Local democracy can promote the values on which One Nation depends

12th November, 2012 1:00 pm

By Richard Grayson

In creating ‘One Nation’, the goals of policymakers and politicians should be to secure greater social cohesion and greater social mobility. Both involve creating a more equal society, something which the current government certainly will not articulate, and probably does not understand.  Traditionally, the left has relied on a powerful central state to deliver these goals, and in many areas of policy it should continue to do so, such as macroeconomics, benefits, fiscal policy, and in setting the national standards which the public demands.

But the central state has its limits and what has never been properly tried in the UK, at least not since the days of Joseph Chamberlain’s ‘municipal socialism’, is powerful local government taking the lead in the provision and regulation of public services. Meanwhile, under the guise of the accountability and choice agendas, public services have been fragmented through academies and free schools, and the marketisation of healthcare.

Powerful local democracy, and I stress local democracy rather than localism, offers an alternative to both the central state and markets. Why?

The first reason is that local democracy links political power to tax raising powers. Local councils which make decisions over a range of issues can present real choices to the electorate, engaging them fully in the political process. At present, local councils have some powers of scrutiny on matters such as the closure of local hospital facilities, they are not able to offer alternatives, because they do not have the power to respond to public demand by saying if you want X it will cost Y, or mean cuts to Z and then offering a choice through the ballot box and boosting cohesion through real involvement in crucial local decisions.

This leads on to the question of accountability. At present, the only elected people who have even a marginal role in local health services are local councillors and all they can do is scrutinise. This means that the people who really make the decisions in the health service are only accountable in so far as councillors can assess whether or not they have followed the established procedures of the NHS. Nobody is able to alter the decision made by health bureaucrats, unless they have not followed procedures.  Only local democracy can bring about that kind of accountability in local services. The current system cannot, nor can choices made by individuals to seek services elsewhere – a choice that is usually only available to those who can afford it.

Local democracy also reflects the concerns that people have in their day-to-day lives. Most people find it difficult to engage with strategic questions over the future of healthcare or education in the country as a whole, and find it hard to see how they can make their voice heard and have an influence, even where they do have a vote. In contrast, they do care about local issues, and can begin to see how they could affect the position in their community. But that concern has its limits and in general they do not wish to be heavily involved in the running of schools or hospitals. Most people wish to pay their taxes for good local services, and indicate through the ballot box how those resources should be used, every few years.   Local democracy allows that kind of engagement.

The final reason for promoting local democracy is that it can encourage greater equality through higher levels of investment in public services. When taxes are raised and spent remotely, and people cannot see the immediate benefits for their local community which accrue from the taxes they pay, it is all too easy for certain newspapers to focus on scapegoats such as benefits scroungers, and this has contributed towards people being unwilling to spend more on public services. However, and there is evidence for this from the very decentralised Danish health service, when people can see that their higher taxes will be spent on better local services for all they are far more willing to contribute.

Greater local democracy might seem at odds with One Nation politics. We certainly need to think about whether the current structures are the right ones – boundaries might well need to be withdrawn, and I’d like to see more elected mayors and local referenda.  But overall, not only does local democracy offer the potential to encourage innovation and diversity, it also has the potential to strengthen cohesion mobility and equality, through engaging citizens in major decisions which affect them, in a way that is essential to One Nation politics, and in ways that the central state has failed to do.

Prof Richard Grayson was Liberal Democrat Director of Policy in 1999-2004 and is a Vice-Chair of Liberal Left

This piece forms part of Jon Cruddas’s Guest Edit of LabourList

  • http://www.facebook.com/Dan.Filson Daniel Filson

    Who can argue being against local democracy? The problems begin when local democracy adopts Nimbyism and does not do what central government wants it to do, like build homes (or, with this government, not build homes for the poor). It’s like being against sin or being in favour of being kind to children and animals. The reality is that government, and the Tories are not the sole guilty party, sometimes likes to shift responsibility to local government without shifting the necessary resources. Indeed the entire revenue support grant system seems to operate on the basis of devolving responsibility without power (or finance). Any idea, by the way, that Joe Chamberlain operated municipal socialism is seriously misguided

  • http://www.facebook.com/dan.platt.7921 Dan Platt

    One way to set this off would be, as described in the full text of this essay (http://empiricalmag.blogspot.com/2012/12/january-excerpt-democracy-by-gar.html), for the central gov’t to provide resources to smaller ones as it shifts those responsibilities down the chain. It fosters cooperation from both sides.


  • Featured News Osborne announces major u-turns on tax credits and police cuts

    Osborne announces major u-turns on tax credits and police cuts

    George Osborne today caved into pressure from Labour and announced u-turns on both tax credits cuts and cuts to police budgets. Both issues have been major attack lines for Labour in recent months. Labour peers voted for motion on tax credits in the House of Lords last month, defeating the Government, and forcing Osborne into a rethink. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has said on a number of occasions that if the Tories committed to a full reversal of the policy, then Labour would […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Tories accused of playing political games over Syria as Labour splits denied

    Tories accused of playing political games over Syria as Labour splits denied

    Labour insiders are fuming at the accusations that there is a split between Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn over Syria. Reports this morning suggested that the leader’s office had failed to inform Shadow Foreign Secretary Benn that he was invited to a Downing St security briefing on Syria. Both Corbyn and Benn’s team deny a breakdown in communication, and sources claim that it has come from the Tories’ playing political games with the issue. They say that the email inviting Corbyn […]

    Read more →
  • Comment PMQs Verdict: Punchy performance from Corbyn on comfortable ground

    PMQs Verdict: Punchy performance from Corbyn on comfortable ground

    PMQs are difficult for an Opposition leader at the best of times; before an economic set-piece statement, they must be nigh on impossible. You’re going up against the Prime Minister blind, knowing the person across the despatch box knows every detail of what is about to be announced, and that anything you do will be overshadowed by what follows. Jeremy Corbyn approached today’s debate with six fairly specific questions: four on climate change and renewables, and two on domestic violence […]

    Read more →
  • News John Healey slams Osborne’s housebuilding bluster

    John Healey slams Osborne’s housebuilding bluster

    George Osborne is receiving praise in the press this morning for his expected pledge to invest in housebuilding during the Autumn Statement today. However, the 400,000 subsidised homes he is expected to pledge be built by 2020 comes after Housing minister Brandon Lewis said a million would be built back in September. Ahead of Osborne’s address to the Commons this afternoon, Labour have slammed the Tories’ “bluster”, and pointed out that David Cameron has presided over the worst peacetime record of […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured The griping and plots need to stop so we can get on with being an opposition

    The griping and plots need to stop so we can get on with being an opposition

    The Conservatives are having a great time. Today, in their Spending Review they’ll outline their budget plans, which will include monumentally savage cuts. Deeper cuts than in any other major economy. Meanwhile, the Labour party is embroiled in internal battles, the kind of which shows little sign of abating. But it needs to, and soon. Less than two weeks after Jeremy Corbyn’s landslide victory, talks of when and how to oust Labour’s newly elected leader made it into the papers. […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends