What's Labour Done for Us?

I don't intend this as a parry to Anthony's eloquent post about the economic legacy of Gordon Brown, largely because his ideas are researched, developped, and interesting - and like a politician demanding a 'full and frank debate', I don't really understand the issues. But for a contrasting piece of pop-politics, here's one idea to float in advance of both the local elections in the UK and Gordon Brown's accession to the Prime Ministership in June (Tuesday 5 June for my money).

I've been in Bristol for a couple of weekends recently, a city that I lived in the centre of for five years from 1994-1999. I've been back a couple of times a year for the last eight years, and I the city has been utterly transformed during that time. And then there's Manchester. I visited Manchester twice a year from the mid-1980s until the mid-1990s. I then re-visited the city in 1999, and went to live there in 2002, leaving in 2004. I was back there in February of this year, and again had in mind the transformation of the city since the 1990s.   

There was a rumour circulating in Manchester in 2002 that the day before the dignitaries arrived for the Commonwealth Games, a fleet of white-vans was despatched into the city to literally 'pick up' undesirables (anyone holding a can of special brew, sporting a short-term facial injury or fiddling with their genitals underneath their tracksuit bottoms) and drive them to a holding pen for the duration of the opening days of the event. Though one suspects it never actually happened, this micro-example of short-term city cleansing is surely a model of bad social and economic practise; a vacuous clean-up act. The transformation of our cities has been anything but. It has been lasting, steady and from the grass-roots up.   

My point is that Bristol and Manchester seem alive with confidence, creativity and friendliness. They have become more European; more democratically and embracingly successful. It's not the muck-and-brass of a gleaming hotel adjacent to a crumbling social housing block (although you can point cynically to examples of that that aren't indicative, just symptomatic), but it's actual progress. There's genuine cultural ambitiousness, too, which has come from increased arts funding and that is by default a social tonic for our cities.

Economics? Well, I'm a layperson when it comes to things fiscal, and can't, given my limited understanding, point to central or local government, or even to economic policy, as being the driving force behind the changing face of England's cities (I've not been to Cardiff nor any city in Scotland since 1992). But Anthony did touch earlier on the common concensus that Gordon Brown's economy has been the most stable and successful for decades, and let's not overlook the fact that it all started back in 1997, not long before the seemingly terminal decline of our cities began an inexorable reverse.

Comments

[Matthew Whitfield]

Yes, there is a genuine revival of cities, especially up in the 'northern archipelago', and it must be to do with arts and other progressive policies. The problem with Labour, however, is that the culture of neo-liberal hegemony in the Treasury and elsewhere has ensured that - for example - 'café culture' seems centered around Starbucks and Caffé Nero rather than independent, entrepeneurial outfits (there are happy exceptions to this - everyone should visit the family-run Italian Club in Bold Street, Liverpool). This is because regeneration money always trickles from the top downwards. With Public/Private partnerships, only the biggest corporations are trusted with managing projects, and they always install multinationals with guaranteed profits.

Having said that, the arts seem to be much more healthy now, and that's the important thing. Bland regeneration projects may not lift the soul, but they do lift the economy to the extent that eventually entrepeneurs will be attracted to set up shop. Who wants to end a trip to a gallery or concert with a McDonald's or Starbucks?

Labour may have many faults, but my suspicion is that the Tories hate all parts of every city with the possible exception of South Kensington and (now) Notting Hill.

[Andrew Mellor]

I think you're absolutely right Matthew, on a number of points, most significantly the fact that the progress in our city centres would be jeapordised by a government formed by David Cameron and the 'Notting Hill Set' - perhaps, in part, because a central tory government would be grappling with Labour local authorities in the north (Liverpool, Manchester etc), but mostly due to the fact that urban regeneration doesn't get the tories that excited.

I agree that the infestation of Starbucks etc is a significantly unfortunate side-effect of regeneration, but is there a viable, likely alternative? I'd like to think so, but I'm not too sure. As long as the 'fringe' independents remain and thrive, perhaps this is a happy medium.

[Matthew Whitfield]

I'm sure you're right about the 'fringe' independents. I think the fact that this is truly urban regeneration we're talking about, rather than suburban 'big box' sprawl, means that there should always be physical room and cheap enough rents for the canny to exploit gaps in the market. Bold Street in Liverpool is a good example of this - as the main retail/business core of the city gets glossier and more regenerated, this edgier, cheaper part of town can only provide more opportunities for independents (and it's already doing quite well in that regard).