Localism is the new buzzword in all three political parties. David Cameron has today published a new Sustainable Communities Bill which has been drafted in conjunction with Local Works – the campaign for stronger local democracy. The press release says...
The Bill would give local authorities the power to demand from central government a yearly account of the amount of money spent by central government in their community. It will allow local authorities, after detailed consultation with local people, to work out their own alternative local spending plan and to allocate that public spending in their area in a different way. The government would reserve control over spending on items of primary national significance such as benefits, education, acute healthcare and national infrastructure. Otherwise, local authorities would be able to decide their own expenditure priorities - for example deciding to support local post offices.
I think this is good for two reasons. First of all, it is an actual policy and second of all it helps define 'localism', which can mean many different things to different people. Of course the giant leap will be to decide how local government should be funded. At the moment less than 25% of local government expenditure is raised locally. A true believer in localism would trust local authorities to raise their entire budgets locally, but the man from Whitehall will argue that there would always have to be a degree of central funding so that money can be transferred from rich areas to poor ones. There is a certain logic to that, but surely if local government is to mean anything in terms of 'localness' the proportion raised locally must go up. But any rise in local taxes (either in Council Tax or a replacement) must be balanced by reductions in other taxes. This is truly one of those occasions when "I wouldn't have started from here...".
22 comments:
I think you meant from rich areas to poor ones, not the other way round Iain (unless you've become even more of a hawkish right-winger).
Douglas Carswell MP (who pushed the whole Local Democracy thing) suggests that VAT should be kept locally and that this is roughly equivalent to the amount of govt grant given to local govt.
I'm not persuaded myself as areas without retail space would have no income and shopping areas would be rich beyond their wildest dreams - before the inevitable central govt inspired redistribution took place, making a nonsense of the whole "local" exercise.
I wish I had an answer to how more money can be raised locally but I don't.
How would such a measure extend the scope for the operation of local government services? Would a modern equivalent of the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire be allowed to emerge if that is what its electorate supported? Would local authority services be allowed to challenge private ownership provisions in an area? Is Cameron really interested in an openings for forms of Municipal Socialism in modern dress? Will it really be welcome back Clay Cross after over 3 decades, all is forgiven?
Sad to say, I think it's pie in the sky.
Getting accurate figures from Whitehall will be next to impossible, even if they wanted to co-operate, which is highly unlikely.
And what is a 'community'? A Parish/Town/Borough/County or Metropolitan area? All have Councils.
If they're serious about this so-called localism, then they should take a look at the New England Town Meetings where the officers (Town Clerk, Finance Officer, Police Chief, Education Officer, not just the Councillors) are elected and have to account for their official activities in open meetings. And they can be fired. Now that's what I call localism. Fat chance of that sort of local democracy happening in this benighted, politician-ridden land.
Its all utter nonsense.
How can there be local autonomy of any sort while "local" policy is being set - not only by central government - but by Brussels ( Regional Spatial Strategy) and the UN too. ( Local Agenda 21)
Kelly's white paper is toothless. It gives local councils "power" only over policies which the government deems it may have. All the rest will be delivered - right down to neighbourhood level - by "on-message" partnerships of unelected and unaccountable quango's. and "Agencies".. all fronted by cuddly, feel-good "public consulation" which give a facade of local democracy but which is in effect, a gross violation of it.
How can Ian Dale be so gullible?
Its a sham.
It might be a good idea to remind ourselves why power was taken away from the truly awful Councils that used to exist . In Borough like ours half the housing is “council” of various categories and 70% of them are on benefits They vote and they will vote for more and more of everyone else’s money. More power is required locally but the first thing to do is to scrap the Regional Authorities and the GLA. Higher tax raising powers at a local level will immediately fall foul of the ratio of voters to payers , especially in inner cities . It isn’t an easy question I admit but in practice it means higher taxes and must therefore be resisted.
Margaret Hodge :
At this distance it’s hard to know which stories of the “The Socialist Republic of Islington “,are apocryphal, and which were true .These all appeared in the press.
Council funded lesbian self defence classes, non sexist jigsaws and the bust of Lenin in the town hall. An Islington action group for the unemployed collecting money, food, booze, fags, cans and bricks, to send to striking miners. The collection of only £4,000,000 of the £20,000,000 of council tax due in 1990, and the attempt to ban dealings with the Islington Gazette. Child care was, of course, a scandal which is too fresh and distressing to repeat.
The sole SDP Councillor was David Hyams, and he has had much to say. Labour, according to Councillor Hyam, “.left the chairman of social services to negotiate with the unions despite the fact that the unions were led by his brother.”
I do hope someone is thinking this through properly
I'll believe Governments are interested in Localism when they stop telling Local Authoritys how to spend their money. What's the point of voting for Local Councillors when the large chunks of their budgets are destined for pre-determined activities dictated by Central Goverment?
Iain but there are obvious disadvantages and dangers within localising power- look at the American south one of the reasons that the New Deal there as Ira Katznelson recently explained didn't produce results for blacks is because it was managed by racist white officials on the ground. The real way to have a sensible local democracy is to have a good local media and ultimately that like the European problem in reverse might be a neverending problem for local democracy to circumvent.
We tried to sort this problem out the best way we could think of with the POLL TAX. One of the best idears for decades and politicaly the most stupid since........ nothing.
So basicaly on this issue as many others we are up Iraq shit creek without a working helicoptor paddle.
gracchi - Harking back to "the New Deal"? What? Eighty years ago and you're clinging on to analogies by your fingertips?
BTW, Yorkshire is the North Riding, the East Riding and the West Riding. There was never any reason to perpetrate this destruction, and Yorkshiremen should reclaim their ancient ridings.
Food for thought: we need to remind ourselves of Bastiat's caution regarding legal plunder and move towards devolving power to the taxpayer, rather than local government.
A true believer in localism would trust local authorities to raise their entire budgets locally,
No Thank You !
Our "local" council has 90 Councillors of whom 21 are Muslim, representing 550.000 people.
The £600 million budget is insufficient to deal with social problems and urban decay - we already pay high Council Tax for our regionalised police force and disastrous council to get a library without books open 3 days a week and no policing or proper services.
NO to any power to the "local" Metropolitan Council the Heath Govt inflicted on us
Most local councillors are thick, even thicker than those fat and dumb tarts that sit behind the government front bench. (Whose idea is it to put them there? There are better looking ones). To say nothing of the corruption we had in Islington and Liverpool. I shudder to think of an extension of local power in cities.
Sounds like the EUssr and the united states of europe through the back door. Roll on an English Parliament and a English man or women at the top putting Englands interests first.
The torries with the likes of hesltine and clarke, on the fringe can spell only one thing.
Go to hell, because you do not represent England in any way shape or form.
A true believer in localism would trust local authorities to raise their entire budgets locally,
No Thank You !
Our "local" council has 90 Councillors of whom 21 are Muslim, representing 550.000 people.
The £600 million budget is insufficient to deal with social problems and urban decay - we already pay high Council Tax for our regionalised police force and disastrous council to get a library without books open 3 days a week and no policing or proper services.
NO to any power to the "local" Metropolitan Council the Heath Govt inflicted on us
Ian Dale wrote,
“I think this is good for two reasons. First of all, it is an actual policy…….”
Good Lord, really! Ah, but when we look at it in the clear light of day it is another fancy, dressed-up notion from Dave’s Shadow Ministry of Silly ideas!
Incidentally (and I don’t mean to hijack the blog), but I read that a second idea emerging from the same ministry – you know the one that gave us ‘Hug a Hoody’ – now proposes “Hard Love” as an answer to the out of control yobboes that presumably don’t wear hoods.Please don’t ask me what that means, but suffice to say Dave’s explanation is a total bloody embarrassment which will probably lose us even more support.
You need to consider the way Councils have approached 'decriminalised parking enforcement' before you trust them with revenue raising powers. The Road Traffic Act 1991 devolved restricted financial and judicial functions to Councils in order to enable them to enforce the parking provisions of the Act.
Despite the fact that using these powers in order to raise revenue is illegal, Councils on a huge scale have milked every loophole in order to maximise their revenue 'take' from this Act. A judicial review on 2nd August 2006 showed quite clearly that Councils, their contractors and the supposedly impartial Adjudicators (all of whom ae paid from the proceeds of parking fines) were happy to work together illegally if they could milk more cash from the general public.
Any policy wonks with an interest in 'localism' should study this emerging scandal with care before advocating the devolution of more power, especially revenue-based to Councils.
Sup with a long long spoon with these devils on this one. Can anyone think of ANYTHING AT ALL that this government (or its predeccessor) has ever done which would increase (a) real power of local government and (b) real interest of local peole in local government? The nature of the beasts has always been to centralise, celtralise, centralise. Quango Quango Quango. appointments 'yes', democracy 'no'.
They are at their worst when they want to make something really 'black' - their favourite trick is to publish a paper about 'our campaign for whiteness'.
Two proposals for making Britain slightly more democratic: Elected police chiefs. Not answerable to any great authority in the sky - just to the local electors. In other words - just to put this very, very simply so even tony blair can understand it - police chiefs have absolutely no boss other than the electorate. They report to the electorate, not to someone in the Home Office. They are independent. I am afraid if the socialists ever do think they'd win a few votes by promoting this, they'd bugger it up by making them accountable to someone in London, thus neutering the whole point.
Second: Take an axe and viciously and with malice, chop and slash every quango to tiny pieces.
ANON
You need to consider the way Councils have approached 'decriminalised parking enforcement
You are preaching to the choir , brother/sister. A further highly suggestive point is the way in which the consultation process has been ruthlessly misused to obtain these revenues.
Now the vital need for 20 mph limits is now being trumpeted in IZ ,on the basis it was "in the manifesto". Yes ,on page 62 ,and unmentioned at the time of the elections . In these elections on a 30% turn out the Libs all but lost their huge majority despite the fact the only opposition , in this benefits hell hole ,is Labour , because of the parking scandal. They call these circumstances a “mandate” . Huh? London cabbies voted Islington the worst Borough to pass through due to the Impossibility of getting in and out without incurring a fine. Councillor Lucy Watt gave the game away . “ We get money from Transport for London for this and it cannot be used for anything lese” . Oh what a surprise , its all about building empires in one of the few ways left to them . Now why would anyone want to do that ?
Obviously because massive remunerations are payable to public “servants” based on the size of their responsibility . They are paid whether the responsibility is discharged well ,or more usually ; badly . Look at the £2,000,000 Bob Kiley has walked off with for sitting on his hands.
It also gives them a chance to fill the pace up with further futuristic computer surveillance technology , which they have already started using for other purposes.
Well if you` ve got nothing to hide ? Yes but in whose opinion . I will decide what I want to be known about me and what I do not .At least , I would like to .
I find it a horrifying that at the same time they are breaking the “charge for services” principle behind local taxation , they are giving local councils more power . Its all part of the same thing confusing and complicating democracy to the point where it only a memory of itself.
I wrote to the GLA and said , “ if I do not want what you/the government/the council , are doing , who do I vote against ?” They replied “ For the average Londoner it can be difficult to understand and there is no simple answer to your question”
Well quite !!!!
The comment about the quality of councillors was harsh but fair. 30 years ago, as a solicitor, I'd have been considered the sort of person who stood for local election. I work until 8-ish most evenings and with the cabinet system where meetings are held during the day or early evening I couldn't do it.
Essentally, even at the most rural of councils, the councillors are either elderly and retired or work for the state in some form.
Would greater responsibility for concillors attract a better candidate with a genuine ability to handle the budgets you consider appropriate? Probably, no.
The problem with "Localism" and local taxation in particular is the very stark focus it brings on the issue of "those who pay" and "those who receive". Universal sufferage is not best equipped as a voting system to sort out this problem. Either the taxation has to be centralised, which blurs the demarkation between givers and takers or taxation has to be massively reduced or voting rights should be tied to relative contribution through taxation. How about it: one vote for all and an extra vote for every £1000 you pay in council tax.
I'm all in favour of localism and some reform of local government funding, so long as it doesn't end up in any shape or form like this!
Post a Comment