How to get growth

National governments are rightly focused on reducing the deficits that are causing massive threats to their economies. But the resulting austerity leaves little scope for schemes to stimulate economic growth. And growth would increase tax revenues, thus helping to eliminate the deficits and reduce debts. So what's to be done?

Socialists believe that more can be spent on stimulating growth, while maintaining spending on public services, by taxing the rich more. Deficit hawks believe less should be spent on public services and on growth schemes, while increasing taxes across the board. Neo-classical liberals also believe in spending less, but that reducing taxes can stimulate growth.

I don't know that any of these views are right. I'm not an economist, and the arguments on all sides fail to convince. But who knows?

However, in the UK I think there's something that might help, whatever your economic view: empowering local engines for growth.

Different parts of the country should be able to take advantage of their own particular local strengths to encourage growth. This requires central government loosening its fevered grip just a little on taxation and expenditure, and letting strong councils take advantage of local conditions.

I want to draw attention to two important aspects of this form of localism: (i) local decision-making about big developments; and (ii) local decision-making about public services.

Local decision-making about big developments

Developments can get stalled at an early stage by emotionally charged battles between enthusiastic proponents of stimulus schemes (house-building, wind farms, engineering projects, and the like) and wary residents fighting damage to their neighbourhoods.

Both sides think the system is weighted against them. The reality is that if local people rather than ministers are the ultimate arbiter of proposals, proposals will have to be designed to unarguably benefit local communities rather than to align with well-meaning but amorphous national policies.

This is not simply a case of transferring decision-making from ministers to councillors. Councillors do need to play an important role in this: referring back proposals that clearly contribute insufficiently; ensuring stakeholders are involved in the discussions; commissioning research comparing alternative options; and proposing conditions such as a local tax, an inspection regime, modified plans or new community facilities. But local electronic plebiscites make the final decision.

Good developments are more likely to succeed quickly under this form of localism, because developers will need to design proposals that make it easy for locals to judge that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. And bad developments will no longer be able to rely on multiple appeals, inattentive councillors, vague planning policies and ministers with nothing to lose in the locality.

At the same time, developers will not be faced with the knee-jerk local opposition that comes from justified scepticism and sense of powerlessness about the planning system. Constructive engagement is more likely.

Local decision-making about public services

A second way in which local engines for growth can be enabled is through liberalising public services.

Rather than the State controlling public services centrally, like some totalitarian regime, councils would be free to pursue their own preferred ways of delivering particular services, whether that's in-house, through contracts with companies, or in conjunction with other organisations or councils. At the same time, power to vary taxes enables those with different ideas about what works to put those ideas to the test.

Those councils that want to stop the cuts get to stop the cuts, but they will need to borrow the money or raise taxes. Those councils that want a balanced budget will be able to cut spending and increase taxes. Those councils that want to reduce taxes get to do that. But more importantly, councils are free to decide on the priorities for schools, hospitals, police, post offices and so on that make sense for local people, taking account of local needs and opportunities.

Through this encouragement of innovation, the country does not put all its eggs in one basket, but is able to pilot different ways of stimulating growth and dealing with debt, within broad but sensible constraints set by central government.

What works in one part of the country does not automatically work elsewhere, but by evaluating the factors affecting success in every part of the country, the Government will see good ideas being taken up across the country, and bad ideas being quietly dropped with no loss of face to central government.

More autonomy allows ideas to be put to the test. Of course it's true that councils might choose to go for the monorail rather than more frequent buses; they might choose to build the casino rather than the theatre; the nuclear power station rather than the wind farm. But councils must be allowed to make mistakes, so long as there is complete transparency and accountability to local voters.

Why won't this happen?

This "localism-plus" means that good developments are more likely to succeed quickly, and that public services can innovate under democratic local control rather than stagnate under monolithic central control. These are strong engines for growth.

I've outlined the key objections to this proposal. But the main reason this kind of thing is unlikely to happen is not because of potential costs, uncertainties or fragmentation; nor even (at a philosophical level) fears of privatisation or of localism. It is that battle-lines are already being drawn for the next election, and that for all but a few liberal-minded politicians, the dream of enforcing one's own prescription for success across the whole country overrides all other considerations.

Acknowledgements

• "N30" [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0] by Flickr user churchofpunk.
• "Piggy bank" [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0] by Flickr user Teresa Gibbison.
• Photo of Sir Stuart Rose [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0] by the CBI.
• "Local government gears" by LonWon. [CC BY-SA 3.0]

The LibDem local election campaign was not LibDem, local or a campaign

NB I wrote this post a month ago, but decided not to publish it before the local elections, to avoid undermining candidates.

What are the LibDems campaigning for in the local elections?

The party website highlights the following key points...

• A £3.5bn tax cut for working people
• Biggest single ever uplift in tax threshold
• 21 million people getting an extra £220 tax cut

Are these three different things or different facets of the same thing? Not sure. Either way, they're not a campaign.

OK, maybe the party website is still trying to promote the Budget rather than looking ahead to the local elections.

So let's turn to Andrew Stunell MP, Communities Minister and Chair of the Liberal Democrats Local Election Campaign Team.

Andrew tells us that the Liberal Democrat local election campaign has already launched. Oh well.

According to Andrew, the big messages are:

1. Your local record of service

"all year round, not just at election time. Lib Dem councillors across the country work hard for local people. We listen to our communities and try to give them a voice in decisions made that affect them. In power we work to protect the services people most value, and to protect the most vulnerable in society."

2. Putting more money back in the pockets of hardworking people

"On the local front, this year every single Lib Dem-run council has frozen their council tax bills... Nationally, from this Friday, Liberal Democrats will deliver another £130 income tax cut to every basic rate taxpayer. That's 25 million people getting a tax cut and 1 million people lifted out of paying Income Tax altogether thanks to us. ... The second year of record rises to Pensions, with pensioners set to benefit from a rise of £5.30 a week this year, on top of the £4.50 rise last year."

3. Making the rich pay

Including increased capital gains tax, an annual banker’s levy, VAT on private jets, caps on tax reliefs and an extra £900m to tackle tax evasion.

4. The Pupil Premium

An extra £1.25bn, targeted at the most disadvantaged pupils.

5. Encouraging employment

"We’re creating jobs, and supporting young people in the difficult path back into work by driving a record expansion of apprenticeships to over half a million, and the Youth Contract, announced yesterday, designed to get over 400,000 young people earning or learning."

6. Giving power to communities

"... we’re giving real power and control back to local areas, particularly over planning... Planning is set to become a bottom-up community-driven process, not the top-down imposition it’s been for far too long."

What's wrong with that?

(i) It's not a campaign

So this, all of this, is about actions that have already been taken or that are already underway. There's no sense of actually campaigning to do something.

Maybe that's not entirely fair: More of this kind of thing is implicitly the pitch. But it's very implicit.

And, again to be fair, there is an invitation:

"Lib Dems across the country should be getting out on the doorstep and canvassing their communities to see what they want in their local plan. What kind of development do they want to see and where? It’s a huge campaigning opportunity for the party, and is just the kind of 'community politics' we’ve championed for decades."

But asking people on the doorstop what they want is not much use in this election if you're not explicitly proposing to do it. Or proposing anything.

This is not a campaign.


(ii) It's not about local issues

The first message is effectively "Fill in your local stuff here". The rest of the messages are entirely about things the Government has done: the Budget, the Pupil Premium, the Youth Contract, the Localism Act. There's nothing about what councils want to do in relation to social housing, energy efficiency, energy generation, recycling, transport, education, health, fire, police...

To be fair, it's often been remarked that maybe the concept of a "national" local campaign doesn't make sense. The whole point of localism is that different areas need different things, and it shouldn't be up to a central authority to dictate what those things are. Far from being a single national campaign, this is 184 separate local campaigns. In which case, a key point to get across is exactly what it is that makes Liberal Democrat councils distinctive. And that's the third big failing.


(iii) There's no Liberal Democrat narrative

Let's look at the overarching message for these elections: effectively We've done good stuff.

In relation to "your local record of service", I'm unconvinced that Liberal Democrat councillors are automatically harder working or wiser than other councillors; and I'm sure all candidates say they care about protecting the vulnerable. But I do think that giving people "a voice in decisions made that affect them" is a distinctive aspect of Liberal Democrat philosophy.

And nationally, I happen to agree that it is good stuff, although even that is being questioned by respected organisations such the IFS. And let's leave aside for the moment the desperate need for an explicit liberal narrative linking all this good stuff together.

But shouting about good stuff that's happened can trigger people to recall the bad stuff (the voters' cost-benefit calculation). They will be prompted by Labour to remember...

• tuition fees (not just breaking a promise but breaking a promise to end broken promises);
• the new sickness benefit tests and the Welfare Reform Bill (appearing to penalise the vulnerable)
• the Health and Social Care Bill (appearing to muck up the NHS)
• the alleged Granny Tax, Pasty Tax, and Tory tax cuts for the richest

So how does the "campaign" deal with these claims? It doesn't. And, after all, you wouldn't expect politicians to emphasise opponents' talking points. But Tories have a powerful narrative that explains these actions (Cutting a bloated state and encouraging private enterprise). Liberal Democrats at best would be offering a response along the lines of It's not as bad as it would be if we weren't in Government and There are some good things in these measures and The bad things aren't as bad as Labour says. There's no powerful counter-narrative.

As an aside, I'd also question how likely it is that on-the-ground activists will be passionately motivated to celebrate the good stuff, when memories are still raw about...

• the dismal AV campaign (ending chances of electoral reform for a generation);
• the ludicrously poorly thought-out and explained Welfare Reform Bill;
• the universally acknowledged turd-fest that was the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill;
• and now the way in which the leadership seemed cluelessly oblivious to how the Government's surveillance proposals ran completely counter to fundamental Liberal Democrat principles.

(iv) It's counter to the key narrative of the Coalition

More even than not being a campaign, not being about local councils and not having a Liberal Democrat narrative, though, the message being pumped out now by every LibDem politician, activist, website and leaflet is essentially: Unless you're rich, we're giving you more money.

What the arsing hell does this You've never had it so good complacency do to the core justification for being in the Coalition in the first place? The key narrative is that Liberal Democrats accepted the offer of coalition so as to sort out the national economic crisis. Nowhere, NOWHERE, in any of this local messaging is it clearly explained why giving people more money helps this core mission of the Coalition.

I can imagine a number of ways in which this is the case, but I'll be damned if I can find it given equal prominence with all the "putting more money back in the pockets of hardworking people" messages.

So, to sum up...

(i) It's not a campaign.

(ii) It's not about local issues.

(iii) It doesn't have a LibDem narrative.

(iv) It serves to undermine the rationale for LibDems being in government in the first place.

Please feel free to tell me it's actually a brilliant LibDem local election campaign.

Lon Won's Evil Liberal Masterplan

Tackling the problem of the deficit is causing much misery. And regardless of the Chancellor's apparent optimism in last week's Budget about unemployment and growth, the signs are that things are likely to get much worse before they get better.

I believe there's a liberal idea that might help.

What's grinding your gears?

The basic idea is to give local government more autonomy to decide what services it wishes to provide, what mechanisms will provide them, and what taxes will fund them. These powers would then be balanced by a right for local voters to use petitions to trigger binding local referenda.

Note: Some of what's envisaged is already possible, and a shift in power from central government to local authorities is the major theme of the Localism Act 2011. But to keep the discussion simple I'm just going to focus here on the principles rather than these details, because I think that even after the Act we might be left with a mixture of different types of localism that are inadequately accountable to citizens. Note also that I'm mostly talking about England here. Similar considerations might apply to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but drawing the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, and the Northern Ireland Executive into this blogpost would complicate the points being made about the balance between "central" and "local" government.

More costs, more uncertainty, more chaos?

It's not a glamorous idea, and at first glance it sounds like one of those "It'll cost lots of money; the gains are uncertain; and chaos is guaranteed" type of ideas. At times it's almost as if we revel in such ideas in this country.

But actually there needn't be any costs at all: councils could choose to do just the same as they do now. Or they could make different choices about services to provide.

This might mean losing economies of scale from doing some things nationally (e.g. in relation to roads, health, income tax, or benefits); so councils would need to convince voters about the financial implications of proposals. Perhaps there might be efficiencies from cooperation between councils that want to do similar things. Or perhaps a council might choose to award a contract to a local firm in order to save jobs that would otherwise incur redundancy and unemployment costs. Or perhaps a council might take a chance on a new technology or method in a way that central government couldn't.

It might be sensible for councils to jointly fund some kind of contract advisory service, to help councils build on proven contracts. It would also be very sensible to pay for a longitudinal research study following the progress of a range of these local government innovations. But it would be up to individual councils to choose to invest in such things.

It's true that the gains are uncertain; but at a time when national economic stagnation looks like the most optimistic future for the next few years, liberalising state services encourages the opening up of new possibilities. Rather than so many of us whining about "The Government" is doing or not doing, councils could actually put new ideas to the test.

It's also true that there might be a little bit more chaos than we're used to, but surely such liberalisation is better than the monolithic control freakery that has taken root in our state since the Second World War? And liberalisation isn't all or nothing: it's possible to have a bit more localism without the country necessarily descending into some kind of Yugoslavian-style civil catastrophe.

No, the more profound objections to this proposal are not to do with costs, uncertainty or chaos. These objections appear once the rationale for the proposal is made clear.

Rationale
What's good for London isn't necessarily good for the Lake District. Giving councils greater power over what they do for a locality enables them to weigh up the pros and cons of what has been done nationally, to innovate, to test, to refine, and to be judged by the voters on their success.

Pleasant land
and satanic mills

1. Empowering local engines for growth: It's clear that economic growth is needed to avoid worsening economic misery. The UK Government is focused on stopping the deficit increasing, but different parts of the country should be able to take advantage of their own particular local strengths to encourage growth. More autonomous decision-making enables this.

2. Enabling different local priorities: Councils focus on the problems that particularly matter in their area. Everybody everywhere wants to fight crime, help the sick, educate the next generation, and so on; but maybe Devon wants to put more resources into helping the elderly, Southwark into tackling knife crime. Priorities differ. More autonomy allows for more flexibility over rebalancing of resources, in the light of local knowledge about what needs attention over time. Devolution of certain powers to Wales and Scotland has been a great success, and no-one wants to return to the previous over-centralised system. Local people should be able to decide on their priorities for schools, hospitals, police, post offices and so on, within a freer national framework.

3. Taking account of different local conditions: Let's stop pretending that conditions are the same everywhere. Why should teachers in Toxteth get paid the same as teachers in Tatterford? The ability to attract staff with the appropriate skill set, the cost of living, the demands made and so on are quite different. We know that housing benefits, disability support, water costs, VAT receipts, fuel costs, and the like differ depending on local conditions; so why not put councils in charge of how to raise and allocate local resources?

Petitions don't have to be signed using quills

4. Fostering postcode democracy: Much is made of a "postcode lottery". What about postcode democracy? It is mad for Westminster and Whitehall to be trying to micro-manage great cities like Birmingham and Manchester, and counties like Kent and Yorkshire. Meanwhile, the lines of local accountability for organizations such as Academy Schools, Foundation Hospitals, Serco, Virgin, May Gurney and so on sometimes seem unclear. It should be the people's locally elected representatives who call such organizations to account in relation to local work, and there should be mechanisms for action to be taken. Simpler lines of accountability lead to better control of costs. Local referenda are also an important brake on potentially disastrous plans that councils might choose to implement between elections.

5. Winning local buy-in for developments: Planning processes are often seen as Byzantine, and weighted in favour of developers, who get multiple bites of the cherry, who only need to obtain approval once (even when circumstances change or have been misrepresented), and who can get away with tokenistic contributions to the community. More autonomy would allow councils to set conditions on developments, such as a proportion of receipts, a tax on subsequent sales, or inspections. There might be referenda to choose between (say) a wind array on the horizon, a nuclear power station on the beach, or imported energy.

Oh I do like to be beside the seaside

Teletubby turbines

6. Tackling climate change: Following on from the previous point, climate change is a critical issue for this proposal. Obviously many kinds of concerted initiatives to deal with climate change need to take place at national and international level; but many aspects of energy generation, energy efficiency, mitigation and adaptation need considered decision-making at local level. Citizens need to be able to experience both the benefits and costs of their decisions locally, or we will continue blithely down the path towards environmental calamity.

7. Enabling innovation and piloting: Liberalising local government does not necessitate either Thatcherite union-bashing corporatism on the one hand, or profligate PC jobsworth totalitarianism on the other. Councils would be free to pursue their own preferred ways of delivering particular services, whether that's in-house, contracts with companies, or in conjunction with other organisations. Freedom to innovate is motivating. It is disgraceful that poorly thought-out legislation such as the Health and Social Care Act get imposed nationwide with proper rounds of piloting and evaluation. More autonomy allows ideas to be put to the test. Of course it's true that councils might choose to go for the monorail rather than more frequent buses; they might choose to build the casino rather than the theatre; the nuclear power station rather than the wind farm. But councils must be allowed to make mistakes, so long as there is complete transparency and accountability to local voters.

Key objections

1. Privatisation: The furore over the HSC Act suggests that "privatisation" is a powerful concern of the public. This is slightly odd as many GPs have always been self-employed on the whole, with contractual arrangements with the NHS; i.e. they're not employees of the NHS. And the recent re-opening of health service delivery to non-profit and charitable organisations is also perhaps not widely appreciated.

Not George Obsorne

Nevertheless, the arguably emotive label "privatisation" points to a number of very reasonable worries, of which the possibility of fees for previously free services is just one. Another worry is that because private companies need to make a profit, they either provide a worse service (to cut costs), or they overcharge compared with an entirely state-run service, or they make savings in relation to employees (e.g. paying them less, providing worse conditions, failing to fund training, reducing job security, cutting pensions, and so on). A third worry is that such companies are less accountable and less transparent in how they operate. Finally, some people see such companies as less caring, less generous and less honestly motivated than state-run services.

Response: These worries in relation to privatisation are legitimate. However, the right to trigger referenda should reassure citizens that they can veto the possibility of fees for previously free services, and that organisations affecting local people cannot get away with bad behaviour. Moreover, if they wish, voters can choose councils that have nothing to do with private companies at all.


2. Lack of belief in localism: As I've argued previously, localism is a hard sell for a variety of reasons, resulting in scepticism about its value and a lack of engagement by the public in local government. I've also noted that there are at least three types of localism, so the disadvantages of one type are sometimes seen as applying to others. In addition, the "postcode lottery" slogan resonates with many people: differences in practices always lead to unfairness, it is objected.

see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil

Response: The widespread lack of belief in localism is admittedly challenging. Under this proposal, the shift in powers from central government to councils means that voters have more to lose, so this should help to increase awareness of council powers and to increase the motivation to engage. But I'm not sure the perceptions of local politicians would necessarily improve.


3. It's more complicated than that: Some will say that much of what's proposed is already happening; that the Localism Act 2011 is providing the rest (including a "general power of competence" for local authorities); and anyway this proposal says nothing about how to resolve existing problems with complex relationships between councils, citizens, companies, and central government.

Response: Fine. I'd like to hear more about that. More importantly, I'd like more people thinking about whether the balance in power between central and local government is about right or whether it could be usefully adjusted.

Evil Liberal Masterplan

Autonomous localism needs a change in mind-set from "What's the Government doing about it?" to "What can we do about it?" This could be parodied as JFK-lite, or Cameron's "Big Society", or "just more" community politics. But it's actually very liberal: increasing freedom for local citizens. Of course that freedom could be used to limit the size of the state or to address social issues; to enhance civil liberties or to increase law-and-order; to get more private sector involvement or to run all services in-house; to cooperate with other councils or to compete.

So it's a liberal proposal that could be used to do things that you very much don't like. If you don't trust the voters in your area to vote against these things locally, the alternative is that you continue to rely on voters in other parts of the country to vote against such things nationally. So, I think attitudes to this proposal might very well be influenced by what you think the next UK government is likely to do and by what you think of people in your area.

Acknowledgements

1. "Local government gears" by LonWon. [CC BY-SA 3.0]
2. "English ceremonial counties 1998" derived by Dr Greg from work by Nilfanion.[CC BY-SA 3.0]
3. "petition" by League of Women Voters of California. [CC BY 2.0]
4. View to Sizewell along the beach taken from Wikipedia. [CC BY-SA 3.0]
5. "Windfarm" by Russell Smith (rasmithuk) [CC BY 2.0]
6. "The not so slim controller" by Lee Turner [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0]
7. "See No Evil" by Tim Ellis [CC BY-NC 2.0]

Three types of localism

Did you know that major provisions in the Localism Act 2011 are starting to come into effect this year?

If, like me, you're slightly vague on how the Localism Act 2011 changes the nature of local government, it's worth reading the Plain English Guide, browsing the communities.gov.uk website or even (good luck) read the Act itself.

This post isn't about the Localism Act. It's about what kind of thing we might want local government to be.

I think this is timely, because, given the widespread public indifference to the Act (citation needed!), I've got a strong suspicion that there's a greater disparity right now than for many years between:
(i) public perceptions of local government;
(ii) the functions and powers of local government as laid out in legislation;
(iii) the customs and practices of local government.

To be honest, though, you're probably better off talking about "what kind of thing we might want local government to be" with all those councillors who grapple with this question day-by-day. But I'm still trying to think things through; hence this post.

I'd like to distinguish three types of localism.

1. Robotic Localism

"I think you ought to know
I'm feeling very depressed"

The first type of localism occurs when local government is large and involves efficient but uncreative administration of rules and procedures laid down by central government. The details of all possible services and decisions are carefully circumscribed. The goals are always those of central government. Anything other than minor local variations in choices is illegal. The decision-making processes are also strictly defined. There's limited discretion over income and expenditure. The role of the local voter is to assess the efficiency with which local government operates. Although this "Robotic" type of local government can be as big or as small as central government decrees, "Localism" is portrayed as occurring when local government is responsible for many large, complex, and important budgets and decisions.

2. Autonomous Localism

"Greasing the wheels"

The second type of localism is very market-oriented. Companies, institutions, charities, communities, and other organizations do pretty much what they like, within broad parameters laid done by central government. Similarly, local government has a high degree of autonomy to decide on what services it wishes to provide, and the mechanisms by which it provides them. It distributes and regulates contracts for its services, funded by the taxes it decides to levy. This type of local government can be as big or as small as it wishes to be. The role of the local voter is to assess the choice of services, the mechanisms by which they are provided, and the subsequent judgements. Central government may choose to regulate particular markets in additional ways, and set minimum standards for services, contracts and taxes, but otherwise largely leaves local government alone.

3. Delegation Localism

"The first rule of management is delegation.
Don't try and do everything yourself because you can't."

The third type of localism is characterised by central government delegating as many decisions as possible, to individual industries, businesses, hospitals, schools, and so on. As in Autonomous Localism, central government may choose to regulate particular markets in additional ways, but otherwise tries to keep out of the way as much as possible. Funding of organizations by central government is decided by formulas that may take account of particular circumstances to a greater or lesser degree; but organizations are encouraged to develop new income streams to maximise their power and to set up mechanisms for accountability to stakeholders. Similarly, central government delegates to local government as much as possible - the choices of taxes to be collected, of services to be provided, and of decisions to be made - without interfering in the operations of local autonomous organizations. As in Autonomous Localism, the local voter can judge local government by assessing the choice of services, the mechanisms by which they are provided, and the subsequent judgements; but since so many services are provided by local autonomous organizations, it is the stakeholders who have the primary role. Where accountability to those stakeholders fails, it is typically central government that takes the blame, rather than local government.

By the way, if you liked the caption for the above diagram, you might like to know it's a quote from that great sage Anthea Turner (!) Perhaps you might prefer "Surround yourself with great people; delegate authority; get out of the way". That's Ronald Reagan.

Concluding remarks

I think it's clear that, in broad brush terms, England is moving away from a kind of Robotic Localism that unashamedly wanted the whole country to receive the best services currently available ("‘We have lived too long with a system good for the few but not for the majority") and so set national targets ("It is not an arrogant government that chooses priorities, it's an irresponsible government that fails to choose."). And it is now moving towards a kind of Delegation Localism ("The Big Society", "core principles for modernising public services: choice, decentralisation, diversity, fairness and accountability").

It's also fairly clear that there are problems with Delegation Localism, particularly the limitations on local accountability and the limitations on control over what local services are funded and how.

There are also obvious problems with Autonomous Localism, but it seems to me there has been a lack of public debate about what type of localism we actually want, and how the particularly limitations are to be addressed.

Question for the reader: what other types of localism should we consider?

Acknowledgements

• "Robot" by Andy Field (Hubmedia) [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0]
• "Local government gears" by LonWon. [CC BY-SA 3.0]
• "Delegation localism" by LonWon. [CC BY-SA 3.0]

Why is localism such a tough sell?

OK, I jest. I'm grossly ignoring all the solid, nuanced research studying senses of community, local identity, civic pride, etc. And the research studying the conflicted nature of many people's sense of Britishness. And the research studying the complex interplay between different kinds of identity.

Aside from all the evidence then (!) my instincts are that many people tend to perceive "local politics" as more fragmented, opaque, ambiguous, tenuous, and petty than "national politics".

This is not to say that such people's local political identity is necessarily like that. For many folks, local issues are more personal, relevant and important than (for them) the remote, alienating, argy-bargy of national politics. "Local political identity" is bound up with the street, the family and friends, the job, the pub, the chippy. It's about popping in on elderly neighbours, helping out at the school, doing a sponsored marathon. It's about campaigning for or against the bypass, defending the post office and the playgroup. It's about here.

Moreover, the jokey comparison pictures above don't make any sense for people who engage with councils on policy, who write to papers, attend public meetings as a matter of course, reply to consultations, and the like. The comparisons would look very different. That's fine. I'm not talking here about these folks here.

What do the people with negative perceptions of local politics think about local politicians? My instincts (again, blithely ignoring all evidence) are...

• People who are wary of the competence of national politicians tend to be wary of local politicians more. After all, Westminster draws its talent from the whole country; whereas the local councils are just full of busy-bodies from hereabouts. So if you think MPs are bad, what must the councillors be like?! Please remember I'm talking about common perceptions that might explain why localism is a hard sell. These are not my views. I don't believe anything of the sort about councillors! Well, most councillors anyway... ;-)
• People who are wary of the trustworthiness of national politicians tend to be wary of local politicians just as much. After all, (goes the belief) "They're all as bad as each other".
• People who want national politicians to get a grip in a particular policy area don't want local politicians getting in the way of that. A "postcode lottery" is a bad thing, they might say, and at least if national politicians introduce something daft, every area of the country suffers, and it's not just our particular backwater.
• People who want national politicians to stop trying to control everything don't want local politicians interfering either. It's "political correctness" gone mad", after all, and the more "bosses" the greater the chance of stupid ideas getting imposed on us.

It would be nice to test whether many people do actually think these things. Maybe someone has.

And if all this didn't make it hard enough to sell localism as a good idea, the identities of councils themselves (at least in England) are far from uniform. The parish, the district, the borough, the town, the city, the county... Who knows what the term "region" refers to, let alone a "Regional Development Agency"? And "district": it might have a million people in it or just 35,000. And even if your particular councils turn out to be ones with clear identities, don't let's get started on the boundaries of neighbouring councils... Moreover, terms like "municipal", "borough", "civil", "principal authorities", "unitary", "metropolitan" and "non-metropolitan" do not trip off the tongues of ordinary folk: they sound like words from the 1950s, spoken by grey men in glasses with black plastic frames.

Most importantly, which council does what? Do they look after the schools and hospitals and police too? And how well are they doing? And who scrutinises them? And what's the difference between an officer and a councillor? And between a Chief Executive and a Leader and a Mayor and a Lord Mayor? And how much do they get paid? And why do they make so many stupid decisions? And who do I talk to about...? And why do you only see councillors at election time? And can you believe anything they say in their leaflets? And... And... And... And what are they after? Who are these strange people who want to be councillors anyway?

For people associated with local government, this is probably nothing new. They come across such bewilderment very often. So they have no problem understanding why localism is a tough sell. And every bright innovation from Cabinets to Unitary Authorities to Directly Elected Mayors to Directly Elected Police Commissioners is, I'm sure, a well-intentioned attempt to help deal with this bewilderment.

And I don't have a solution.

But I want to flag up this problem, because I'm going to argue in a later blogpost that right now we need localism more than ever.


Acknowledgements

• "Parliament at Twilight" by Kurt Munz [CC BY 2.0].
• Streetview images from Google.
• "Crawley Council" by Andrew Skudder [CC BY-SA 2.0].
• "Winston Churchill 1941" by Yousef Karsh [copyright expired].
• Clipart from Microsoft.
• "RAF Tornado GR4" by John Haslam [CC BY 2.0].
• "Borough of Hackney Seddon Atkinson Strato 325 8x4 Rubbish compactor, Apr 2009" by Felix O [CC BY-SA 2.0]
• "William Shakespeare" (Chandos portrait) attributed to John Taylor [copyright expired].
• "The Nordenskjöld Hall" by Anders Sandberg [CC BY 2.0].
• "union jack" by NapaneeGal [CC BY-NC 2.0]
• "UK stamp: 1st class" by Tom Marshall [CC BY-SA 2.0].
• "Pound Coins" by William Warby [CC BY 2.0].
• "Parking Tickets" by Ashley Coates [CC BY-SA 2.0].
• "Justice" by Charles D P Miller [CC BY 2.0].
• "Speed camera, Blossomfield Road, Solihull" by Elliott Brown [CC BY 2.0].
• Screen capture from BBC news broadcast
• "No News Today - Official" by Tim Green [CC BY 2.0].

When councillors get fixated on "progress"

John Lewis is coming to Exeter. That's terrific news. Everyone's delighted. Great success. Congratulations all round.

Unfortunately, officers and councillors of the County Council and the City Council are planning a weird scheme (pdf document) to make the road outside John Lewis one-way. It's at the point where New North Road joins Paris Street, an area known (apparently) as London Inn Square.

The proposal is to remove the route marked with a red line

What's so weird about that, you might ask. After all, the road has 22,000 pedestrians crossing it daily. It "acts as a physical barrier between the main shopping area and Sidwell Street", and "Sidwell St / Paris St has seen 20 collisions in a 3 year period (14 involving pedestrians)". Moreover, "People should be able to enjoy their surroundings without concerns about crossing busy roads, or being subjected to poor air quality caused by cars and lorries which need not be in the middle of the city." (All quotes from the scheme flyer linked above.)

Yes, fine. It would be better for cars not to be cutting through the shopping area at all. But the big question is: Where will the traffic go then?

What the proposed scheme mostly doesn't fix

Before I come to the question of where the traffic will go instead, I want to look at that "20 collisions in a 3 year period" statistic. It's potentially very misleading. There's no indication whether this refers just to the immediate area affected by the proposed scheme or to the whole of Sidwell Street and Paris Street.

And this ambiguity matters: the plethora of signs and road markings at the top of Paris Street and the intersection between Sidwell Street and Cheeke Street are dreadful, with different rules for cars, buses, taxis and bicycles.

Paris Street will be unchanged

So, for example, Paris Street is one-way for cars, but two-way for bicycles. Drivers who want to go straight on have to cut in front of buses leaving a bus stop at a pedestrian crossing; a crossing that also has 3 sets of traffic lights, two with a "straight on" filter (so the red lights confusingly only apply to the right-hand turn); and at just at that spot when cars are having to uncomfortably squeeze in front of the buses (and take in all the lights and road markings), a bike box, some bike racks, and a route sign suddenly become visible (they're likely to be obscured by a bus before that point). The route sign, by the way, tells you nothing about what happens if you turn right, but lots about what's straight on (Crediton, Tiverton, railway stations and the University) and if it wasn't visible until you're at the lights, you're also likely to be in the wrong lane for going straight on, so you'll somehow have to break lane discipline, while taking account of pedestrians, cyclists, buses and other vehicles all doing different things. Meanwhile the cycle lanes come and go.

Paris Street was two-way not so long ago, and it was all much less confusing. There was also a central island for pedestrians in New North Road, which the council removed.

Incidentally, having a taxi rank right next to this confusing semi-one-way intersection is also daft.

Meanwhile, inadequate signs at Cheeke Street mean that cars sometimes go the wrong way up Sidwell Street, a route on which only buses and taxis are allowed. In fact there are two cars in Google Streetview doing precisely that. They end up having to turn right out of Sidwell Street into New North Road. I once saw a small boy almost mown down crossing New North Road when the pedestrian light was green. It's possible the driver had gone through a red light, but I think it's more plausible that the lights in Sidwell Street assumed that buses would be going straight on into the High Street, rather than turning right.

Wrong

Wrong

As I say, the proposed scheme mostly wouldn't fix these threats to safety, although, to be fair, the layout of the taxi rank would be improved, and most traffic would be removed from Sidwell Street between the High Street and Cheeke Street.

Where will the traffic go?

Current route in red (New North Road, Sidwell St, Cheeke St)
Encouraged route in blue (Bonhay Road, Western Way)

At peak times, 300 cars an hour travel along the route to be closed. So what will happen to this traffic?

Firstly, the councils say that they will "encourage drivers crossing the city to use more appropriate roads such as Bonhay Road and Western Way".

I can imagine that suiting people driving from the areas around Crediton, Tiverton and Exeter St David's station, although the perennial bottleneck that is Exe Bridges might be a reason why they are not using Bonhay Road currently. People driving from the areas around Exeter College and the University might take more persuasion.

My guess is, though (and it'd be nice if the councils published their research so that we can be working with actual data rather than guesses), that most of the traffic going east via New North Road
originates far from easy access to Bonhay Road or Western Way. They will be heading to places like the hospital, the business parks, industrial estates, edge-of-city retail parks and the M5. A route via Bonhay Road and Western Way is going to seem a big diversion. Moreover, buses from the Cowley Bridge direction (the north-west of the city) will still need to get to the bus station, just off Paris Street.

In fact the councils estimate that "half of the existing traffic turning left into Sidwell Street is expected to divert onto Blackall Road and York Road".

Current route in red (New North Road, Sidwell St, Cheeke St)
Likely alternative in blue (Blackall Rd, Pennsylvania Rd, York Rd, Summerland St)
Note the bus station is off Bramfylde Street, hence all the bus stops there

This alternative route is unarguably residential, with four zebra crossings, two mini roundabouts, and several severe speed bumps. St James is a conservation area, but this seems to count for nothing.

Blackall Road is residential

Mini roundabout and zebra crossing in Blackall Road

The alternative route also features a left-hand turn from Pennsylvania Road into York Road that often results in long waits by cars coming out of York Road and by cars turning into York Road from the other direction. And at the top end of York Road, there are often jams by the traffic lights. This is not a route that can sustain much more traffic. Yet it is estimated that 150 an hour additional vehicles would be travelling along these roads if this scheme is approved.

The junction of Pennsylvania Road, York Road and Longbrook Street The junction of York Road, Sidwell Street  and Summerland Street

This route also goes directly past the gates of the local primary school.


It's at this point that the councils need to be reminded of their own stern warning:

"People should be able to enjoy their surroundings without concerns about crossing busy roads, or being subjected to poor air quality caused by cars and lorries which need not be in the middle of the city."

The councils trumpet the importance of making it easier for people to cross the road and of minimising air pollution, but somehow this doesn't apply to the children at the school.

Another likely alternative route is via Longbrook Street and then (again) up York Road. This is again a largely residential street.

Longbrook Street

So what are our councillors doing?

The ward that will suffer from the proposed scheme is St James. St James has two Liberal Democrat city councillors (Natalie Cole and Kevin Mitchell). The City Council is in minority Labour control. Labour is strongly targeting this ward. The election is in May 2012.

But it would be too simplistic to suggest that it's just a case of Labour hoping St James residents will punish sitting city councillors for failing to stop this scheme. St James also has a Liberal Democrat county councillor (Philip Brock) and the County Council is held by the Conservatives. Moreover, an improved area around John Lewis could be trumpeted as a Conservative success by a Conservative challenger to the sitting Labour MP.

Meanwhile, the three councillors for St James (Cole, Mitchell and Brock) support a further alternative proposal that sends traffic down Longbrook Street and then right along King William Street. This alternative avoids the majority of the residential areas and the school, but still sends traffic along quiet streets, and also past the front door of a community centre.

The Labour candidate for the forthcoming city elections (Keith Owen) notes the concerns of residents, expressed forcefully at a meeting last month when council officers explained the scheme. Yet he is careful not to indicate his opposition to the scheme. [But see the update below] When it comes to planning matters, Labour councillors in Exeter tend to vote en bloc, often in favour of development, rather than each individual making up his or her own mind on the merits of the particular case.

None of these councillors seems to be arguing the merits of the status quo, on the basis of the scheme's damage to the quality of life of St James residents. [Again, see the update below]

Many Exeter people want Paris Street made two-way again

It also seems that none of the councillors is arguing that the decision to make Paris Street one-way was a huge mistake, and should be reversed. Rather than travelling a few hundred yards to get to the bus station, bus passengers were sent a long way round, clogging up Sidwell Street. The new proposal sends bus passengers on an even bigger diversion, via narrow residential streets. Taxi drivers are also unhappy with the current situation. Moreover, Sidwell Street is clearly currently more dangerous for pedestrians and road users than it was when Paris Street was two-way. It would be good to know how the figure of 7 collisions a year compares with the rate before Paris Street was made one-way.

Over the past decade there have been large numbers of changes to the road layout in the area of the new John Lewis. And yet somehow it is still worth spending up to £2m on yet another scheme, at a time when the County Council is implementing cuts of £40m, on top of £55m last year. It has been claimed that John Lewis would not come to Exeter if Paris Street were to be made two-way again. Well John Lewis is coming. Has a commitment been made on Paris Street?

In Exeter, the quality of decision-making when it comes to planning decisions is very poor. Just read the minutes of planning meetings, or go along to one. Attendance is variable; details are glossed over; reasoning is typically nebulous or tautologous; officers' opinions are often accepted uncritically; "progress" is automatically seen to be a good thing, even if it isn't actually progress.

Parties can afford to make these kinds of cavalier decisions, because it is just one ward out of many. But the real question is how councillors get fixated on a particular idea as representing "progress". Is it that they get jazzed up by grandiose words in "vision" documents? Or a desire to leave their mark on the city? Do they somehow talk themselves into corners through macho posturing? Or are they somehow intimidated by developers, officials, lawyers, or business imperatives?

I don't know. I doubt it's any of these reasons; and it's rather than councillors simply believe that this is the best way forward. But in that case, rising above the issue of whether this proposed scheme is sensible or not, is a bigger concern: I resent the fact that councillors and would-be councillors treat residents disrespectfully by failing to provide well-reasoned arguments for their decisions.

So come on councillors and would-be councillors, whatever ward or electoral division you represent. Your decision on this issue is affecting my community. You owe us an account of your personal decision.


Update 3 Dec 2011

I'm pleased to note from this week's Express and Echo that at least some councillors are giving the proposal careful consideration.

Jill Owen, county councillor (Labour) for Priory and St Leonard's, comments on the displacement of traffic from Sidwell Street:

"I don't think the displacement issue has been made clear enough to everyone and I hope that it is looked at very clearly and in great detail. This is a very important scheme but it seems it is being done with indecent haste. If we do something that is not right then it will be very difficult to turn back."

Meanwhile, James Taghdissian, city councillor (Conservative) for Polsloe, notes that Mount Pleasant Road, Stoke Hill Road and Prince Charles Road might well turn into rat-runs.

And last week's Express and Echo carried a very welcome letter from the Labour candidate for the St James ward on the city council, Keith Owen. He comes out as opposed to the plans, and gives clear arguments about the various options. I'm delighted to note that he makes a case for the status quo.

These proposals go before Devon's cabinet on 14 December. I hope they will take the concerns of residents seriously.