Where’s the consistent vision of localism?

All major political parties fighting the general election are committed to extending localism and decentralisation of power.

While this is a welcome sign that national politicians recognise that there is life, energy and the ability to find solutions outside SW1, it would be unfortunate if their vision of localism was about shifting responsibilities without some equivalent decentralisation of resources.

There needs to be a consistent and coherent view of what localism means for a future government. There has been no such consistency from the coalition government with different Whitehall departments interpreting it in their own ways.

Within DCLG, for example, there is some recognition of the importance of democratic local government and communities, while the Department for Education seems to believe that academies represent localism. The Department of Health and Home Office, meanwhile, have their own models and so it goes across Whitehall. The next government should have one holistic and consistent set of policies and practices.

Local government has the only elected democratic mandate of all the public bodies in a place. It is well placed to lead localism and build strong communities and places. Local council leaders have to recognise and respect other sources of voice and community leadership but the democratic legitimacy of local government has to recognised by central government and local bodies.

There needs to be a consistent and coherent view

of what localism means for a future government.

Above all local authorities have to ensure that local people and their communities have access to quality public services. They cannot drop these or cut them or ‘trade’ them for new economic powers.

Local authorities need money for any new powers that are devolved to them and money to sustain core services. I am not convinced that more powers can simply or easily be traded for significantly less money. Yet both Labour and Conservative seem to have too easily identified local government as a prime target for public expenditure cuts in the 2015 spending review even though it has taken a disproportionate hit over the last five years. While many local authorities have been able to manage the 2010 and 21013 cuts, there is every prospect that they will be unable to protect statutory services within a year or two.

Local government should be the recipient of more devolved powers, or at least greater influence over the resources of all the other public agencies that operate within and impact on its place, local residents and businesses. I was a strong advocate of the last Labour government’s Total Place programme and felt that it has not been allowed to fulfil its potential. I would like the political parties to commit to implement a radical Total Place-style policy in their manifestos.

In terms of the decentralisation ‘ask’ I am surprised that local government is failing to make an effective case to take over some or all the education funding agencies, regional schools commissioners and Department for Education’s powers in respect of schools. I am not arguing for a return to the local education model of thirty years ago. Rather, I am simply questioning why local government is not seeking local accountability for what seems currently to be evolving into a national service. Likewise the NHS, where local government could reasonably argue that integrated community health and social care should primarily be a local government responsibility, and indeed that wider strategic NHS commissioning should be democratically accountable to local people via elected local government, possibly through reformed health and wellbeing boards.

Local government should be able to raise more money locally through extending the scope of council tax bands, retaining business rates and having the powers to introduce other small scale local taxes. However, given the huge inequalities between councils and places, there will always be a need for a comprehensive national redistribution and grant support from general taxation. Localism will not thrive on local financing alone and, anyway, such a policy would be very unfair and further divide a divided country.

In turn, local government has to be ready to invest in civil society and voluntary and community organisations to empower and build resilient communities. It may need new powers to enable this to happen.

As long as it is subject to a series of Parliamentary statutes but without any constitutional protection, local government will always be at the whim of national politicians. I want to see the next Westminster government introduce a new constitutional settlement for English local government based on the principles of local democracy and accountability, fairness and equity across the country and some form of national financial support.

This settlement should embrace the Total Place principles and enable more of the Greater Manchester and other decentralisation arrangements and for them to grow in scope. It would also define the principles of what can and should be devolved and what should be reserved for national government and Parliament. Such a settlement would sit alongside the new devolution deals for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The next few frenetic weeks of the general election should see some debate on the localist agenda but I suspect it will be minimal. Therefore, it is vital that parties make manifesto commitments to let go of power and money; and for local government to respond in an inclusive manner.