While some things were different – and there were some very specific concerns raised by those attending – some things were very much the same at this year’s Local Government Association Conference in Birmingham. An all-too-familiar underlying discussion was taking place among delegates about ‘the future of local government’. Despite the innovations and efficiencies delivered by local government in the last two years and a nod towards localism by the coalition, there does seem to be a lack of confidence or certainty about our role. Do similar debates about the future and structure of local government go on in France, or Germany, or in any similarly developed democracy year after year after year? The need for an enduring constitutional settlement between Whitehall and the town hall in England is needed, so that local government can act with a greater degree of certainty and the feeling that local government is always beholden to Westminster is brought to an end.
Despite this there were some hugely important issues that were debated throughout the conference: local government finance, with the government’s failure to deliver a genuinely localised business rate retention solution; changes to welfare benefits and the impact this will have on local government’s ever-diminishing resources; social housing and adult social care, where the ticking time-bomb of unaffordability was properly highlighted by an LGA report published on Tuesday; and the role of police commissioners after this autumn’s elections.
Conservative LGA chair, Sir Merrick Cockell, observed in his speech to conference that government’s localism agenda appeared to be about localising problems but not localising solutions, while Islington leader Catherine West challenged Eric Pickles to start looking for savings by merging permanent secretaries and sharing services across departments in Whitehall.
As a party Labour still has some way to go to properly recognise the value and potential of local government. While national government is the ultimate prize for us as a party, we must not fall back into the view that local government doesn’t really matter or that the loss of councillors in local elections is an unfortunate but necessary side-effect of governing nationally. Local government does matter – local government’s direct impact on local services and in forming the places where we live is immense, and in many ways far greater than that of central government.
Too many voices that I heard from Westminster and the national party during the conference spoke of ‘the next election’ as if it is only the next general election which matters.
As a party we need to learn the lessons from 1997 to 2010; that you cannot change the world from Whitehall. Central government can set targets, it can seek to fetter or control local government’s discretion, but ultimately it has to rely upon local government to deliver results. We need to have a genuine partnership between local and national government where each is respected and where innovation is allowed to flourish.
Hilary Benn noted on Tuesday that as Labour party members, while we can all list 10 achievements of Labour in national government, we can probably not list 10 achievement of Labour in local government. Although I can easily list 10 or more achievements of Labour in local government in my own borough (free healthy school meals; 1000 new council homes; doubling recycling etc), Hilary was probably right. But whose fault is that? Who controls the messages that are pumped out into the media and to our members?
From Birmingham to Blackpool; Leeds to Lambeth; Ipswich to Exeter, and of course in Southwark, Labour councils are leading the way in finding solutions and making decisions which will shape communities for generations. Let’s be proud of that fact.
—————————————————————————————
Peter John is the leader of Southwark council. He tweets @peterjohn6
—————————————————————————————