open Democracy News Analysis - Local democracy - Comments

Polly on "Vote Match 08"

Polly — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:33:13 +0000

I was matched to the Labour Party , not linked to any candidate though so I looked at micandidate.co.uk to check out the labour candidates . Like what Mike Small said all very modern.

Pamela Trucking on "Local Matters V: How public partnerships are wrecking local democracy"

Pamela Trucking — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:13:14 +0000

The only problem I see with public/private partnerships is that sometimes the partnerships are established on the basis of cronyism rather than true merit.

That never works to well for the actual public.

Dave Truro on "Local pride in local colours"

Dave Truro — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:25:23 +0000

It would be interesting to point out that the Cornish, British and European flags are flown from Cornwall County Council's building, but NOT the English one!

Tony Flynn on "A super-quango is born"

Tony Flynn — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:25:44 +0000

There is only one way to prevent this monstrous abuse of our Sovereignty. And that is by using the Law that allows any Employer and any Employee, to nominate where the exchange of payment takes place.

There are one or two other manoeuvres that need to be followed but it is perfectly legal to work for an off-shore employer.

Keith McBurney on "A super-quango is born"

Keith McBurney — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:40:50 +0000

Keith McBurney

Welcome to the surgical market solution for a democratic deficit bypass: incorporated citizenship.

In the interim, do you think electing those appointed to the quangos might restore some semblance of representation to this form of intermediate governance to balance that of the solely appointed designated MPs in oversight?

Or must this make weight await proper self-determination in England's Citizens' Constitutional Convention?

Aye Ours

Keith, frae Fife and Yorkshire

PS Glad to have met you at Cambridge. I spoke of Union being Independence and Independence being Union you might mind, of which there is more below.

claire preston on "Fiddling with local government won't restore trust"

claire preston — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:47:57 +0000

I agree with much of Suzy’s argument especially her cynicism over Labour objectives in promoting active citizenship. But I take issue with the idea that active citizenship and community is a by-product of open debate and by extension that local empowerment is pointless while there is no national discussion of big issues. Sure we need that discussion and the major parties aren’t having it. But discussion of issues at local level is intimately linked to discussion of the bigger issues too. Object to closures of local post offices and before you know it you are discussing the purpose of the state. Object to a Tescos opening on your high street and you are talking about corporate power. We need both, the local discussions and the national. And in the absence of the national, I don’t think we should give up entirely on the local. The by-product might just work the other way around.

richard berry on "Local Matters X: The rise of the local party"

richard berry — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:05:57 +0000

Acorn, I think you make some good points about pressure groups and the divisions that often arise within local parties (although some have lasted for a very long time), but there are some factual errors in your comment.

It is not true that the vast majority of councillors are past retirement age. According to the latest LGA census the average age of a councillor is 58, and only 31% are aged 65 and over.

As for pulling down fifty grand a year, this is very far away from reality. Basic allowances are between £5-8k, and the ordinary councillor can get a grand or two more from their committees. There are exceptional cases I have encountered where a tiny minority of councillors (non-cabinet) will get close to £20k where their council is overly generous and they also sit on external bodies.

Amelia Cookson on "Local Matters IX: Optimism will get you everywhere"

Amelia Cookson — Fri, 09 May 2008 08:13:30 +0000

I'm not suggesting the situation is ideal, or that there aren't serious problems to be addressed, our centralised system being one of them.

And I'm not saying people who don't work in government can't understand it, but you will be arguing long and hard to convince me that most people do. Not because they are thick, but because they have other interests, and because our system is monumentally complex. I don't understand banking, but why should I? That's someone else's job.

But I will not be swayed on this basic point: sometimes things do get better. Painfully slowly, and agonisingly tortuously, but the path is up. And if anyone is serious about improving what we have, they will be far more successful if they can see the opportunities (no matter how small) and build on them. Local government has been held back by negativity. If it sits around waiting for an overnight revolution, nothing will ever change. And if it keeps critisizing instead of doing it will reinforce the cycle that keeps it subservient to whitehall and westminster.

Acorn on "Local Matters X: The rise of the local party"

Acorn — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:58:50 +0000

Richard, it is a rare animal that goes into local politics with a mission to change something, even a single issue. Normally you would be advised to join a national pressure group - that will get greater media attention - if you want to stop your post office / local hospital being closed.

Also, remember that the vast majority of local councillors, get into politics for something to do after they have retired. Some turn it into a nice little earner, if you can get a couple of portfolios on a district; and a county; and a PCT etc. You are pulling down fifty grand a year already.

These citizens are not there to set the world on fire and would not have a clue how too. So, the menu offered by one of the national parties is a no-brainer. The left and right of the political compass is fairly well defined - or used to be in the old days - but if you want a real broad church, join the lib-dems with their pick-n-mix policies.

Hence the national party agenda becomes the local agenda because there is no other agenda. Central government allows you very little leeway to do anything serious; and, there is probably a Quango doing it already. The vast majority of "local issues" have been usurped by central government over the last two decades

Local parties never last, the issue that brought them together, quickly falls apart once the issue is no longer an issue. They lack the foundation slab of an ideology or a religion to build on. Remember the days when people had an ideology?

Acorn on "Local Matters IX: Optimism will get you everywhere"

Acorn — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:12:03 +0000

Amelia, you may be suffering from the “Pollyanna Complex” but I won’t hold that against you. I am afraid I can’t recognise local government being “on the up”.

Local government has never been more centrally commanded than it is at the moment. There has never been so many central government “initiatives” that require Councils to make the correct choice from a list of choices; that is, the choice that has the central government money attached to it.

“Let’s make a distinction, first off, between the word on the street, and the received wisdom of those who speak the language of politics and government”. We the people are so sorry that we are thick in the head and don’t understand what is going on. We don’t understand all these complex organisations that have been set up for our benefit, we just pay for them.

“Local government is “the best performing part of government.” Did you mean the least bad part of government? The Audit Commission and the National Audit Office - both organisations that have a problem keeping a track on their own employee’s expense accounts – have a vested interest in keeping the taxpayers money-go-round expanding. Nobody gets the sack with a bad report, just re-organised.

Local government has no power to change anything another QUANGO is doing, “scrutiny” is a joke, and it changes little, just like our Westminster Parliament.

The power is where the money is, always has been, always will be. Until local government raises the vast majority of its money locally, it will continue to be the local operating division of central government and obey its diktats. When it does, you may find that local Councillors may be reluctant to pay for LAAs; MAAs; LSPs etc; and, the £2.8 million they are paying to likes of the LGIU.

Peter Davidson on "Local Matters IX: Optimism will get you everywhere"

Peter Davidson — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:43:30 +0000

Amelia

I am not an expert on local government; for instance I wouldn't know what a "Local Area Agreement" was if it fell on me.

However, I do belong to a campaign group extolling the virtues of bottom up, citizen driven governance.

Within that context, I only have one question/comment to put with regard to your article.

Who controls the funding?

Does the optimistic picture you paint extend to a realisation in the heady atmosphere of Whitehall, that the strength of local government, in terms of its relevance to ordinary people, can be calculated in direct proportion to its fiscal independance.

When we see the sacrosanct concept of tax raising revenues being devolved to more localised levels on the government's mainstream agenda, I will begin to share your mood of general optimism. Until that "sea change" in central government thinking happens, the rest of your dialogue is simply wishful thinking (and I am being sympathetic to your message - many others here will no doubt treat it with utter derision).

thenextwavefutures on "Cameron at the Butchers"

thenextwavefutures — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:15:40 +0000

Of course, Kensington and Chelsea are not exactly short of money. Of all the councils in London - with the certain exception of the City of London Corporation - they are the council least needing to get extra money from locals.

Acorn on "Local Matters V: How public partnerships are wrecking local democracy"

Acorn — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:07:10 +0000

Keep in mind that the average citizen does not have a clue about "LAAs"; "LSPs" and there various derivatives. Your local councilor, will have little knowledge of what these partnerships are doing or who's money they are spending. The activities of these organizations are rarely discussed in council or scrutiny. They tend to be "officer led".

It is fine to suggest that we have powerful elected Mayors and Police; Fire; Health etc etc chiefs; but, elected to what?

I have said before on this site, until you define "localism" and make all these, currently, public sector organizations coterminous at some level, that the citizens can associate with, it will not sell on the doorsteps of England.

The same goes for NDPBs. There gross spending is about the same as Local Government gross spending. There is not a local council in England that knows how much these central government outfits, spend on their patch. It is time they did.

davy jones on "Local Matters V: How public partnerships are wrecking local democracy"

davy jones — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:26:26 +0000

An excellent piece.

This local "democratic deficit" will become increasingly evident and untenable as the full force of the multi-agency, area-based agenda of LAAs and CAA comes into play. It is simply not sustainable that councils alone should be accountable to local citizens while other local agencies and partnerships are not. The recent "Unlocking the talents of our communities" consultation hinted at Government concern on this when it asked: "How best can we increase opportunities for communities to hold local public officials and representatives to account?"

It seems to me that there are a number of options to deal with this democratic deficit:

a) extend the powers of councils over other local agencies - eg. the LGA has demanded that councils should be able to hire and fire police and health chiefs;

b) introduce all-powerful local mayors with sweeping powers over other local agencies;

c) elect the heads of other key local agencies such as PCTs, police forces etc; d) make Local Strategic Partnerships statutory and elect them rather than the local council.

All these options have their pros and cons. What is not feasible is to leave the current situation as it is. That would threaten to undermine some of the Government's new measures on multi-agency working and citizen empowerment.

Ray Bell on "Local Matters IV: Scotland's local solution to a global crisis"

Ray Bell — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:24:00 +0000

As someone who comes from a farming area, I can tell you this isn't really true. Sheep especially were grazed on lands which you couldn't even grow oats on.