03 March 2006
The government hates it and wants to avoid it at all costs. But there's no getting away from local party politics in a representative democracy, argue George Jones and John Stewart. It needs to be reformed, not abolished
Party politics is the ghost in the machine that haunts the modernisation programme for local government. Rarely made explicit in speeches, yet lurking in the background, is ministers' distaste, even distrust, for it. This is implicit in much of what they say (usually without any evidence) about the quality of councillors. It leads them to search for new leaders who, as directly elected mayors, will not be constrained by party groups or local parties.
Because this dislike is not expressed openly, the state of local party politics is ignored or bypassed. The case for it goes unrecognised and, as a consequence, no serious proposals have been put forward to modernise it. But with council elections, more Lyons papers and the localism white paper all due in the next couple of months, this area can no longer remain in the background. Baroness Kennedy's Power report this week, which notes that the public shows more interest in single-issue groups than in parties, is likely to prompt more interest in reform.
Some people believe that 'neighbourhood democracy' would be an alternative to both party politics and to representative democracy. But it is likely to be based on representatives, and certainly will be if it exercises significant powers. If so, and elections are held, then political parties will be involved.
Since local representative democracy is based on party politics in all but a few local authorities, it is unrealistic to assess the state of one without the other. The latter should be seen as giving value and meaning to the former. Parties identify the choices before voters. They stand for different approaches to government, and advocate particular policies. Through their organisation, they ensure that literature is distributed and canvassing takes place.
In the council itself, political parties in control give direction to its work and ensure that policies promised in elections are carried out in practice. They convey an understanding of councillors' policies to officers. They help iron out inconsistencies that can be barriers to effective action.
The role of party politics in local government should be celebrated. But many hesitate to do so, or join in the general denigration of it, believing naively that independents judging issues on their merits will achieve a coherent programme of government for which they will be accountable to voters.
Celebration of local party politics does not imply that all has been well with the way political groups have controlled councils. The problem lies in party discipline, or at least in the application of it. Discipline is necessary to achieve a sense of direction, consistent policy-making and to express the approach the electorate has voted for. But it does not have to be applied to every decision of the council, at all stages of policymaking or where no issue of policy arises.
In many authorities, it has been applied in a restrictive way, with whips withdrawn for any rebellion, however trivial. In the traditional committee system, party groups met beforehand and the whips were rigorously applied, regardless of what was said in committee. We have often been told: 'The opposition made a good point, but there was nothing we could do about it, because the group had already decided.' A councillor suggested: 'Perhaps the group should meet after the committee meeting.'
Not all party groups impose discipline for every kind of dissent. Some have shown it is possible to reconcile a general expectation of party loyalty on major policy, with an acceptance of dissent as a necessary part of council debate.
There are other serious problems with party politics today. First is the state of party membership. If local political parties are to sustain representative democracy, they need a large active membership from whom candidates can be drawn for local elections, and to campaign in these elections. Members should be sufficiently numerous to act as effective communicators between the party and the public.
The reality is different. Membership has declined, particularly in the two major parties, probably to below a few hundred thousand. This makes for a constituency membership of fewer than 300 and only a handful at ward or electoral district level. In many areas, party organisation at this level is virtually non-existent. The consequence is that local political parties cannot adequately support local representative democracy. National and local parties should give high priority to addressing this issue.
The second problem is recruitment of candidates for the council. Here parties are failing. There are special difficulties in recruiting young people, women, people from ethnic minorities and manual workers. But there is a problem of limited numbers generally, which is a significant weakness in our current representative democracy. National and local party organisations should address the question of how to widen recruitment of candidates. They should consider how to make people more aware of the challenges and potential of council work, through ways such as shadowing, co-option, adjusting councillors' roles to the time they can make available, and enhancing official and logistical support for elected members.
The third problem is the role of the party group under the new political structures. Too few groups have modified their role and ways of working to fit in with these, and there is little information on this. Most research has concentrated on formal structures, recording what the leader or mayor, the council or Cabinet, formally decide, rather than looking at what involvement groups have. Although a leader might be charged in the council's constitution with forming the Cabinet, the group might have made the actual decision.
The separation of the executive from the body of non-executive councillors offers the prospect of new ways of working for groups one that, while maintaining group discipline, recognises the dangers of too much discipline. It should increase the opportunities for discussion and influence by all councillors.
Policy issues present a different challenge from the run of executive decisions. Under the new structures, the council makes policy in a series of policy plans. These present a challenge for groups to develop processes to ensure they contribute to executive proposals. Policy plans should not be executive decisions from on high, but subject to full group discussion and then group discipline.
There is a need to create openings for wide council discussion, in which group members should be free to take part. The constraints of group discipline should be modified to enable that wider discussion. One way forward would be for policy plans to be subject to a two-stage process. After the first debate, the plan would be referred to a committee for detailed consideration, perhaps involving public hearings. At the first debate there would be no reason to impose a party whip: all councillors would be encouraged to put forward ideas. The only motion before the council would be to refer the policy plan for detailed scrutiny.
The results of that scrutiny would be reported to the council before the second debate and would be considered by the party groups before they reached their final decision. This group decision would be subject to group discipline at the second debate. Such an approach would combine discussion and discipline, and the discipline would have been informed by that discussion.
This is but one approach to the current crisis in party politics. What is required is extensive discussion of the role of party groups under the new structures. Local party politics is crucial for local representative democracy, and the current crisis has to be faced. Parties need modernisation.
George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the London School of Economics and John Stewart is emeritus professor of local government at the University of Birmingham
PFmar2006
