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 The Labour leadership contest: too much politics and not enough personality

    The Labour leadership contest: too much politics and not enough personality

    Our recent prime ministers were not elected to lead their parties following general election defeats, and there are many problems with electing leaders whilst on the rebound. One of the biggest is that everyone is still in General Election Mode, presenting manifestos rather than their qualities as a leader. Policies and ideas are not wedded to any one person – any candidate could institute a policy suggested by any other candidate. Having good ideas qualifies one for the top table, […]

    Read more →
  • Comment What lessons does Lynton Crosby have for Labour?

    What lessons does Lynton Crosby have for Labour?

    After May’s general election, it appeared everyone in the party who tweeted or blogged was sure they knew why Labour had lost. By some weird coincidence, these opinions always seemed to mirror the prejudices of the author. You know the type of thing – our policies were too right wing, our policies were too left wing, our policies were too centrist, etc. Not very enlightening. So, to get a more balanced view, I turned to Lynton Crosby. I appreciate that’s […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Labour is in “mortal danger” – “we need to save it again”, says Peter Mandelson

    Labour is in “mortal danger” – “we need to save it again”, says Peter Mandelson

    Peter Mandelson has argued that Labour is in “mortal danger” . In an article in the Financial Times (£), the former cabinet minister and Labour campaigns director has warned against a Jeremy Corbyn victory. If the Islington North MP wins the leadership election, “that would be a very bad outcome for anyone who cares about fairness in our society or Britain’s place in the world”, Mandelson writes. Mandelson has called for a tightening of the rules over the leadership election […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Attracting people who didn’t vote at the last election is key to winning in 2020, say LabourList readers

    Attracting people who didn’t vote at the last election is key to winning in 2020, say LabourList readers

    In recent weeks there has been building concern from some over who has been deemed eligible to vote in the leadership election. Under new rules, members of the public can sign up as party ‘supporters’ for £3, this buys them a vote in the leadership election. However, it’s been reported that some Conservative and other non-Labour supporters have been given a vote. Labour say they have a vigorous vetting process to weed such people out. Yet some Labour supporters and […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Jeremy Corbyn dismisses “hysteria” over his policies and says he’ll defeat the Tories in 2020 with “people’s politics”

    Jeremy Corbyn dismisses “hysteria” over his policies and says he’ll defeat the Tories in 2020 with “people’s politics”

    Jeremy Corbyn has dismissed the “hysteria” and “deliberate misrepresentation” of his campaign’s policies and said that he is committed to ensuring that the Labour party defeat the Tories in 2020 with “people’s politics”. The leadership candidate has argued that despite attacks directed at his campaigns policies, the message his team are sending out is “resonating”. In an article in The Times (£), Corbyn has brushed off the idea that his policies are “extreme”, which has been suggested by some Labour […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit