Neither local, nor government
Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): Is there a 'mental Berlin Wall' that separates unease about democratic issues such as 'executive dominance of Parliament, the unreformed House of Lords, the obsolete parliamentary election system, 42 days and the data-base state' from concern over the existence of 'local government that is neither "local" nor "government."'?
That at any rate is the view of Stuart Weir, Director of Democratic Audit, who led the discussion at Wednesday's CAOS (Combining All Our Strengths) seminar for civil society organisations. Stuart described domination by Whitehall managerialism, a complexity of structures and the financial and constitutional weakness of local government to ask, "Is democratic accountability at local level possible? Is there space for genuine participation, and if so, is it confined to a very low level at which government is willing to tolerate ordinary people getting involved?'
As it happens, the seminar coincided with a white paper on community engagement that illustrates how uneasy Whitehall is about any ideas that might break the managerial mould.
Confirming the view of apathy around local government, another participant noted that there had been no 'howls of protest' at the progressive removal of powers from town halls to Whitehall over the last four decades, while supposed transfers from the UK to Brussels are perpetually controversial. There were suggestions that local government could be linked to the broader democratic reform agenda through the introduction of local-level bills of rights or a right to participate.
During the course of discussion the existence of another 'Berlin wall' became apparent, one that divided those present at the meeting. On the one side there were a group I might ungenerously describe as the local government policy wonks; on the other the 'naïve' democrats.
The basis of their disagreement was as follows. Under the new arrangements for local government introduced in 2000, most councils are led by cabinets, with all other councillors, who once made decisions collectively, being relegated to the level of backbenchers, responsible for scrutinising policy but rarely for deciding it.
One participant in the seminar complained how, even if a particular decision taken by the cabinet (in this instance, the closing of libraries) was voted against by a majority of councillors at a council meeting, it could not be reversed as this sort of decision was delegated to the cabinet. The only way of reversing the decision was through the 'nuclear option' of a vote of no-confidence, which would lead to the establishment of a new cabinet with the same excessive authority. In other words, local authority cabinets have an ability to dominate elected assemblies that even our notably powerful national-level executive lacks in relation to Parliament.
If MPs vote against a measure, be it a war, a treaty or a law, it would be impossible, either on practical political or formal legal grounds, for a government to proceed with it. Why should backbench councillors enjoy less powers than backbench Westminster MPs?
It was over this issue that the fissure between the wonks and the democrats opened. The wonks not only didn't think there was a problem, but they apparently couldn't see why anyone else could think there was one. Rather than a democratic deficit they saw an issue of political decision-making. If councillors felt strongly enough about something, then they would pass a vote of no-confidence.
I side with the democrats - who were appalled by this state of affairs - here. We were told at the seminar how councillors are now being advised that they need not turn up to any meeting other than the ones that elect the executive and set the rate. In times of low turnout and participation in local politics, what incentive is provided to either vote or run for a council if the body being elected is so weak? This is a fundamental issue, which alongside that of the dominace of edicts from Whitehall over local government, is more important than any of those fully addressed in the new white paper.
padav said:
Sun, 2008-07-13 12:05Thanks for this timely article Andrew
Leaving aside the issues of internal constitutional protocols referred to in your article, the lack of public interest shown in local government stands as a metpahor for the overtly centralised nature of UK governance.
Local government is seen as a inconsequential sideshow to the main event in Westminster. Turnout for local government elections reflect a general awareness of this self-evident truth.
1. Local government budgets are (approx) 75% funded from the central (Whitehall controlled) exchequer
2. Local councils have no direct control of the setting of business rates.
3. Local councils are mandated, by Westminster legislation, to provide certain minimum standards of service (funded from local budgets).
What's actually left over for locally elected representatives to prioritise? Not a lot!
Electorates aren't daft so why bother voting for someone who doesn't actually control/manage anything of substance?
Illustrating this point usually brings forth a response along the lines of "local government representatives are a bunch of incompetent rogues so I don't want them in charge of anything important, i.e. public funds, anyway", which misses the point completely.
This rationale only highlights the link between accountability and financial autonomy - unless local councils are actually responsible (as far as is practical) for raising the revenues required to fund their competencies, they will never develop a meaningful sense of affinity from their respective electorates.
Yet Westminster jealously reserves revenue raising powers to itself. This firmly established constitutional principle feeds into the English Parliament debate.
Anyone with a modicum of common sense understands that changing the name over the door at Westminster from United Kingdom to England will achieve nothing in terms delivering real dispersal of political power.
The maxim is: "We (at the centre) will effectively control policy because we hold the purse strings". Establishing an English Parliament would not change that cultural mindset, hence my not unfounded fears conerning the rationale driving the English Nationalist community.
This vital factor is why campaign groups like Unlock Democracy have profound difficulty in accepting the concept of an English Parliament as a credible vehicle capable of fostering effective decentralisation; I (and I know my viewpoint is not isolated within Unlock Democracy), quite simply do not believe an English Parliament can deliver on that front.
That's why Unlock Democracy supports the concept of allowing individual localities to determine (to a far greater extent than at present) their own destinies. That's why Unlock Democracy advances the idea of establishing a Citizens' Convention as a formal mechanism capable of giving voice to these aspirations, rather than drowning them out in a populist rush towards an English Parliament.
Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England