Articles

The trouble with iPod democracy

Email this to a friend Print Delicious Digg Facebook Reddit

by Michael Kenny, Visiting Research Fellow, ippr
Comment Is Free - 12 July 2008

The community empowerment white paper announced by Hazel Blears last week was accompanied by heady rhetoric. It contains a blizzard of consultations, proposals and suggestions designed to make local authorities more enabling of, and responsive to, the communities, neighbourhoods and parishes within their jurisdictions.

But look carefully at what this buzz of activity really adds up to, and a much more muddled and ambiguous picture emerges.

There are some welcome proposals here that keep alive the flame of "double devolution" that was lit by the Blair governments.

A duty to promote democracy, building on the previous duty to involve, could herald a more extensive set of experiments in participatory budgeting and neighbourhood consultation. And the idea of community "kitties", to be spent on locally determined priorities, is to be welcomed.

But do these and other useful measures really add up to a major rebalancing of power between Whitehall bureaucrats and government, on the one hand, and cities, towns and villages on the other, as is claimed?

The answer has to be that they do not. The white paper does not address two of the major obstacles blocking the path to the rejuvenation of local government and democracy. It does not herald any further transfer of powers in education, health, policing and planning out of Whitehall. Nor does it provide mechanisms for elected politicians or local bodies to exercise meaningful control over these policy areas.

To make matters worse, it is far too unquestioning of the opaque and undemocratic system of political leadership that characterises local government in this country.

The opportunity to push ahead with the introduction of directly elected mayors in England's major cities has slipped through the government's fingers.

Sure, there are some decent proposals here. A consultation on using e-petitions in referendums on mayors and a reduction of the time campaigners would have to wait to hold another vote may make it easier for one or two places to introduce elected leaders. But this is a far cry from the much-needed shake-up of the system of political leadership and governance local government needs.

Holding elections for a leader who has real powers over health, crime and education looks like a healthier way, over the long term, to get people to vote than prize draws for iPods.

The narrow political case against straying into these areas must have been strong. Does a government on its uppers really want to grapple with the complex negotiations and political risks that passing powers downwards would involve? And who can blame Gordon Brown for hesitating about creating a new clutch of powerful civic leaders at a time when they are unlikely to be from his own party?

But a more far-sighted and confident perspective might have suggested a different strategy. For there are good reasons to think that the localist genie is now out of the political bottle. Voices across the political spectrum - many civil servants and local officials, and a good chunk of public opinion - regard the centralised and bureaucratic way in which England is governed with a growing mixture of incredulity and impatience.

Having missed the boat with this worthy but muddled white paper, Brown's government may have to watch the initiative in this area pass to its political rivals. The Lib Dems and Tories now need to show us whether they are prepared to do more than talk the easy talk when it comes to localism.

Michael Kenny is a Visiting Research Fellow at ippr.