Tom has made an interesting comment in response to my posting about reconnecting with the public. He says, rightly, that Britain should employ the principle of subsidiarity – that is taking decisions at the lowest possible level, closest to the people they effect – in its governance. I couldn’t agree more. The United Kingdom is the most centralised country in Europe apart from Malta, which is home to fewer more than the London Borough of Croydon. About 80% of Councils’ revenue is raised by Whitehall, and then handed down. You may have heard the aphorism “Expenditure is policy and policy is expenditure”. Without real control over the amount of money they are able to raise, councillors are unable to make policy effectively for their local areas. It’s most worrying therefore that Gordon Brown recently suggested that the review of devolution was “not a one-way street and some powers could be returned to Westminster.” On the contrary, it’s time to turn British government upside down and put the power back with local people and their elected representatives.
You said:
“On the contrary, it’s time to turn British government upside down and put the power back with local people and their elected representatives.”
The public are too hard pressed, work wise, with little if any free time to engage with such lofty sentiments. Abdication and apathy is their chosen method. On the other hand one might argue that the public are reliable, well informed and care about the issues concerned.
Which view I wonder is best served by local voting turnout figures?
Capture the hearts and minds of voters and I would agree with you.
I think Gordon Brown’s comments show the unease in some sections of Westminster about this new system of governance – which calls for a deeper level of engagement with citizens in finding solutions to problems that affect their daily lives. Our traditional political structures need to return power to local decision-makers but also, more importantly in my view, the entire system has to be geared to be more responsive to citizen participation.
I think the vast majority of people agree with the principle; what is important is the practice – deciding which matters are best left to local or regional government, and which need to be retained by central government.
Local bus services are (and should be) decided by local authorities, but the scheme to give all over-60s free off-peak bus travel is probably best arranged at national level to allow for standardisation of smart card technology and making the most of the available economies of scale. To me it’s all about arranging a sensible partnership.
More debate and some positive steps by the government towards greater subsidiarity will help identify where the sticking points exist, but there’s plenty that can be done already – as long as people have realistic expectations and that it is done in stages.
What are your views on the system of regional governance we have at present (should it be scrapped, elected, or left alone?) and indeed the Regional Select Committees that are being considered? And do you think we can devolve powers successfully from local authorities to parish councils, taking them another step closer to the people?
Hear hear!!!!
It’s amazing it’s it that Labour, historically the party for the people, is now so out of touch with what those people want and need? Or is it not so much ‘out of touch’ but more ‘elevated’ in an Animal Farm way?
I find it rather disturbing to read the above messages as the authors of them clearly think that reversing the tide of power and bringing it back to the people is ever going to happen.
Hello people!!! Not only do the people of Britain have very little say in anything (as their elected representatives don’t so really there’s precious little point in electing them), the government hasn’t either.
Brussels does and it’s going to get more and more and the people and their unelected, undremocratic representatives are going to get less and less. Bye bye democracy.
Local councils are going to be closed and the country will be ‘managed’ on a regional basis, all regions being named by Brussels, scrapping our historical identities.
More of our taxes will go to Brussels as well to finance the big fraud which is the EU, its quangos and it’s thousands of hangers on.
Wake up and smell the new Soviet Union!
Britney British, I don’t see why you think Brussels is so undemocratic. Decisions are made between a Council of largely elected ministers and the elected European Parliament. It needs reform, for sure; the Council should meet in public, for example, but I am not so sure that our own democracy is that fabulous.
We have an unelected head of state, half our legislature (the Lords) is unelected, and the only bit that is elected (the Commons) can have a majority of MPs drawn from a party that attracted little more than a third of the votes at the last election (Labour with 36% of the vote).
People in glasshouses…
We have no better example of the workings of centralised power than the recent rubbishing (and that is exactly what he did) by Sauron of the House of Lords findings on immigration.
The report was well balanced, pragmatic and exactly right.
Highlighting the incorrect assumptions that the government was making.
His attitude was appalling and smacked of an arrogance that underlines the corruption of individuals in power by power.
The sooner that power is redistributed down through the command chain of national / local government the better.
I’m very happy you’ve thought this was worthy of a post. My thoughts, for what they’re worth:
Subsidiary is a key principle, but there are several other things I think we need to get right too.
At the moment the Lords is undergoing a (slow) process of reform, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have national level parliaments/assemblies and executives; while England has unelected regional assemblies (except for the GLA). At a level lower England also has a mix of unitary authorities (who carry out all the local government functions) and two level county / district authorities that split the jobs up between them.
In other words, it’s a bit of a mess.
The idea of subsidiary could be used to redesign our political architecture, as long as we make sure that whatever responsibilities a particular institution has, it also has the matching powers to effectively do what it should be doing. (Here I’m thinking of what Lord Tyler said about councils relying on central government for their funds, and Matt’s comment about dividing up who is doing what.)
Other things to consider include improving the ways Parliament can scrutinise government. For example, parliament’s committee system could be strengthened (I’m a bit short on detail on this one, sorry).
Also our freedom to access government information could be improved (I feel the government over uses the triple fig leaves of security concerns, commercial confidentiality, and the need for civil servants to be able to give frank advice without it later being made public).
Then there are other methods we could consider that put power directly into the hands of people – referendums, the ability for individuals to propose government initiatives, and the ability to sack office holders (for these last 2 we could have referendums to decide).
These first two are used in other places – California and Switzerland immediately spring to my mind. Its nice to see that the idea of using referendums is starting to take root in the UK. Pity its not be put into practice, yet.
Of course none of this is easy to put in place. At the moment about 1 in 3 people vote in local elections (according to http://www.dca.gov.uk/elections/elect_odpm_turnout.pdf ) which supports the more pessimistic of the two views Senex put forward.
But, I think this is because people feel their local councils don’t have the powers to make much of a difference to their lives. If we used the subsidiary principle to redesign our political system I think this view would change.
The question is how to go about it?
I found some sound ideas in the middle of
http://angelfire.com/realm3/accord
but it needs reading slowly and with an open mind.
The jury system seems a winner to me
look, this country is dead, the legislature is dead, the lords is dying.
The Al Gorian sustainability crowd is the future.
This tired mantra of subsidiarity is frustrating and calling it orwellian is being polite.
While real power is being transferred upward we get told how empowered we are becomming.
It is just the result of the destruction of the traditional public sector.
And the gov. wants to get rid of council tax, i think, because
In the North East, we voted down the prospect of an elected assembly for a number of reasons, but mainly because it was perceived to be yet another expensive layer of bureaucracy aka jollies for the boys.
Co. Durham’s seven district councils are to become a unitary authority next year, despite an overwhelming majority vote against the merger. So much for listening to the people, but can someone explain the rationale behind the two outcomes other than the pretty outrageous use of ratepayers money in the printed propaganda from the soon-to-disappear councils?
The problem with re-organising power is where to start and stop. Personally, I don’t care for local councillors at whatever level and would scrap the lot. Below the constituency level, I prefer representation to meaningless electoral rights. Yes, I suppose that does mean I would rather support the idea of appointed representatives, suitably overseen by an upgraded Standards Committee. Yes, in turn, that does mean I have little faith in the electorate, as reinforced by the recent Hansard research.
Let’s face it, read voter laziness for voter apathy; far too many either don’t read the small print or attempt to understand it in a general election and there’s little improvement at the local level.
That said, it’s not made easier by politicians who can’t be bothered to engage with the electorate but have the happy knack of spinning like wind turbines (they cost us a fortune and produce nothing like promised).
This might help explain it…
http://www.speakout.co.uk/regions.aspx
In the interests of some balance, might I suggest people look at this website:
http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/euromyths/index_en.htm
And specifically this page debunking the idea that the UK will be replaced by Euro-regions:
http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/euromyths/myth67_en.htm
Good to see a Cornish Lib Dem supporting devolution, they are a bit thin on the ground these days.
Lord Tyler you party promised to campaign for a devolved Cornish assembly in its election manifesto, the Lib Dems did not hold this promise. do you think the Lib Dems really have anything left to say now on devolution in the Duchy?
Philip,
I’m not sure we will hold readers from outside the Duchy spellbound if we begin a debate on the merits of a unitary authority in Cornwall, but what is certain is that now the OneCornwall bid has gone forward, we must make sure it takes all the best parts of the old Districts and the old County Council to become a clear, effective, strategic voice for Cornwall. That, in my view, is the first step to the full-blown Cornish Assembly we seek.
That was the theme of our debate in the Lords on 21 February 2008, when the Minister gave us explicit assurances. As you will see from my website report for that date we really do have a realistic chance of more “home rule” for Cornwall.- http://www.paultyler.libdems.org.
Liberal Democrats have campaigned on that theme for years, and continue to do so. In control of the County Council we taken a serious step closer to the Assembly we all want, and our MPs will doubtless continue to press Ministers for more power to be devolved from Whitehall and from the Region at the earliest opportunity.
We still have plenty to do and say to achieve more devolution of power to Cornwall. I am sure that the full team of MPs, Peers and Council Leaders will go on working to that end, and refuse to be blocked by opponents of subsidiarity: I trust that you will support us?
Paul Tyler