Last-gasp localism, by Philip Johnston

17 Jul 08
White paper or white elephant? There's a fin-de-siècle feel to the latest draft legislation on community empowerment, says Philip Johnston

18 July 2008

White paper – or white elephant? There's a fin-de-siècle feel to the latest draft legislation on community empowerment, says Philip Johnston

There was a time when the publication of a government white paper was a significant political event. It would presage legislation on a matter of great public interest, acres of newsprint would be devoted to its analysis, editorials would thunder and opine, lobby groups would vie for TV airtime and heated debate would continue for weeks, if not months, before any Bill was forthcoming.

Yet Communities and Local Government Secretary Hazel Blears's white paper on local empowerment, Communities in control, was published on July 9 to almost universal indifference. Most newspapers carried a report of sorts, though they all tended to focus on the document's more bizarre contents, notably the suggestion that voters could be encouraged to take part in local elections by having their names entered into a prize draw or offered a free doughnut.

'Is Hazel nuts?' asked the headline in one tabloid newspaper. 'Why not offer air miles?' said one MP in the Commons.

Had all the hopes and ambitions for greater local democracy been reduced to a joke? There is nothing wrong with Whitehall departments including a few arresting ideas in a policy paper to attract the attention of notoriously fickle and indolent journalists; but when the gimmick becomes the principal message you have to wonder whether there is something wrong with the rest of it.

Or perhaps nobody is listening. Did we reach the high-water mark of localism some time ago? Was it merely a subject of arcane debate among a few political anoraks who should get out more? Local government spends vast sums of our money and most people's experience of government is of the locally delivered variety. So why aren't we more exercised about how it works?

It never used to be so. As Blears reminded the Commons in her statement on the white paper, these issues once mattered a great deal. She referred to the Putney debates in 1647, in which Oliver Cromwell argued with the Levellers over the boundaries of state power and the extension of the franchise, and brought in the Peterloo massacre in 1819 and the Suffragettes for good measure.

'Those of us elected to this House would do well to remind ourselves from time to time of the great struggles for democracy in this country,' said Blears. 'Whenever we risk taking our democracy for granted, we should recall the brave men and women on whose shoulders we stand, and give thanks for their fortitude and courage. When we look around the world, from Burma to Zimbabwe, we should recognise that the struggle for democracy is universal and that the drive for people to want to control their own lives is part of human nature.'

Er, hang on a minute, Hazel. This is a bit portentous. We are only talking about emptying the bins and keeping the streets clean, aren't we? And here is the rub: most people want their services to work properly and to be delivered cheaply. They want high standards and low taxes. They don't necessarily want to be 'empowered' or for their neighbourhood to become a cockpit of street democracy.

Is local control intended to be an end in itself, like the franchise, or a means of achieving improved services? Even if 70% of us don't bother turning up to vote in local elections, there is little evidence that people want to move from a familiar system of UK-style representative democracy to a Swiss-style direct variety. Most people when asked would still rather councillors took the decisions than a local neighbourhood committee; they just want them to take the correct decisions. Localism should be a way to bring that about.

There is a confusion here that afflicts the Labour government and could overwhelm a Conservative one. Take the idea of elected police commissioners, put forward by the Tories. The aim is to introduce proper accountability so that the individual responsible for police policy is receptive to what people want.

Such a reform would not be necessary if chief officers were already providing what people want, but they aren't. Elected police commissioners are a means to an end, not an end itself.

Equally, giving people the opportunity to vote directly on matters that affect them, by-passing representative bodies such as councils in order to do so, is not necessarily more democratic. Such forums can be dominated by small numbers of activists whose power is enhanced by the apathy of others.

So what is there in the white paper that will actually improve local services and keep down costs? Where are the cuts in regulations or the bonfire of the targets? The white paper was heavy on the analysis of the democratic deficit but pretty light on its prescription for better local services.

Indeed, there was a distinct fin-de-siècle feel about it, an afterthought from a government on the way out that felt it should make some belated nods in the direction of restoring some of the local decision-making it has buried over the past ten years in targets and regulations.

The problem is that now Labour has finally got round to doing something about devolving more responsibilities to councils, most of them are in the hands of the Tories or the Liberal Democrats, which is probably why the white paper is not especially enthusiastic about giving them more power. Since the Conservatives are by far the biggest party in local government in England, they need to be heavily involved in and fully behind any reforms of the type proposed.

Yet it is now clear that the Tories no longer want to play ball with the government. At a meeting of the Conservative Councillors' Association, shadow local government secretary Eric Pickles urged the party's locally elected representatives to start saying 'no' to Whitehall, beginning with a resounding raspberry – which he duly delivered – to the white paper. 'The time is overdue for Conservative councils to stand up to this bullying and controlling government on behalf of their communities,' he said.

On Tory websites, bloggers rushed to welcome what one called the end of Vichy Conservatism and a return to a full-scale war. But what is Pickles proposing instead – and will that be any more edifying to the party's 6,000 or so councillors, who form the bedrock of the party and are beginning to flex their muscles about national policy?

A 'green paper' is due to be published in September, which will also be strong on localism 'from a centre-Right perspective', Pickles told Public Finance.

He sees a great deal of scope in social enterprises such as communities running parks and leisure centres on a commercial basis. 'Provided there is democratic accountability, I don't see a problem. Why shouldn't a local community take over a park?' he says.

The government, says Pickles, is too obsessed with process and structure and not enough with outcome.

'The reason we want to make people more accountable is to improve services,' he adds. 'They think the process is all. Folks want to be able to say “I want my dustbins emptied every week and I want to be able to recycle waste and I want these things to happen”.'

Pickles says passing power down is meant to revive democracy, end the remoteness of much quango-driven decision-making and free the voluntary sector to deliver diversity to communities. Judging by that, the Tories centrally will also be pushing a localist agenda, though whether it is welcomed locally when so many councils are in the party's hands is another matter. Why would they want to give up power and control over budgets?

Pickles says social enterprises can provide commercial discipline and provide decent services. The white paper contains similar ideas but he says the government's approach would be weighed down with a new accounting procedure which is 'just daft'.

He denies he has instructed Tory councils not to co-operate with Labour. 'I am not proposing that they should lie down in front of Labour's tanks. But their time to influence has gone. They can't wield the big stick because of the three-year settlement,' he says.

'We will co-operate with the government – but on the basis of a centre-Right consensus. Since a lot of the things Hazel wants to do are well to the Right of the Labour party, that shouldn't be a problem.'

But what will Tory councillors think of this agenda now they have a taste of running things for themselves for many years across much of England? There have already been mutterings about proposals to hold referendums to decide council tax levels and hand power over schools to parents. How, too, would elected police chiefs work with elected mayors: who would have the greater mandate?

The fact remains that even if David Cameron wins the next election, the majority of elected Conservatives will be in local government. They might countenance some community control but not, one suspects, a lot.

Blears has certainly been a champion of these ideas for many years, but her white paper is in danger of being dismissed as a wish list, most of which will never see the legislative light of day. As the Labour government fights for its survival, is Prime Minister Gordon Brown really going to invest much of his rapidly dwindling political capital in community empowerment?

Some of the ideas are controversial, such as the removal of the Widdicombe rules, introduced in the 1980s, which prevent serving council officers from taking part in party political activity.

Some are more popular among politicians than they appear to be with the voters, such as encouraging more directly elected mayors and making police forces more accountable through direct elections. Just a day after the white paper was published, Bolton in Greater Manchester became the latest town to reject the idea of an elected mayor. There is only so long that you can flog a dead horse.

Some ideas in the white paper are already happening, such as making councils more responsive to public concerns voiced through petitions. Some are quaint, such as the revival of the title of alderman and the introduction of alderwoman for distinguished former councillors.

Some are sensible, such as the transfer of assets – including community centres, street markets, swimming pools, parks and land – to local community ownership. Others, like the prize draw idea, open the whole concept to ridicule, which was duly visited upon it.

Real localism involves the transfer of control over finance from the centre to the periphery, either the council or community group, and proper accountability for the way it is spent. Can anyone seriously see that happening either in the next few two years – or the following ten?

The analysis offered by Blears is a powerful one. People want to be involved, but the structures and cultures of politics sometimes alienate them. They are disengaging themselves from the political process because they feel that they lack power.

Blears told the Commons: 'I am convinced that in the coming decades, people will expect and demand much greater power within the political system. There is a tide of history flowing in the direction of greater democracy.' She might well be right about the timescale. It will take decades and there will be no big bang. For now, this white paper is about as far up the beach as the tide will get.

Philip Johnston is assistant editor of the Daily Telegraph

PFjul2008

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top