We now have a plan to make local government in England work, but I fear that party politics will destroy it Martin Kettle
I I’m under no illusions about this. Compared to Prince Andrew’s recent disgrace or Kelly Hodgkinson’s recent shiny award, reforming English local government is not an attractive topic for anyone, not even me, especially in the run-up to Christmas.
But it is a very important topic anyway. An effective local government is indispensable to the renewal of the country on a broader scale. It is also the rock without which the process of rebuilding trust in politics becomes more difficult. However, this cannot be left solely to the political class, because their first instinct will be to create a system that works for them, but not necessarily for the benefit of the citizens.
The Labor government’s White Paper released this week on English local government is a coherent and well-intentioned document. It will soon be followed by legislation in the form of the English Devolution Bill. But although the path has now been clearly set, the White Paper and the Bill should not be the final word on this inescapably asymmetric topic, which Labor has been struggling against since the days of opposition.
A white paper starts in the right place. Introduction by Angela Rayner He acknowledges that “England is one of the most centralized developed countries” and that “the controlling hand of central government stifles initiative and development.” It provides a generational shift in favor of “specific delegation.” The larger goals of this entire process are to stimulate economic growth, improve the delivery of public services, and strengthen government with the people, not for them.
No one would disagree with much of that. The present system of English local government is broken, but not corrupt. The necessary changes need to revive and restore local government, not remove everything about the current system. The right instincts are just as important as the right rules.
Ultimately, the White Paper’s 118 pages should be viewed as a wish list for the progressive centralist. They imagine England as seen by ministers in Whitehall, and perhaps officials as well, who really want to see the country run better and more fairly than it is now. But the pages are not the work of nativists, pluralists, or believers in organic change.
The white paper means good, but it is a top-down proposal, not a bottom-up proposal. It brings a mentality of large cohorts, not small platoons. There is no mention of pluralism. Nor from civil society is there little recognition that the modern state must accommodate people and communities with widely different views and interests, even when they disagree. Not surprisingly, the phrase “citizen jury” is not mentioned anywhere either.
However, the White Paper has a lot to say about citizens’ needs for better government. The problem is that the citizens he describes always seem abstract, passive, and inert. There’s not much that is flesh and blood about them. They are a political agent, because they vote (or do not vote) for the politicians who make the rules, but not a human agent. Their actual views don’t seem to be of much concern.
At one point, the White Paper makes clear that its aim is to create a global system of mostly English strategic powers Headed by elected mayors. This will be achieved through a collaborative process. He pointedly adds: “However, in order to ensure that citizens across England benefit from devolution, and to ensure the effective running of public services, we will legislate ministerial guidance.” In the end, in other words, the person in Whitehall still knows best.
Which may be true in some cases. The necessary task of rebuilding the British state will inevitably involve carrots and sticks. Certainly a network of single-tier local authorities, as now proposed, makes more sense – and not just in the eyes of officials in Whitehall – than the current patchwork of one- or two-tier (or sometimes three) tiers of local government.
It is also good that the White Paper’s instinct is to favor English counties, rather than regions, as a building block for a modern network. The counties may be Norman in origin and vary greatly in size, but a thousand years after the Conquest, they remain in the English DNA. Previous attempts to push them aside were unsuccessful. Regions may appeal to central planners, but they lack the identity of counties or cities.
However, in the end, it seems likely that Reiner’s plans will struggle to be as global as she hopes. This is not the worst possible outcome. Previous schemes for English domestic reorganization have also faltered in the past, although large parts of what was attempted have persisted and led to improvement. No system is ever perfect, and local government is never tidy.
The main threats to Reiner’s plans are clear. First, avoid the issue of financing. This is a political decision, because increasing local taxes, or their equivalent, will be unpopular, especially now. This means a life support system for the foreseeable future. Second, no matter how hard you try, Reiner’s system will not adequately reflect actual identity communities. There will be local revolts against it. Third, the White Paper moves away from the English national dimension. There is much about the transfer of power within England, but nothing about the transfer of power into England.
Ultimately, the rock on which such plans may collapse is the inevitability of partisan politics. Scotland has shown how vulnerable the devolution system is in the face of assertive partisanship. Something similar could happen in England as well. The election of a number of reformist mayors, intent on blaming everything on the central government, would quickly stop the decisive shift in its tracks. As always, the biggest challenge to good government comes from bad policy.