Rewind to 2006; my guess is that most Progress members will remember David Miliband’s ‘double devolution’ speech. This was an important speech for Labour and one that cemented the notion that localism and local control was where we needed to be to deliver for communities. After years of centrally driven policy and programmes, localism meant relinquishing control to give communities and local public services more powers and freedoms to make decisions locally. It makes sense: giving communities greater control over their lives will make them happier and more engaged in public life.
Labour councils and other local public services across the country still support this approach. When they set clear visions to lead their areas, they want the ability to deliver on them. No two areas are the same, so devolving powers will allow for flexibility to respond to very local need and, most importantly, deliver local political visions. We know in the future there will be decreasing pots of money to play with. Councils and local public services want the freedom to determine what to spend this on, not a set of centrally driven demands.
But right now, as communities are suffering because councils are having to make impossible decisions about where to cut services and where to save, Labour needs to put forward an alternative vision to take to the doorstep for how we would govern. It needs to set out how we would be different and how we would deliver fairness and equality to communities through a set of core, universal services and entitlements. This alternative essentially means articulating how centrally driven policy would determine what communities get locally.
Yet this presents a problem for Labour. When it comes to localism and local control, there is a seemingly unworkable tension between this and our tendency towards centralism. Labour was most comfortable when operating from the centre and we saw evidence of it throughout our time in government, not least in the target- and performance-driven culture that improved so many public services. What is more, when local public services failed and scandals hit, the centre stepped in. So the crucial question now is how do we work through this tension and, most importantly, are we ready to do this?
There are aspects of localism that Labour is deeply uncomfortable with, particularly when decisions are made by Labour councils that the PLP doesn’t agree with. Most recently Nick Forbes was heavily criticised by the PLP for proposing a 100 per cent cut to the culture budget and central interventions were made. But what many failed to recognise was that, as the elected Labour council in Newcastle, it was their decision to make, not the PLP’s.
Similarly, Labour seems deeply uncomfortable with the notion of a ‘postcode lottery’. It doesn’t seem fair or equal that treatments for acute illnesses, for instance, are available in one part of the country that aren’t available in others. Again, however, this is the reality of localism in practice: different decisions will be taken in different areas, which mean some people could lose out.
Now is the time, while we are in opposition, to face this tension and think through what localism actually means and whether as a movement we are prepared for the practicalities of it. When one of our Labour councils decides to cut, or fund something that the PLP doesn’t agree with, will we support or criticise them? Are we prepared to trust local public services to make decisions on behalf of their communities without central intervention? Yet how will we ensure localism enables the delivery of statutory services and central policies?
The challenge for Labour is reconciling the tension between the realities of localism and comfort of centralism. Until we do this we won’t be ready to head out onto the doorstep with a clear vision for how Labour would govern in 2015 and beyond.
—————————————————————————————
Laura Wilkes works for LGiU as policy manager and is a member of Leyton and Wanstead CLP. She tweets @LauraWilkes
—————————————————————————————
I don’t like localism and while I understand the principals of most communities outside of the capital knowing better than a suit in a London office what will work for them, I see it as little more than a Government cop out.
While I am currently suffering from the worse kind of it, from a closed shop CLP who has decided it knows better than our community and imposed their own policy on residents, without any consultation, my bitterness towards it is the costs of it and the belief that the money to define local bodies could be better utilised.
Do we really need, for example, regional Police forces and the costs of livery, uniforms etc. or a national Police service? Do people really care if, for example, it’s Lancashire Police who turn up to deal with a crime in Lancashire or if it’s the Police turning up to deal with their concerns?
In health, localism is a good idea if local democracy is strong, there is a real dialogue between councils, CCGs and local citzens and there are established evidence-based minimum standards and best practice guidelines in place.
In practice few (and in some areas none) of these are in place. This allows services where the user voice is weak such as mental health services, sexual and contraceptive services to be rationed and cut. This is happening already under the cover of “localism” and should be resisted by Labour.
After many years of use “post code lottery” may sound like a cliche but it is actually a key indicator of the dismantling of the NHS.
So what should Labour do? Genuine involvement of citizens in planning of services and a central steer on the minimum expectations of service provision would go a long way.
Andy – I suppose the public would care if the police who turned up in Lancs were from Somerset and didn’t have a clue about the local context and that Somerset council tax payers were paying for their services to be used 20 miles away.
Labour doesn’t like localism not just because of it being a traditionally centralised top-down party but also because it doesn’t trust local people, let’s be honest, perhaps in some cases with good reason after things such as militant. A sensible balance is what is needed – localism within a national framework, where duties and powesr, including tax raising, is divided between the centre and localities. This would require some kind of formal constitutional underpinning but that is something labour ain’t keen on either. Labour won’t deliver significant localism – nor will any main party because they will not let local councils have more financial autonomy.
Great article, I agree and thought that David Milliband’s double devolution speech was great. The problem is that is difficult for councils and other give power away – Labour councils included. Perhaps it is because there is a feeling we are there to speak for people, were as the goal should be to give people the power to speak and represent themselves. If localism means the depoliticisation of local politics then so be it – this can seriously be the case at town and parish level. The aim of the Labour movement should be to get our values adopted and in place, it is what works that matters. But of course national parties don’t like councils thinking for themselves and district and counties don’t like the their towns and parishes to do so either. For my part I think that localism is like the magic penny in the song, the more you give it away the more you get.