Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner

As we reported last week, Progress weekly columnist and former Special Advisor, Paul Richards, announced he intends to seek the Labour candidacy to contest the Police and Crime Commissioner election in Sussex. In this interview he explains why he's standing.

1. How important are the new police and crime commissioner posts to voters in the south of England?

I don’t think many people have caught up to the fact that the police commissioners are on the way. These new posts, which Labour opposed in parliament, will control the police budgets in each of the constabularies in the south of England: Hertfordshire, Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex, Essex, Kent and Thames Valley.

The police commissioner will be a major player – and under the law he or she has the power to hire and fire the chief constable Martin Richards (by the way, we’re not related).

Because crime and anti-social behaviour is such a huge issue in the cities, towns and villages of the south, the police commissioners will have a higher profile than most council leaders, or even MPs.

2. When is the election?

England and Wales goes to the polls on Thursday 15th November 2012. They start work one week later.

3. Why are you standing?

I consider it vital that Labour has a strong candidate in each of the elections. I want to bring Labour values into the election debate, and make it a straight Labour/Tory fight in Sussex.

We have key parliamentary seats in Sussex – in Brighton, Hove, Crawley and Hastings – and I want to use the election to boost our profile and campaigning there, in support of wonderful candidates like Sarah Owen in Hastings & Rye. But I also want to get into places where Labour has not traditionally been in the lead: Chichester, Horsham, Haywards Heath, and the Sussex villages.

When I was a candidate in Lewes in 2001, we spent some time in places where Labour had seldom been, and you always find Labour voters, even in the tiniest hamlet. In elections like this, and in the Euros in 2014, every Labour vote in the south counts.

I live in Eastbourne, love Sussex, and want to campaign for Labour across the whole county. I joined the Labour Party in 1986, and I’ve been engaged in Labour politics every week since then.

4. What are your policies?

The first point is to argue for tight discipline on the finances. The Tory/Lib Dem cuts are already biting. There are fewer police in Sussex as a direct result. The new commissioner will work with the police to put a budget in place. If that commissioner is a Tory, I believe they would make different choices than if they were Labour. As a Labour police commissioner I would protect the most vulnerable.

Second, I want to champion the rights of victims of crime. My family has been the victim of a serious crime. The system needs to work harder to support victims as well as catch and punish criminals.

Third, I want to use the election to highlight issues around Hate Crime, domestic violence, and other ‘hidden crimes’. I’ve spent a lifetime campaigning against homophobia, racism, and for the rights of people with disabilities. Can my Tory opponent say the same?

I also think the salary of the commissioner shouldn’t be exorbitant. If elected I will donate a third of the salary to victims’ and police charities every year, and challenge my opponents to say the same.

5. Who are you up against?

Once the Labour candidate is selected – by a postal ballot of all members in Sussex – it will be a straight fight with the Tories. They’re likely to select Peter Jones, leader of the East Sussex county council. Another Tory politician. More of the same.

I don’t know what the Lib Dems will do – and neither do they.

I guess the BNP will stand a candidate on a hang ‘em and flog ‘em ticket. As a Labour candidate I will mobilise the trade unions and anti-racist campaigners to ensure the BNP are challenged every step of the way (not something I can see the Tory doing). The Greens may stand someone. They have a base in Brighton, but nowhere else in the county.

6. Will you take the Southern Front quick-fire quiz?

Sure.

Beatles or Stones? Beatles

Sherlock or Doctor Who? Sherlock, just brilliant

Curry or Chinese? Curry, every time. The Spice Garden in Eastbourne. Hmmm.

Madonna or Lady Gaga? Madonna. Showing my age.

Ed or David? Ed Miliband, not David Cameron. I’ll assume that’s what you meant.

North or South? South, naturally!

Time for an Estuary airport referendum?

Well the gloves are off and the proper campaign begins across Medway, Gravesham, Sheppey, Thurrock and Essex to oppose the London Conservative plan for a mega-airport in North Kent.

An idea, which three years ago started as joke island off the Isle of Sheppey, has morphed, slowly but predictably, to onsite options at Grain and Cliffe on the Peninsula area of North Kent. A mega-airport which will impact hundreds of thousands of residents and change the community fabric of towns and cities across the Estuary.

The community in Medway has seen this fight before, but this time the plans are more detailed and being led by the Cameron Conservatives. Plans which if not opposed would uproot communities, destroy sites of significant ecological interest and land North Kent with ten years of transport chaos as the most beautiful part of North Kent and the Peninsula becomes a concrete slab. Surrounding areas would be blighted with noise and pollution.

So says the NIMBYist who would be opposed?

And you would be right, but this is not because I don’t support public consultation on aviation; it is because the consultation itself has ruled out too many options before it even starts. No cross-party aviation group, a rule out of Heathrow (November 2011), Gatwick expansion (May 2010) and Stansted (May 2010) and you end up with very few options left.Birmingham has support but would require a link with HS2, which is itself under review and opposition. Kent has access to Europe, HS1 already built and nearby, two major motorways (M2 and M20), employment prospects and a working proposal for a further crossing East of Dartford. No surprises to anyone where this government is angling which makes it important that a proper campaign is run now.

Residents here have spent three years of being played as pawns by the Tories as proposal after proposal is released and trailed in the press, and this consultation I believe will be just the same if it is led by the Tories alone.

It is a test of local resolve across the Estuary to send a very clear message to the government.

And this clear message should not just come from a band of unknown grey-beards in the Council chamber, irrespective of composition, but by the collective voices of residents.

In Medway, we have been here before - less then a decade ago many Tories worked with Labour MPs on the anti-Cliffe airport campaign. The idea of Cliffe was even less developed then, but the Council resources were used to send posters, fix lamp-post placards and support local groups. This was right because it worked; the airport was dropped. The subsequent election saw Labour defeated locally and a Conservative administration formed.

The point is that this time, despite the plans being even more developed, the ruling Tories have not endorsed any formal strategy. They have waited too long and have been exposed by their own admittance to a woeful ‘pie-in-the-sky’ campaign, which was simply a low-cost way of not campaigning. The simple truth is that residents in North Kent owe no loyalty to a ruling Tory elite, and especially not now when there are questions about why more is not being done.

It is important for strong Labour groups to organise at the County, Unitary, District and Parish level. This means it is ever important to have a strong, capable and nimble opposition ensuring that pressure is applied to ensure that the Tories represent residents and that MPs are held to account in representing resident interest. An opposition which can work with partners in government and the region and which can effectively articulate itself to residents.

This does mean being robust and being engaged. Being in close contact on any campaign requires tenacity and perseverance.

Last week, before today’s news, Labour proposed a referendum on an airport in the Thames Estuary, at a full Council meeting, because we believed (correctly) it would be in the government proposals. We believed that a Unitary Authority wide referendum would allow residents across Medway to finally give a say to the idea once and for all, which on all polling currently would be a resounding No. An outcome to a consultation based on votes rather than the opinions of a distant elite who thus far have seemed incapable of doing anything against their own. A referendum which would send a message to Westminster that you can’t just impose a solution because of three years of attrition, and/or because you want to play a game of chess between East and West London for votes. A referendum which would send a message that if you want to proposed mega-solutions you need to work in government with the opposition and groups on solutions and engage in a proper consultation of all the options.

The referendum was opposed by the Conservatives in the Council chamber and dropped, but the message was sent to residents and that is unlike ten years ago the Tories are closing off solutions and not suggesting any. A mistake that showed they do not trust the electorate to give a say on something that will fundamentally alter our civic environment.

Labour meanwhile is seen as leading on ideas and that is where we need to be if we are to regain the trust of people for the future.

We will continue to campaign locally as part of a cross-party group but the public expect results and they expect action. We can not have the next six months be the same dithering and delay of the last, because without a clear resolve and local leadership a poor campaign will send a green light for the bulldozers and that is not in our interest or yours.

Tristan Osborne is Labour Councillor for Luton & Wayfield Ward & Press & Media Officer for Medway Labour Group

Labour Policy for 2015 - have your say

As representatives of CLPs across the south east, we have spoken to many of you and know how many of you feel that Labour needs to start debating our policies for the next election. We have been passing on this message loud and clear to the party at Westminster together with our regional colleagues and NEC members. There are now 4 policy documents for discussion and consultation whilst fuller documents are produced this summer.

Links to the 4 documents are below, together with a discussion guide for each one that outlines some possible questions to be discussed. The discussion guides and documents are suggestions, but we hope local parties, branches, affiliates and members will discuss whatever issues they think matter most, so please don't feel limited by subjects in these documents or missing from them. There is no deadline for submissions, but we hope that you will start discussions as soon as possible.

BRITAIN'S ROLE IN THE WORLD
Britain's role in the world discussion guide

FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF BRITAIN
Fulfilling the promise of Britain discussion guide

RESTORING RESPONSIBILITY, STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITIES
Restoring responsibility, strengthening our communities discussion guide

TOWARDS A NEW ECONOMY
Towards a new economy discussion guide

And we want to hear your views, so if you are having discussions, please invite us, so we can hear your views directly. We are also happy to help facilitate meetings or introduce subjects. And if you have any comments or questions about the process or policies, please contact us. Our website has been updated in a blog format and we will post news and views on it for comment. The address is www.npf-se.org.uk

Sending submissions

Please make sure that you do send submissions based on your discussions to the policy commissions. Please remember that you can make submissions as individual members or groups of members, as well as branches and CLPs. Also, please send us a copy of your submissions to npf.southeast@ntlworld.com so that we can follow them up.

The 4 documents here have been written about themes rather than the work of the individual policy commissions - policies often don't fall into neat pigeonholes. So here are the email addresses for each commission and the broad subjects they cover - and if your submission covers the work of more than one commission, it is best to send it to all the relevant commissions.

Foreign and defence policy, international development, Europe
pip3.britainintheworld@labour.org.uk

Housing, environment, local government, transport, rural affairs, culture and sport
pip3.communities@labour.org.uk

Crime, justice, migration, citizenship and equalities
pip3.crimejustice@labour.org.uk

Education in schools
pip3.education@labour.org.uk

Health
pip3.health@labour.org.uk

Economy, cost of living, tax, work and business, welfare and higher education
pip3.prosperity@labour.org.uk

Thank you,

Simon Burgess, Dan Chapman, Deborah Gardiner, Karen Landles and Martin Phillips

Power to the PCCs

In November 2012, millions of people will get the chance to vote for the new police and crime commissioner posts across England and Wales. Ever since it was obvious that the posts would become established, once the legislation was passed, I have argued that Labour should stand credible candidates for each post. These are big, important jobs, responsible for millions of pounds of public money. More importantly, they can work with chief constables to set the strategic priorities for police forces. I have been pleased in recent weeks to see that some big Labour beasts have expressed an interest in standing for the posts, such as Alun Michael MP in south Wales. The estimable Michael Crick at Channel 4 News has a tally of runners and riders from all parties and none here.

But in recent days I have come to a big decision. I have decided to seek nomination to be Labour’s candidate in the county of Sussex, where I have my family home. It’s fun being a commentator. I enjoy writing columns for Progress, LabourList and the odd newspaper, and being asked on occasion onto the radio and TV. I enjoy being a political adviser too. It’s rewarding to work in parliament, helping Labour MPs with their campaigns and causes. I enjoy being an active member of Eastbourne constituency Labour party in my home town. But there comes a time to put your money where your mouth is, and stand for office yourself.

It’s a decade since I stood as Labour’s parliamentary candidate in Lewes, in East Sussex. The thrust of my campaign was that the Liberal Democrat candidate was no better than a Tory (not an argument that washed with the locals). He is now a minister in the Tory-led government, responsible for cuts to sure starts, charities and benefits for disabled people. It’s 15 years since I first stood in Billericay, a seat which saw a 17.6 per cent swing from Tory to Labour. But aside from having my name on council election ballot papers, I have enjoyed contributing to political life in a non-elected capacity.

Why am I standing?

Well, it’s early days. The NEC and regional board of the Labour party will shortlist candidates. Perhaps they won’t think I’m suitable to seek selection. Then there’s a contest between the shortlisted candidates, with a postal ballot of all members at the same time as the NEC postal ballot. That will give Labour’s candidates a seven-month campaign to take their case to the people of their constabularies.

I see the elections as the perfect opportunity to build Labour’s profile and electoral support. In a county like Sussex, the candidate should use the platform to help Labour teams in Brighton, Hove, Hastings and Crawley, where we could win parliamentary seats next time. But they should also be prepared to campaign in areas without Labour representation, in the smaller towns and villages where Labour seldom gets much of a look-in. This would give a boost to local CLPs and branches, and to parliamentary candidates such as Sarah Owen in Hastings and Rye.

If selected, I want to campaign on three areas:

First, the role of police and crime commissioner should be primarily a champion for the victims of crime. I’ve been the victim of a serious crime. Being a victim is bad enough, but often the experience is made worse by how victims are treated afterwards. The Labour candidates should be meeting with victims’ groups, and speaking to the community about how the police and courts system should respect and support victims of crime. The Labour candidate should be working with local groups to tackle antisocial behaviour as well as serious crime.

Second, I want to campaign to highlight hate crime, and ‘hidden’ crimes such as domestic violence. Hate crime is a serious issue throughout Sussex. Members of the LGBT community face harassment and violence, even in the cities like Brighton. Disabled people are attacked and harassed. BAME communities face racism and discrimination. Sussex Police are reviewing their policy on hate crime, and more can be done to protect minority groups, prosecute criminals, and protect victims.

Third, the role of a Labour police and crime commissioner should be to ensure that the Tory-Lib Dem cuts don’t fall on the most vulnerable. No police commissioner can magic more money from the government. But a Labour one should be able to manage budgets sensitively, with the most vulnerable groups in mind. And always remind people that it is the central government making the cuts to police force budgets in the first place.

This kind of agenda is a distinctly Labour agenda: strong on values, and on the side of citizens, not the vested interests. In Sussex, the Tories are likely to stand the Conservative East Sussex county council leader. He’s a retired stockbroker, and a current member of the police authority. He represents right-of-centre ‘business-as-usual’. The Lib Dems are waiting to see if an independent candidate stands. But what if a BNP candidate stands? The role of a Labour candidate will be to mobilise the forces of the trade unions, anti-racist groups, and community organisations to see off a populist fascist threat.

I hope that Labour members in every area get a good spread of candidates to choose from. I hope branches will invite candidates to speak, meet members, and discuss their campaign plans. If you live in Sussex, and would like to invite me to address your branch, I would be happy to come, either by myself or alongside other candidates.

These elections are a great opportunity for the Labour party. We need lively campaigns and strong messages. These are big roles, and need big candidates to fight for them.

You can email me on pauladrianrichards@gmail.com if you’d like to know more about my campaign to become Labour’s candidate for police commissioner in Sussex.

Paul Richards writes a weekly column for Progress, Paul’s week in politics

This article was first published at Progress Online.

Photo: Metropolitan Police

Delivering housing for southern voters the co-operative way

Pick up a copy of a local newspaper in southern England and you won’t have to turn many pages before you see an article about the housing crisis. Hundreds of thousands of column inches every year are absorbed with issues such as the pros and cons of new developments, the problems faced by young people trying to get a toe hold on the housing ladder and the lack of provision of sheltered accommodation for the vulnerable.

The housing crisis is one of the key issues that voters are concerned about nationally. It is a policy area that is too often reduced to journalistic generalisations. The housing crisis is not solely an issue of helping young people get on to the housing ladder, or about the availability of mortgages. It is a cross- generational issue that impacts on all in society. It includes concerns about affordable rents, the rise in homelessness, the effects that changing social patterns have on housing pressures, such as people living longer and more people living alone, in addition to problems of overcrowding and under-occupancy.

All of these issues are inter-connected. But historically the policy response has not been joined-up. As a consequence, Labour’s future housing policy must be more than isolated policy responses to individual problems. It must carve out a whole new philosophical approach to how we as a nation view the home. The party that wins the trust of voters will be the one that articulates a joined-up vision that seeks to offer a fresh approach in dealing with these problems. If there ever is a correct time for knee-jerk policy responses, now is certainly not it.

The housing crisis is a policy issue familiar to politicians and voters across the UK. But it is an issue that has particular resonance for southern voters, in particular in the south-east. As part of Labour’s bid to win back the trust of southern voters, it is time for a radical re-think. It is time we unashamedly developed a policy response that is rooted in Labour values, and not uninspiring practical suggestions that have left voters unimpressed and unable to distinguish between the main parties. In short, it is time for a serious look at the co-operative approach to housing.

This article does not suggest that co-operative housing is a panacea that will solve the crisis overnight. But it does argue that the principles of co-operation and mutualism can offer a fresh way of viewing the problem and a new set of value-rooted solutions.

As it stands, there are two legally recognised forms of housing tenure, that of freeholder and leaseholder. The concept of mutual housing, under which members of a housing co-operative would own part of a dwelling, lacks legal foundation. This is why the Labour and Co-operative MP Jonathan Reynolds is currently piloting a private members’ bill through parliament, to change laws that have their origins in feudal times. Given the scale of the housing crisis, it is absurd that the law still only recognises two very narrow conceptions of ownership. The mutual housing sector has the capacity to deliver millions of co-operatively-owned homes, yet the lack of legal backing dissuades many from entering the sector.

The benefits of a co-operative approach to housing can be seen in the experience of numerous European countries. In Sweden, co-operative housing tenure was legally recognised back in 1920. As a consequence, co-op housing accounts for 18% of all homes there, whilst in the UK the figure is just 0.6%. A beefed-up mutual housing sector would mean more market choice; it would lead to more affordable rents and it would allow members of the co-operative to gain a greater share of their property as and when they could afford it, avoiding the dangers of spiralling cycles of debt that come with unsustainable mortgages.

Imagine the difference it would make to people of all ages across the south of England to know that there is a third option that doesn’t involve becoming a serial renter, vulnerable to frequent rent hikes or becoming a homeowner taking on mortgage and interest payments that will squeeze their finances for years to come. This is the promise offered by co-operative housing.

Jack Dromey, Labour’s shadow housing spokesman, has indicated that mutual housing will play a big role in Labour’s housing offer at the next election. This is clearly excellent news, but it is just the beginning of the radical re-think that is required. Co-operative housing, like the Co-op Party’s “New Foundations” model, is a classic example of the fresh thinking that Labour’s housing offer requires.

Co-operative ethics can be that joined-up, values-driven, policy response that is so needed in Labour’s housing offer. By working with the co-operative movement, Labour can develop a housing policy that examines the role of mutual retirement homes for elders, and looks at how co-op models can be used in tackling homelessness as well.

Resolving the housing crisis is not an easy task. But Labour, through its work with the co-operative movement, has the values and fresh ideas that can offer new hope in solving this entrenched policy problem. Let’s put those values to good use and deliver housing for southern voters, the co-operative way.

You can sign the petition supporting Jonathan Reynolds Co-operative Housing (Tenure) Bill here

Daniel Carey-Dawes is a Labour and Co-operative Party activist and writes here in a personal capacity.

Labour's real southern discomfort

Late last year Patrick Diamond and Giles Radice returned to take another look at Labour’s electoral fortunes in the South of England, when they published Southern Discomfort One Year On. The survey confirms something already widely understood – that Labour has a lot more to do to get itself back into a position where electoral success in the south can be realised.

In general, southern voters seem much clearer about what the Conservatives stand for than Labour, with 61% of them clear about what the Conservatives stand for set against only 37% for Labour. Voters in the south believe that Conservatives are more likely than Labour to “ensure value for money in the provision of public services such as schools and hospitals” (34% to 22%).

It’s not headline grabbing news to unearth that the south believes the Conservatives are better at Value for Money than Labour (indeed, the research didn’t grab any headlines). In fact, it would be surprising to learn that the public in any part of the UK saw Labour as guardians of thrift when it comes to spending public funds. Fairly or not, that is how Labour is viewed now. The cost of losing our economic credibility has been considerable.

The north/south divide is pertinent only in that it highlights the fact that obtaining value for money matters more in the south. Labour activists who have been on the doorstep talking to voters don’t need polls to tell them that we are less supported, and our policy platform less appreciated, in the south.

So a more interesting question to answer might be: is it possible for Labour to remain anchored in public sector dependent communities of our heartlands while at the same time regaining economic credibility in the south? It is; but only if we talk about everyday values and eschew the expensive policy solutions whose ability to tangibly improve ordinary lives seems to be a bit too hit and miss. It is for that reason that we should welcome Liam Byrne's recent Guardian article in which he talks about "something for something" welfare reform.

Is there really that much difference in the values of the a median income family from a traditional Labour heartland and a similar family living in a Surrey or Kent commuter town that hasn’t ever elected a Labour MP? One identifies their values with Labour and one sees us as standing in opposition to them. Surely this is Labour’s real Southern Discomfort?