A radical agenda for local government.
| Author | Turner, Ed |
| Position | Features |
When Labour came to power in 1997, there were 10,608 Labour councillors.
Notwithstanding some gains in May 2010, by that date there were only 4,808 (House of Commons, 2010).
Councillors are important for British party politics in several ways: they take substantive decisions about local public services (particularly important for deprived communities), and perform important functions in land-use planning. They also play a role in election campaigns, can be a source of party finance, and are the party's face in the community all year around, notably in areas where a party is without representation at Westminster. So the decline in the number of Labour councillors will be damaging for the party in its future election campaigns and also in its reduced ability to influence policy at a local level. As a result, reversing the trend of seat losses will without doubt be a priority for Labour in opposition.
This article argues that we need to go beyond a 'conservative' response to Labour's current situation in local government. Instead it proposes a 'radical' response, which links the quest for electoral success with a challenge to some received wisdom about local government within the party, and a changed view of local government's role.
In essence, the 'conservative' response comprises three elements. First, it states that, just as Labour lost ground during an inevitable mid-term decline in its fortunes, so we can expect the Conservative / Lib Dem government to suffer the same fate in local elections over the next four years, and for Labour to be the main beneficiary. Second, this positive outlook can be consolidated by pressing ahead with the sort of effective grassroots campaigning that led to electoral success in such places as Haringey, Barking, Liverpool and Oxford. Finally, Labour would retain its stated commitment to the 'new localism' (in current parlance, often simply 'localism'), decentralising power to local government and beyond it, while opposing spending cuts in local government, as elsewhere in the public sector. Such a view has been a familiar feature of the debates surrounding the election to the Labour leadership.
The 'radical' response shares, at least, the second element (a focus on effective campaigning), while being a bit more circumspect about the first (the 'inevitable' decline of the ConDems): as constituency results even in this general election showed, local campaign effects can undermine the applicability of a national swing, and this is even more likely in local campaigns, so a deterministic reliance upon Conservative / Lib Dem midterm blues may be misplaced.
But the 'radical' response goes further. First, it sees a need to renew the personnel of local government, looking to attract underrepresented groups (notably those of working age, without political experience) to the scene, which could positively feed into election results. Secondly, it reassesses the critique of local government which led to a fervent desire to undermine its representative functions, in favour of passing power beyond the town hall, under the guise of the 'new localism'. Instead, the 'radical' response argues that community campaigning can link more closely with party activity, making Labour councillors the friends of community input into decision-making, rather than an obstacle, and it adopts a more positive stance towards parties in local government, viewing them as a useful element, not an unwelcome encumbrance. Thirdly, this approach suggests some new areas which should be subject to the further decentralisation of power; this could enhance Labour's ability in local government to provide community leadership and respond to communities' concerns, without running the risk of a 'race to the bottom' in service provision, or undermining territorial solidarity. Finally, it urges a more overtly political, less technocratic vision of local government's role, in which it would take on a wider range of responsibilities; this in turn promises to make councillors' role more interesting, and promote communities' engagement.
The remainder of this article is structured in four sections. The first briefly reviews changes made to local government under Labour. The second highlights some problems caused by elements of this approach, arguing that these have fed into Labour's local malaise. Based on this, the final two sections set out the 'conservative' and the 'radical' responses in greater detail, pressing the case for the radical response.
Labour's approach to local government, 1997-2010
The election of a Labour government in 1997 brought about some quite significant changes both to the structure and the functions of local government (this is necessarily a summary, for a full discussion see, for instance, Wilson and Game, 2006). Further changes occurred as a result of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but for reasons of space only England will be discussed here.
Four significant changes were introduced to the structure of local government.
* First, within councils there was a shift to streamline governance and concentrate accountability through the abolition of the 'committee system', whereby decisions were taken by committees involving all political groups represented, organised by subject area.
Instead, local authorities in practice chose between two options: the first was the concentration of power in the hands of an 'cabinet', normally comprising councillors of the majority party alone (with a variety of options if no party enjoyed such a majority), with each member being allocated a policy area in which to provide political leadership. Under this approach, fewer decisions were taken by the full council, thus ensuring the concentration of power in the hands of fewer councillors. The 'cabinet' would then be overseen by 'scrutiny' committees, who could oversee its actions and hold it to account. Scrutiny committees' composition reflected the party political balance, but they were intended to be beyond the power of local whips and operate along cross-party lines. The second model was that of a directly-elected mayor, who performed the 'executive' functions which were previously the domain of committees, although s/he would also receive assistance from a hand-picked cabinet. Both models involved the creation of rather more visible leadership, and a concentration of power in fewer hands.
* Secondly, there were some modest attempts at local government reorganisation. In 2009, new unitary councils were created, in place of two-tier arrangements, in such places as Durham, Chester and West Cheshire, and Wiltshire. Additionally, in 2000 the Greater London Assembly was launched alongside the directly-elected mayor of London. The creation of new unitary authorities, at least until the abortive attempt to do so in Norwich and Exeter in the dying days of the Labour government in 2010, appeared to be motivated by a 'technocratic' civil service agenda rather than a desire to enhance local democracy (Leach...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
