This could mean policy issues around local government become a key area for concessions.
While both parties signed up to a localist agenda in the coalition agreement, there is plenty of disagreement about what localism means on the ground, particularly in terms of the role of the state and the primacy of democratically elected representatives. Expect increasingly public contention over issues such as elected mayors, widening the scope of the Local Government Resource Review, the accountability of GP commissioners, the role of local authorities in education, and the role of the private sector in the forthcoming public service reform white paper.
Labour will be able to benefit from rebelling LibDems by joining them in voting down contentious legislation, portraying the government as divided. Yet they must beware. They know the party needs a substantive offer in marginal Conservative areas, some of which solidified around the Tories in the election. Alliances with the LibDems may hold less appeal and little benefit for them either if this is their aim.
The political tides are changing. Spare a thought for hard-working local councillors caught in the wash.
