The post Local Government Should Be At The Heart Of Our Democracy – It Must Be Defended And Strengthened appeared first on John Tizard.

The post The Role Of An Active State Should Be At Heart Of The General Election appeared first on John Tizard.

The motivation for those who voted to leave was complex. There were many reasons but it would seem that one strong one was a desire to “take back control” from what is perceived as a remote unaccountable set of institutions; the Council of Ministers, the Commission and even the European Parliament. One can strongly argue that these bodies are accountable and not remote but this did not seem to resonate with the experience of many people especially those who feel that they and their communities have been left behind and even abandoned. The argument for the EU as a democratic body albeit one requiring further democratisation was not made well enough over a long period not just the few months of the referendum campaign.

A second and very serious irony for the English – leaving aside devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – is that in or out of the EU they live in one of the most centralised states in the democratic world.  Successive governments have taken powers and resources from democratic local government and transferred them to Whitehall and/or non-elected quangos.  Recent policies based on English devolution and localism have only dented this all powerful trend to central control and dictate.

If the electorate wants more control this has to include a English version of subsidiarity. It has to mean the transfer of power including tax raising and policy making powers to sub-regional bodies such as the new combined local authorities, to local authorities and to communities. It has to include what has been described as double devolution – powers from Whitehall to town hall and from town hall to communities and neighbourhoods.

The current English devolution agenda is a welcome approach but it does not go far enough. Its scope has been principally focused on economic development and large scale infrastructure with some cases of health and housing being part of the mix.  The money being transferred is a small proportion of the central government financial support for local government which has been cut over the last six years.  This is not subsidiarity.

More has to be done and done quickly if those who believe they have voted to “take back control” are not to feel as disillusioned and let down by government – central and local – as they appear to have felt pre-referendum.

However, there is a real opportunity now to think about a new political settlement which devolves more to sub-regions and is accompanied by redistributive transfer of resources. These sub-regions could then devolve power and resources to communities. This type of decentralisation introduces and extends participatory democracy, which could be enabled by technology like on-line political discourse, consultation, voting and much more. Given how much people participate in media and reality television based voting and use social media all the time this is a natural extension of citizen enfranchisement.

Any further devolution should be based on locally elected councillors and mayors but this representative democracy can be supplemented and enhanced by some new direct participation.

The principle of subsidiarity should prevail and shape the approach. Some matters are best dealt with at a national level – indeed prior to the referendum at the EU level – but others can be best controlled at sub-regional, place, community or neighbourhood level.

Some of us recall the ambition to create a Europe of the regions. This was commendable and could have made citizens feel closer to their governments. Post – referendum let’s aim to create an England of empowered people and communities with effective local democratic accountability at the heart of governance.

The post Taking Back Control: Empowering Local Communities appeared first on John Tizard.

Inevitably, the change in political leadership post-Brexit has created a pause in the programme, and sadly, there are signs that government may now be less enthusiastic on this topic. This is most unfortunate for there remains a real opportunity to consider how best to deliver and achieve greater local control and accountability with proper resourcing.

‘Seize the moment’ has to be the order of the day for the the voluntary and community sector (VCS). It is vital that it energises itself and is proactively involved in the political debate around devolution.

‘Devolution has to be underpinned by central government

committing to resources for local control and decision-making’

There has been a varied degree of opportunity for VCS to be engaged at a local level, with far too many examples of local authority leaders and ministers rushing at a pace to secure ‘devolution deals’ without taking time to involve or even speak with critical local stakeholders.

I accept that, in part, this has been due to the pace of decision-making required by George Osborne as Chancellor. However, there can be no excuse, whatever the pressures from Whitehall, for local political leaders to exclude civil society groups and local citizens. If devolution is about empowering local communities and strengthening local democracy, then citizens and civil society organisations should never be sidelined or excluded. To do so challenges the very premise on which the policy is meant to be based.

Central government should always ask how the VCS and wider civil society groups have been consulted and involved in the development of local devolution propositions before considering, let alone endorsing, them.

And local government leaders have a moral duty to consult and involve local civil society. I would go further and suggest that local authorities should provide support, including financial support, to enable the local VCS to participate comprehensively.

Much emphasis has been placed on the economic benefits of devolution but long term, sustainable, inclusive growth can only be achieved through long term growth in social capital, community assets and communities themselves. Such growth cannot be ‘engineered’ by central or local government on their own, though clearly they have major roles to play. It requires the contribution of the local voluntary and community sector, wider civil society, and local employers too.

Above all, it requires local communities and local citizens to make local decisions, to take control and to contribute.

No two devolution arrangements will be the same. And just as devolution must embrace a range of public services from health and social care to education and employment programmes, so too devolution has to be about more than devolving power to elected mayors, combined authorities and local authorities.

It has to include a commitment to ‘double devolution’ to communities. It has to be underpinned by central government committing to make the right level of resources available for local control and decision-making; to redistributing resources to address regional inequalities; and to a wider programme of systematic redistribution of wealth and income to address the inequality which is so dominant in this country. The reality is that without greater equality, the opportunities from devolution will be less and they are likely to reinforce the current obscene social, gender, sexual, ethnic and economic inequalities. We can have a more equal country without having uniformity or taking away local choices and differences.

The summit this week provided an important platform to discuss and argue for a new agenda of devolution based on fairness, democracy and equality.

And surely a good starting point for such is the set of principles promoted earlier this year by Locality and NAVCA:

• creating a social economy
• enabling representation of local VCS within local leadership structures
• ensuring accountability through community engagement
• taking decisions at the most local appropriate level
• engaging local organisations to transform public services

The summit endorsed this approach and unanimously agreed a wide ranging set of principles – to be published soon. The summit said that devolution had to be contribute to a fairer and more equal country or else it had no value. It believed that this requires collaboration between the sectors and positive government action through its taxation and redistributive policies.

Government and local government have to understand and accept that for English devolution to be effective it needs to be community-based and community-led, with effective local accountability and national redistribution in order to create strong communities and local economies and a fairer country.

The post English devolution should be community-based and community-led appeared first on John Tizard.

There are many arguments to be made for this policy though the extent of the devolved powers and the transfer of resources to support these powers bears detailed scrutiny and challenge. This is especially true whilst at the same time the Government is drastically cutting its revenue grant to the same local authorities, which are being forced to cut core public services and community initiatives. The Government’s insistence that combined authorities must be accompanied by directly elected mayors seems very prescriptive and not in tune with a localist agenda.

However, given the programme is being implemented or planned across both metropolitan and rural sub-regions, what matters most is to ensure that the risk of a democratic deficit is addressed.

This is why I welcome The Consultation Institute’s open access roundtable on the subject. This is being supported by amongst others the Centre for Public Scrutiny, New Economics Foundation (NEF), Involve and the Democratic Society. It will be held in Birmingham on 27th April and places can be booked here. 

I am delighted to have been invited to chair this important and timely event.

Political devolution has to demonstrate that it strengthens democratic accountability whilst enhancing economic, social and environmental well-being. These issues will be on the agenda on 27^th April.

The roundtable will address the importance of engaging and consulting the public when proposals for devolution are being developed and before they are submitted to central Government. Such engagement should ideally enable the public and other key stakeholders to understand the options and their implications, and to express their preference for what should be devolved, on what terms and with what form of local governance.

The roundtable will also explore how combined authorities and elected mayors can be best held to account by local elected politicians. Their decision-making needs to be transparent. Elected mayors and combined authority leaders and members, as well as their senior officers and advisors should be subject to formal political scrutiny.

Above all, the public has a right to understand what is being done in their name and on their behalf when devolution is enacted. Most recent public surveys would suggest that there is very little popular understanding of what is involved, which authority will be responsible for what policies and services and how they will able to hold local leaders to account.

Elected councillors on the participating local authorities are equally entitled to be involved in all stages and aspects of the devolution agenda. The critical decisions should not be left to a few leaders and/or seen as merely technical rather than political. Devolution and the Government’s agenda in particular are very political. Consequently, political process has to underpin every devolution deal and every new governance arrangement.

The Consultation Institute’s roundtable can provide an excellent opportunity to discuss these fundamental issues and to identify the policy, governance and practical issues which should be addressed.

This should be of interest and relevance to councillors and officers as well as to everyone interested in local government, democracy and good governance.

The post Democracy must be at heart of English devolution appeared first on John Tizard.