Meeting held on Monday 17th July 2017
8 people were present and 4 sent their apologies.
Our conversation continued last meeting’s consideration of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. We felt that the brief for the Inquiry was too narrow and avoided the political aspects. There are stories of corruption and ignoring the voice of the residents which go well beyond simply technical matters of how the fire started and spread. There was generally a lack of trust in all the authorities involved and in such an environment the appointed judge was viewed by the residents with suspicion. There is a general sense that residents of the Tower feel they belong to a totally different culture and world view from those in authority, which promotes distrust and anger.
In discussing the wider context we felt that there is a vast divide in society. On the one hand are those who feel comfortable with the changes in society regarding immigration and cultural difference. On the other are those who feel they belong to a particular place and are uncomfortable with others who appear different or foreign. (this is the distinction that David Goodhart makes in his recent book The Road to Somewhere). The enormous sense of community that was manifest in the response of locals (and citizens more widely) is important to bear in mind in the context of this highly divided portrayal.
This led us to reflect upon the situation locally where we commented that there appeared to be some quite progressive political change. Apparently Ruth George (newly elected MP for High Peak) did acknowledge the support she received from the Green Party at the General Election, without which she would not have got her seat. But we felt that now Labour should respond, perhaps by offering to withdraw a candidate in favour of a Green candidate in a local election. Labour should bear in mind that unless it is prepared to reciprocate in some way, they cannot expect Green support at the next General election, risking their seat in the High Peak.
Such considerations of Progressive alliances (and proportional representation) led us again to consider differences between Green and Labour in terms of Socialist and Progressive approaches. The discussion led us to feel that terms like socialist, green, left and progressive often make it more difficult to understand each other’s different perspectives. Sometimes Green Party appears to be socialist, but often Green members are not; but often Labour doesn’t appear to be socialist either; but sometimes does appear to be green. In Whats Left in the Hope Valley we need to develop shared understandings that go beyond some of these terms in developing political understandings appropriate to our context.