Localism looks and feels different in different places, because their communities' needs and aspirations are different. And that's exactly as it should be
Over the last few years, we have heard much talk of ‘localism’. Government ministers, opposition shadow ministers, local government leaders, and the voluntary and community sector all fondly speak of their passion for ‘localism’. And no doubt this term will dominate much of the public policy debate between now and the general election in 2015 and beyond.
Whilst there are some political leaders, policy gurus and commentators who favour a centralist approach, there would seem to be a growing consensus around ‘localism’. Or, more accurately, there could be a genuine consensus, if only there was a shared understanding of what the term means! Sadly, however, as I observe the debate, the reality is that there is no such agreement or consensus. Across Whitehall, it is evident that different departments have radically different views.
Some departments and their ministers actively champion the devolution of power to local government, whilst others favour academy governing bodies or clinical commissioning groups or police and crime commissioners. Others simply wish to retain power and control within Whitehall.
Some departments and ministers speak about localism whilst seeing no contradiction in legislating at the same time for more central government controls over local authorities and other local bodies. Others seek to diminish the role and influence of local government in critical services such as education, whilst even those that are apparently willing to devolve power and accountability to the local level are at the same time denying local authorities and others the necessary funding. In the latter case, the cynic could be excused for arguing that the aim is to shift blame and responsibility for painful and unpopular cuts to councillors and other local decision makers.
Effective and sustainable ‘localism’ requires both adequate funding and greater local control of revenues and expenditure. Of course, in a very unequal country, there will always be the need for some form of central distribution of resources from wealthier economic areas to poorer ones; and from areas of lowest need to areas of greatest need.
It follows that such central resource allocations should be transparent, equitable and fair, but the fact is that many in local government and the wider public sector, as well as commentators and analysts, feel that the local government support grant system, as currently applied, completely fails to meet these criteria of transparency, equity and fairness. I accept fully that the Labour Government’s ‘Total Place’ and the coalition government’s ‘Community Budget’ especially ‘neighbourhood community budget’ initiatives have been welcome examples of ‘localism’; as has the ‘right to challenge’ and the right to community ownership of assets ‘Neighbourhood planning’ has the great potential to facilitate community leadership of place.
However, what is needed now is a greater commitment by government and all its Whitehall departments to allow local choice and decisions over much of the local total public spending in a place, with virement, budget alignment and pooling easily executed between agencies.
Of course, there will be those who argue that all citizens of the country (be it England or the UK, depending on the services and outcomes being sought), should have equal access to services of a similar quality with similar outcomes; and to welfare benefits of a similar value. This would require central government to agree with local government and others (though primarily this should be a matter for the two sets of directly elected political local and national governments) on a set of national entitlements that all citizens across the country should expect, versus those which should be local decisions with local accountability. ‘Localism’ has to be about ‘real’ partnership between local government and central government; not about the latter granting the former some powers on the basis of licences that can be rescinded for tactical political reasons.
In the absence of a ‘constitutional’ settlement between the political power bases, local government remains and will remain a creature that can be tamed and controlled by parliament and central government. Whilst local government cannot itself change legislation, surely it can ‘choose’ not to be too tame! Of course, ‘localism’ should not stop at devolution from Whitehall to town and county halls. David Miliband spoke about ‘double devolution’ when he was local government minister. The concept surely is as relevant and powerful today (and will be in 2014 and beyond) as it was when he first spoke about it.
Local government has to find creative ways to devolve resources, power and accountability to local communities, neighbourhoods, community and voluntary organisations (VCS), and to citizens. It has to make the new powers in the Localism Act work for their place. I worry that there are too many political and executive leaders in local government who want powers devolved to them but who are not enthusiastic about sharing power locally. Their attitude has to change – radically and fast. And so does their behaviour. Co-design and co-production of services involving communities, the VCS, local businesses staff employed in public services and others will be increasingly important.
This has to be core to a new ‘localism’. It requires public sector, and local government principally, to facilitate, ensure fairness, allocate resources and invest in capacity building in communities. It requires local community leaders to rise to the challenge and opportunities; to be entrepreneurial; and to engage with communities, services users and other stakeholders. The aim in every place should be to maximise community well-being through maximising social value through public expenditure; empowering and energising local communities and their inherent but often latent human and physical assets.
As community leaders and place shapers, even in a period of severe austerity, council leaders should be reaching out to communities and the wider public, business and voluntary sectors; using their powers and total spend to create social value and wider, well-being based outcomes; and ensuring through influence, persuasion and leverage that all public bodies from the NHS to the police to academies to Job Centre Plus contribute to the local agenda. This is the kind of ‘localism’ that matters.
There is an opportunity between now and the general election in May 2015 to create a consensus around meaningful ‘localism’ and what needs to be done to achieve it in England. Scotland (whatever happens next autumn), Wales and Northern Ireland will develop their own approaches.
Whilst some structural, legislative and finance changes will be required, ‘localism’ will only succeed and be sustained by changes in cultures and behaviours by political and executive leaders at local and national level. They have an opportunity to turn rhetoric into practice in 2014. They should commit to this. The great thing is that even in England, and even with some shared and nationally formed principles, ‘localism’ will look and feel different, in different places, because their needs and aspirations are different.
