David Cameron was quickest off the blocks last week in the race to respond to souring public sentiment over the MPs’ expenses row, setting out a vision for the dramatic devolution of power away from a heavily compromised Westminster to communities. To detoxify our democracy, the Conservative leader says, “we need a massive, radical redistribution of power. From the state to citizens; from the government to parliament; from Whitehall to communities”.
Cameron’s announcement coincided with two influential select committee reports. The first, from the communities and local government select committee, examined the balance of power. While it suggested that some local authorities lack ambition, the committee argued that councils are best at meeting the challenges created by local variation. Echoing the Local Government Information Unit’s (LGIU’s) evidence to the select committee, the report calls for a new constitutional settlement in which the balance of power is redistributed away from the centre, and councils are given more financial freedoms and a stronger commissioning model.

The second report, from the House of Commons justice committee, examined devolution a decade on. It called for a fundamental change in the way we are governed, arguing that “local government clearly has the potential to be part of the answer”. As recession and public mistrust in politics combine, the localist groundswell is stronger than ever.

So what are Cameron’s key proposals, and how good are their chances of success? Our overall observation is that many – such as referenda on ‘excessive’ council tax increases, and bringing policing under greater local democratic control – featured in the party’s Control Shift local government green paper. These ideas have simply been re-cast for a harsher political environment.

The individual policies break down into three main groups. The first concerns local representation, and includes the suggestion that policing should be brought under local democratic control. Councils would fight this idea – as they did successfully when it emerged in the government’s policing green paper – on the basis that we need better, not more local democracy.

This group also includes a proposal for elected local mayors. The system has already been adopted in some parts of the UK, but success depends on personality not structure, and councils will need to find more dynamic leaders if it is to work well.

The second group contains ideas benefiting citizens, and includes a proposal for compulsory local referenda on increases in council tax seen by the public as “excessive”. If this mechanism is to replace capping, then it is potentially a huge stride towards local accountability. But what does excessive mean here? And who has ever voted to pay more tax?  

Citizens are also to be given information via public websites on any council spending of more than £25,000, under a policy headlined “Google your money”.This represents an admirable thrust towards transparency, but more detail is required on how an army of ‘armchair auditors’ will challenge councils – and how this mends democracy.

Thirdly, councils will win additional powers – including the introduction of a “power of general competence”. This would allow local authorities to do anything that is legal in the pursuit of benefits for local people, and we are in favour – though if it is to make a difference, a move away from the risk-averse culture in councils is needed.

Under the Tory plans, councils would also see a reduction in targets and inspection. Despite the new streamlined national indicator set and the demise of the burdensome but effective Comprehensive Performance Assessment, this would be largely welcomed in improved councils.

Finally, Cameron held out the prospect of an end to ring-fencing of local budgets. Again, there is little detail here, but this would receive a huge welcome from those serious about fostering local authorities that can solve local problems without constantly seeking Whitehall’s permission.  

So, what are the chances of Cameron’s vision becoming reality if – or when, as every opinion poll suggests – the Conservatives return to power? As history and the communities and local government select committee tell us, the mechanisms and levers that Cameron and the localists espouse – such as local tax raising powers and the transfer of power from allied public services like health – are draped in political intractability and the need for heavy legislative change. The realpolitik of governing a country in the grip of recession may, therefore, mean that the status quo is maintained and the eye-catching language forgotten.

Why should Whitehall embrace localism? Because when national answers have failed, only the deft hand of local services can address stark differences in life expectancy in a single city, or improve the prospects of young people not in education, employment or training. Central government can set the framework, while still giving local public services the freedom and the tools to tackle problems. The LGIU is currently exploring the potential benefits of localising the criminal justice system and shifting the emphasis from punishment to early, local, interventions. We are confident of the significant savings to be made across a range of services through reducing re-offending.  

As net borrowing peaks at £175m this year and the crisis in public sector spending looms, these are compelling arguments. The Treasury’s Total Place initiative is recognition of this. It demands an investigation of public sector spending in local areas, flushing out duplication in a move towards cross-public sector area budgets over which councils could have control. It is up to local government to strengthen the case for radical change in areas like commissioning and constitutional change. While recognising political reality, we welcome Mr Cameron’s commitment to devolve because, for central government and councils alike, this is the best shot we have at making a difference.