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.

Latest

  • Comment If the Labour leadership listens, it can learn from the party in local government

    If the Labour leadership listens, it can learn from the party in local government

    It is right that local government has featured prominently in the Labour leadership debate. All four candidates are courting councillors as a constituency that matters, with Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Jeremy Corbyn and Liz Kendall all laying out their stalls for local government in a series of pitches the LGA Labour Group has published today. I was struck by how much consensus there was between the four contenders at the local government hustings held in Harrogate a month ago. They […]

    Read more →
  • News Andy Burnham to promise cheaper rail travel for part-time workers

    Andy Burnham to promise cheaper rail travel for part-time workers

    Andy Burnham will promise cheaper rail season tickets for parents who only travel part of the week, as he launches his manifesto on Wednesday. The Labour leadership candidate will say that under his plans parents who work part-time will be able to save thousands each year. Burnham will explain that these commuters would only pay for days they travel and “no longer pay seven-day fees for a three-day job”. His team have said this is one announcement in a number […]

    Read more →
  • Comment We’ve already tried Jeremy Corbyn’s altnernative electoral strategy and it didn’t work

    We’ve already tried Jeremy Corbyn’s altnernative electoral strategy and it didn’t work

    I’m going to start by listing a bunch of things that I believe to be self-evident truths: The distribution of political opinions in the British electorate is basically like a bell-curve: a few outliers sit at either end on the right or left, but most are clustered around the middle with centre-left or centre-right opinions. That’s because British voters are basically sensible, pragmatic and (as any Marxist materialist analysis would predict) self-interested. They want governments that combine sound management of […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Labour’s failure had little to do with organisers in the field

    Labour’s failure had little to do with organisers in the field

    The fortunes of the Labour  Party will not change until and unless the Party re-organises the purpose of the of the organisers in the field. From mid 2011 through 2013 I had the privilege of spending a great deal of time in the field with the many of the regional directors, regional organisers, field organisers and members in every section of the UK. I found the people that I met and worked with to be talented, smart, hard working and totally […]

    Read more →
  • News Has Yvette Cooper won Alan Johnson’s endorsement?

    Has Yvette Cooper won Alan Johnson’s endorsement?

    It’s being reported by the Huffington Post tonight that Alan Johnson will shortly announce that he is endorsing Yvette Cooper for leader. Johnson has previously confirmed that he will not be supporting Jeremy Corbyn, but was waiting to see more of the campaign before making his decision whether to support Cooper, Andy Burnham or Liz Kendall. There have been some rumours about an endorsement today, and Cooper will be visiting Hull as a guest of Johnson on August 15th, the […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit