‘Voters to get direct say in local spending’ was the eye-catching headline a day after the dynamic new communities secretary announced a package of measures to revive local democracy.
As so often, the newspapers decided it. Participatory Budgeting - the idea that public forums can decide how to spend portions of local budgets - was declared by far the most newsworthy item of the four-point plan.
Participatory Budgeting trips off the tongue about as lightly as ‘endogenous growth’ once did. Or didn’t. But this time, it’s not Balls, it’s Blears. And, like all the best ideas, it’s been around for a while. The most famous example is in the southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre. Closer to home, councils such as Bradford, Newcastle and Salford (Blears’ own home town, of which she is inordinately and vocally proud) have begun to decide how to spend their cash in radically new ways.
Essentially, PB schemes enable community groups to work with council officers to decide on local priorities and then present their ideas for a public vote.
So far, so good. Ordinary citizens, whose quality of life is inevitably determined by the quality or lack of services, get a say in how local money should be spent. Improved facilities for the park or a new youth club? A holiday scheme for bored teenagers or weekday help for the hundreds of lonely pensioners we see around us? But how could they possibly decide?
And how much money will be available? PB pilots have tended to involve relatively small amounts of money, a limitation that Blears might have had in mind when she awarded Sunderland the right to distribute - or redistribute - a whopping £23m.
One of the apparent attractions of PB is that it appears to bypass the cumbersome machinery of local government. It usually involves a single ‘decision day’. Projects are presented to a room full of eager citizens, who then vote on their favourite idea. Direct democracy in action, at a community centre or town hall near you.
But is it that simple? The Brazilian experience suggests that strong councils are central to the process. Council officials, after all, are needed to help citizens’ groups devise and plan their applications and build up enthusiasm for the process itself.
In other words, PB works best as part of a flourishing local democracy, conditions we can hardly claim here in Britain. The once mighty power and pride of local government has long been chipped away by a mix of overweening central government, privatisation and sheer public ignorance about the potential wonders of civic government. Local councillors have long been the Cinderellas of our political system.
Will Gordon Brown turn out to be their Prince? Possibly. But what Gordon can grant, Gordon can also take away. Devolved power can easily be revoked. Remember the Greater London Council? Margaret Thatcher disliked the sight of confident local government to such an extent she decided to abolish its most effective and powerful tier - the metropolitan authorities: one of the most audacious political acts of the past half century.
And how will PB actually work? Will the populist beat the genuinely popular? Citizen participation could become a nightmare if, for example, a far-Right group decided to direct all its energies to winning support for a community centre for British-born citizens only? (Here, presumably the good offices of the much derided council - and anti-discrimination law - would step in before it came to a vote.)
But these are potential worries, the inevitable caveats. The practical and political payoffs are much more obvious, and considerable. Experience among pilot councils suggests that PB can bring real life and enthusiasm to an area.
According to one policy officer in Newcastle City Council: ‘The response from communities has been fantastic. It’s transparent. It’s quicker. People feel better about their local community, their peer group, in other words, themselves.’ Cash can quickly - and very publicly - be directed to areas of local concern.
This enthusiasm is echoed internationally. Last year, the Young Foundation named PB, along with Fair Trade and Wikipedia, as one of the ten most profound innovations in the world. Numerous global institutions, including the World Bank and the United Nations, have praised PB for its transparency and effectiveness. The UN recently nominated Porto Alegre as the Brazilian city with the ‘best quality of life’.
For many in the UK, the new prime minister’s commitment to high-quality localism was evident from his first moments in power. Standing on the steps of Number 10, his state-educated wife at his side, Brown said how proud he was to have gone to a local school. That simple statement marked a subtle - but highly significant - shift from the Blair years.
If PB can play its small part in rolling out high-quality local services of which we all feel a part and in which we can all take pride, then let the local revenue party begin.
