Coalition agreements are a recipe for inactivity, we have been told (not least by the Conservatives in a pre-election party political broadcast). Compromise and trade-off inevitably lead to weak and indecisive leadership.
Well, the Tory-Liberal Democrat alliance is clearly determined to eat those words. Radical ideas are not in short supply. On the legislative menu are five-year fixed parliamentary terms, proposals to move 5 million people off welfare and into work, and plans for a £6bn starter to cut the deficit.
Of course, a £156bn budget hole encourages a certain amount of blue/yellow sky thinking. But, nevertheless, there is a lot more than lean cuisine in the coalition’s offering.
Both parties desire to spread power away from Whitehall. Responsibility will be shifted to councils, communities, neighbourhoods and individuals.
About time, we all shout. Let’s look forward to a world free from central diktats and target-driven cultures. A world where local democracy comes to the fore and town and county halls lead a localist revolution.
Unfortunately, however, this is not exactly what David Cameron and Nick Clegg are cooking up.
Yes, councils will regain some control over housing and planning decisions, inspection will be minimised and a general power of competence will be granted. But local authorities face losing a lot more. One of the high-profile Bills in this week’s Queen’s Speech could create thousands of academy schools, which are outside council control.
Education Secretary Michael Gove says that schools judged ‘outstanding’ will have the chance to be fast-tracked to academy status by the autumn. State-funded academies could also be set up by parents under the ‘free schools’ policy.
It’s certainly radical, but is it wise? The fear is that we will end up with a two-tier education system, and disadvantaged children will lose out. It could also leave councils with a significant funding shortfall.
Perhaps we should look to Sweden, where free schools were introduced in the early to mid-1990s as part of a smorgasbord of centre/Right ideas. The evidence here suggests only a small positive effect and an increase in social segregation.
And, as PF’s interview with former Swedish prime minister Göran Persson shows (see pages 20–22), the country had a very different approach to its equivalent debt crisis. It took the decision to cut spending but also to significantly increase taxation.
It should be food for thought – however indigestible – for those making similar decisions in the coalition government.
Mike Thatcher, editor of Public Finance
