In the light of polls such as that of The Times, I've asked why parties of the Right might tend to be more sceptical about climate change. And I've asked why parties of the Left might tend to believe in climate change.
What about those people who don't care much about politics? Those who might say, if asked about who they might vote for, "They're all as bad as each other", "If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it", or "Nah, not really bothered, mate"?
I think the psychology is actually fairly trivial here, for once.
My sense is that there's natural scepticism among such people about any new grand claim, especially one where there seems to be loud debate. The effects can also appear a long way in the future, and small in size at first glance. However, the costs of dealing with it are real, now and unwelcome.
So what would change minds here?
It'd be wonderful if it were calm rational assessment of the evidence. That's not going to happen. At least not among the people I'm talking about here who are untrained in scientific method.
Alternatively, it'd be great if what would change minds is listening careful to the arguments for and against, put by experts. However, many sceptics dispute the basic facts, let along the complex models and proxies; and both sides have an arsenal of rhetorical tricks to throw at their opponents, an arsenal that militates against listeners getting closer to the truth.
So in the absence of an inclination to investigate the science more deeply, what would change minds?
Here are some suggestions...
1. If those on one side of the argument started to appear like crackpots. The sceptics had this problem in the early days, now neutralised by the groundswell of right-wing columnists showing scepticism. The climate change believers, though, in desperation at the failure of COP15, are deploying wilder rhetoric, and thus may appear more crackpot-like. Influential columnists and newspapers changing their view (either way), would increase the chances of the other side being seen as crackpots.
2. If one side started to appear self-interested hypocrites. See, for example, the emails of the Climate Research Unit at UEA; Gordon Brown being seen as wanting an excuse to raise taxes; or David Cameron cycling while a car carries his shoes. The astroturfing of the oil companies, airlines and other threatened industries hasn't seemed to have impinged on public perception.
3. If something really bad happened that popular consciousness blamed on climate change or challenged climate change. Hurricane Katrina did this for many Americans. But scientists have been so careful to emphasise that one-off weather events really can't be used as evidence for long-term climate changes that perhaps an equivalent event wouldn't have the same effect in Britain. Nevertheless, there has been a huge number of people (Andrew Neil included) smugly trotting out idiocies such as "If the globe is warming up then where did all this snow come from, eh?" So perhaps a couple of long, parched summers or flooding in London might have the opposite effect.
4. Erm... there must be more... No?
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
What matters?
I've previously suggested that there's no point campaigning for reform of politics.
In particular, there's no point campaigning to tighten the rules on MPs' expenses. There's no point campaigning to increase openness and enhance accountability. And there's no point campaigning to reform the electoral system.
This is, somewhat perversely, despite the fact that reform is needed, and that proposals for reform need to be discussed. But these are not ultimately issues that will determine votes. I suggested that typical voters see these issues as secondary to their real concerns. And now I want to consider briefly what those real concerns might be.
I also suggested yesterday that political soap opera - the personalities, events, spin, gaffes, gossip, put-downs etc. that have high entertainment factor - might well be a higher factor in deciding the outcome of the election than we might like. Those are not the kind of concerns I'm talking about here. It's the so-called "issues".
No doubt there'll be a swathe of public opinion surveys about the main issues for the general election. However, it seems plausible that generally, the economy will be seen as the main issue, particularly how to safeguard public services and jobs while dealing with the deficit. [1, 2, 3] Immigration seems important to many voters, perhaps to a greater extent than reflected in the agendas of mainstream politicians and commentators. Defence, Europe and climate change are also deciding issues for many. Terrorism, health, education, crime, housing, Iraq, Afghanistan, pensions, MPs expenses, specific taxes, specific scandals, and the like might well crop up in the election campaign as it progresses. However I doubt they'll be deciding issues, except as part of a portfolio case against a particular party, a portfolio in which the economy appears.
Nevertheless, I'm largely with Anatole Kaletsky in The Times, in his argument that...
Some observers might find this irritating: elections should be decided on more rational grounds than superficial trivia, they might say. But I would suggest that while an examination of the details of policy would be the ideal act of the responsible voter, where there is at least a real concern for the particular problems facing the country rather than solely an obsession with entertainment, this approach to decision-making is at least a start at engagement. Real engagement in the political arguments would of course be better, but even with the best efforts of politicians and journalists, the proportion of the electorate that votes continues to be poor and the basis for decisions unclear.
So I'm suggesting that, in a situation in which a significant part of the electorate continue to fail to engage in the arguments, the political soap opera actually matters, for valid reasons, so long as the voters don't lose sight of the challenges the country faces.
Oh dear. I think I've turned into an apologist for Malcolm Tucker.
In particular, there's no point campaigning to tighten the rules on MPs' expenses. There's no point campaigning to increase openness and enhance accountability. And there's no point campaigning to reform the electoral system.
This is, somewhat perversely, despite the fact that reform is needed, and that proposals for reform need to be discussed. But these are not ultimately issues that will determine votes. I suggested that typical voters see these issues as secondary to their real concerns. And now I want to consider briefly what those real concerns might be.
I also suggested yesterday that political soap opera - the personalities, events, spin, gaffes, gossip, put-downs etc. that have high entertainment factor - might well be a higher factor in deciding the outcome of the election than we might like. Those are not the kind of concerns I'm talking about here. It's the so-called "issues".
No doubt there'll be a swathe of public opinion surveys about the main issues for the general election. However, it seems plausible that generally, the economy will be seen as the main issue, particularly how to safeguard public services and jobs while dealing with the deficit. [1, 2, 3] Immigration seems important to many voters, perhaps to a greater extent than reflected in the agendas of mainstream politicians and commentators. Defence, Europe and climate change are also deciding issues for many. Terrorism, health, education, crime, housing, Iraq, Afghanistan, pensions, MPs expenses, specific taxes, specific scandals, and the like might well crop up in the election campaign as it progresses. However I doubt they'll be deciding issues, except as part of a portfolio case against a particular party, a portfolio in which the economy appears.
Nevertheless, I'm largely with Anatole Kaletsky in The Times, in his argument that...
"... the vast majority of voters do not focus on the minutiae of economic policy debates ... but [on] broader issues of trust, judgment, character and ideology."In practice, attempts by voters to assess trust, judgment, character and ideology might well make use of motifs from the political soap opera for evidence. Cameron and his bicycle; Brown and his abrupt manner; Clegg and his mythical 30 sexual partners.
Some observers might find this irritating: elections should be decided on more rational grounds than superficial trivia, they might say. But I would suggest that while an examination of the details of policy would be the ideal act of the responsible voter, where there is at least a real concern for the particular problems facing the country rather than solely an obsession with entertainment, this approach to decision-making is at least a start at engagement. Real engagement in the political arguments would of course be better, but even with the best efforts of politicians and journalists, the proportion of the electorate that votes continues to be poor and the basis for decisions unclear.
So I'm suggesting that, in a situation in which a significant part of the electorate continue to fail to engage in the arguments, the political soap opera actually matters, for valid reasons, so long as the voters don't lose sight of the challenges the country faces.
Oh dear. I think I've turned into an apologist for Malcolm Tucker.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
A General Election blog post (boring boring boring)
Yes, another blog post to add to the vast numbers of blog posts, tweets, podcasts, news reports, statistical analyses and broadcast packages that will continue to spew forth from every corner of the political geekosphere before the UK general election this year.
Sigh.
Boring. Boring. Boring.
"... an election is not just a chance for the parties to have their say. It is best viewed as a national experience. A time for us all to take stock of the issues and to argue about how to deal with them."This might sound idealistic, naive even; but even when there might be little to choose between the parties save policy nuance, political soap opera, positioning and clever spin, this - now - is the moment at which the country decides how to deal with the problems it faces.
The geeks, hacks and activists among us might enjoy all the jockeying, the punditry, and soap opera. We might think the politicians ill-equipped with answers and justifications. We might complain that the voters are unengaged with what they need to engage. We might note that elections are rarely decided on rational grounds, or that the parties are "all as bad as each other", or that parties never stick to their election manifestos when they get into government. And all the rest.
Fine.
But Davis' point is that beyond all that, actually, there are things that we should be arguing about. Like how to deal with a deficit that will affect every member of society for years to come. Like (some might ask) what should be done about climate change, a question that if we get wrong could either reduce our economy even further or curse our descendants with a rather unpleasant world. Or a host of other issues that people might care about, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, MPs expenses, immigration, Europe, poverty, housing, taxation, the NHS, schools, crime, terrorism...
So somehow we need to move beyond the classic dichotomy between the few who simply relish the entertainment value of a general election and the many who are simply bored witless by it.
Somehow...
Monday, January 4, 2010
Why do parties of the Left believe in climate change?
A few weeks ago I asked why parties of the Right might tend to be more sceptical about climate change. The flipside of this, of course, is why parties of the Left might tend to believe in climate change.
As with that previous post, this is broad-brush stuff. There are some on the Left who are sceptical to a greater or lesser degree, and some who would might agree that climate change is happening but prefer to give priority to other problems, such as poverty or oppression. And "the Left" is often taken to include also sorts of positions, including those such as Liberals and Anarchists who might reject the Left-Right distinction as unhelpful.
But it is clear that many on the Left accept the scientific consensus on climate change, despite a high proportion of sceptics in the general population of many countries. So why is this?
So here are some suggestions...
As with that previous post, this is broad-brush stuff. There are some on the Left who are sceptical to a greater or lesser degree, and some who would might agree that climate change is happening but prefer to give priority to other problems, such as poverty or oppression. And "the Left" is often taken to include also sorts of positions, including those such as Liberals and Anarchists who might reject the Left-Right distinction as unhelpful.
But it is clear that many on the Left accept the scientific consensus on climate change, despite a high proportion of sceptics in the general population of many countries. So why is this?
So here are some suggestions...
- Scientists are more likely to be on the Left than the Right. [I have no idea if this is true. I'd doubt level of education is a factor, but perhaps the well-educated on the Right are more likely to be from humanities backgrounds?]
- Respect for science. The belief that if any authority should be respected, it should be authority derived from study and research, as opposed to authority derived from birth, wealth or power.
- Antipathy to capitalism. The story of climate change fits well with a belief that many of the world's troubles stem from the rampant excesses of unrestrained capitalism, particular burning fossil fuels and destroying forests.
- The need for international cooperation. Coordinated action at international level fits well with a belief that states can do good in a way that can transcend individual actions.
- The focus on helping poorer nations. It is the poorer nations which will typically be most affected in the short-term by the effects of climate change, through flooding, inadequate infrastructure, dependence on subsistence farming, water shortages and disease.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Why are parties of the Right sceptical of climate change?
Scepticism about climate change is said to be growing in the party most likely to win the British General Election, a party of the Right. What drives this scepticism?
Parties of the Right are not necessarily anti-green. While generally avoiding legislation that would impose restrictions on economic growth, they tend to contain a good proportion of people who want to preserve green spaces, minimise pollution, and maximise energy efficiency. There are also some who fear dependence on fuel imports from unstable regimes, and so would favour encouragement of the renewable energy industry.
But it is clear that many on the Right are vehemently against the scientific consensus on climate change. The blogosphere is full of fierce attempts by those who aren't climate scientists to dispute the evidence, without any apparent awareness that these arguments have already been examined in great detail by researchers over several years and using multiple sources of evidence. Which is why there is now a scientific consensus. Of course all knowledge is open to question; but we have to make decisions on the best-tested knowledge, and rehashing old arguments without engaging with the actual evidence is not the way to proceed.
These people are not stupid. So why is there such fervour against climate change, on the Right specifically?
Here are some suggestions (from a British perspective, although perhaps similar suggestions might apply to the US, Canada, Australia and elsewhere)...
Parties of the Right are not necessarily anti-green. While generally avoiding legislation that would impose restrictions on economic growth, they tend to contain a good proportion of people who want to preserve green spaces, minimise pollution, and maximise energy efficiency. There are also some who fear dependence on fuel imports from unstable regimes, and so would favour encouragement of the renewable energy industry.
But it is clear that many on the Right are vehemently against the scientific consensus on climate change. The blogosphere is full of fierce attempts by those who aren't climate scientists to dispute the evidence, without any apparent awareness that these arguments have already been examined in great detail by researchers over several years and using multiple sources of evidence. Which is why there is now a scientific consensus. Of course all knowledge is open to question; but we have to make decisions on the best-tested knowledge, and rehashing old arguments without engaging with the actual evidence is not the way to proceed.
These people are not stupid. So why is there such fervour against climate change, on the Right specifically?
Here are some suggestions (from a British perspective, although perhaps similar suggestions might apply to the US, Canada, Australia and elsewhere)...
- Fear of costs. Fear that action to combat climate change will be very costly in the short-term. There are much larger costs if climate change turns out as science predicts, but labelling the science as uncertain, exaggerated or bogus means these costs can be ignored. It may not happen, so why take the hit? And even if it does happen, how do we know that we could prevent it?
- The Left are loving this. Fear that there is a left-wing agenda afoot to use climate change as an excuse: for creating greater EU & UN powers at the expense of national governments; for re-shaping the economy along anti-capitalist, statist lines; for undermining the oil, nuclear and airline industries specifically; and for greater taxes on the rich and technologically adventurous.
- Britain will be overtaken. Fear that Britain will be out-manoeuvred by developing countries into accepting restrictions on its economic activity that will allow (for example) China, India and Brazil to overtake.
- Opposition. Those on the Right have been out of power in Britain for over 12 years, and are now accustomed to opposing the agenda of the current left-leaning government. Moreover, there is a strong tradition of muscular contrarianism amongst opinion-forming columnists and bloggers.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Reflections on the threat to Exeter democracy
Some personal reflections on the news that the Boundary Committee for England has advised that Exeter should lose its city council in favour of a huge unitary Devon council.
I'm not going to go into the hugely complicated details of the whys and wherefores of how we ended up in such a ridiculous anti-democratic situation. It's easy to blame the parties in Exeter, the parties in Devon, the Boundary Committee, and the Secretary State who initiated this unwanted process. But I'm prepared to presume that all were trying to do the best as they saw it.
And all is not yet lost: John Denham, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, won't be taking a decision on what should happen for six weeks, allowing representations from all interested parties. It is also in doubt whether there is time for legislation to be passed before the General Election.
But I've followed the story closely, read through all the documentation, and I want to make three points about the process we've been through. (Section and page references are to the document "Advice to the Secretary of State on unitary local government in Devon", 7 December 2009, pdf available via this link)
1. Democracy should be the main concern
The function of local government is not just delivering services. Otherwise we could abolish councils altogether and have a team of civil servants dictating how much gets spent on which services and what policies are to be enacted.
The financial aspects of local government are therefore important, but so too are the democratic mechanisms by which those in power are held to account by those who are subject to that power.
So how are democratic ideals reflected in the criteria the Boundary Committee were given to evaluate proposals for changing local government in Exeter?
Proposals needed to...
At first glance, the second, third and fourth criteria seem to be about democratic accountability. But actually they're not:
For the second criterion, the Boundary Committee interpreted "support by a broad cross-section" as finding instances of support amongst a variety of partners and stakeholders in the consultation process. They did not consider whether the proposals would result in ongoing popular support for whatever local government administration happens to wield power in the future. If, say, elections repeatedly returned Devon mega-council administrations with sharply differing policies to those favoured by the 125,000 inhabitants of Exeter, the Devon mega-council would be seen as lacking a democratic mandate in Exeter. But the Boundary Committee's interpretation of this criterion meant that this consideration was ignored.
For the third criterion, the Boundary Committee didn't see democracy as an integral part of "strong" and "effective" strategic leadership. Indeed, their assumption seems to have been that a substantial part of "strategic leadership" is a high-profile leader, rather than a council that builds wide consensus towards a clear, sound, agreed strategy. Meanwhile, their main concern about "accountability" seemed to be that having different councils responsible for different services tends to "blur" who is responsible for which service, rather than the more democratic concern that abolishing a city council decreases the extent to which the people of the city can call its representatives to account. Clarity of responsibility is important for democracy, but that's not the same as democracy.
For the fourth criterion, neighbourhood "empowerment" looks promising, but it is clear (section 2.18 onwards) that this is interpreted as "clarity of roles and responsibilities", good communication with residents, and "community forums" that "reflect community identities" to enable views to be heard. This ended up in a proposal (section 4.27) to create a "Community Board" for Exeter that would, inter alia, develop "vision", implement a community action plan, influence budget allocations, promote community cohesion, hold the Devon mega-council to account, shape local planning policy and act as a sounding board.
The Boundary Committee is vague on how such "Community Boards" would be appointed, despite describing them as "a well thought out approach to localisation" (p. 15). As far as it is concerned, the Devon mega-council is democratically elected, so it is up to that body to ensure that Community Boards are representative of the communities they cover. So, in essence, Exeter's Community Board would be a glorified sub-committee of the Devon mega-council, with no direct democratic mandate from the people of Exeter.
It would be truly unbelievable for the Boundary Committee to imagine that such a Community Board offers a better model of local democracy and empowerment than our current city council.
If democracy had been the main concern of this review, than the financial aspects would naturally have been a big consideration because the democratic mechanisms would need to be evaluated for cost-effectiveness. But by ignoring democracy, the Boundary Committee ended up focusing solely on the delivery of services.
So, in summary, democracy was not the main concern of this review of local government, and was consequently ignored by the Boundary Committee. The result was a proposal that constitutes a massive reduction in democratic representation and accountability.
2. The status quo should be an option
Two proposals were examined by the Committee:
The current setup is that Exeter has a city council that looks after the city's housing, planning, parking, environmental health, museums, libraries, parks, waste collection and so on. It seems fit-for-purpose, has one of the lowest council taxes in the country, and has a democratic mandate from the people of the city. Most importantly, the folk of Exeter can chuck the current buggers out if we don't like what they're doing in the city.
Meanwhile, we also have a Devon county council that is responsible for schools, social services, roads and a few other things that are typical of county councils. This council also seems fit-for-purpose, and is able to defer to Exeter when that makes sense. Despite being based in Exeter, though, it seems (to me) a slightly remote entity.
A sharper division between the two councils might arguably be helpful, and I personally would prefer more powers over Exeter moving from the county council to the city council; but in essence, there's no obvious problem to be solved here. Centralising all decision-making in a mega-council would in principle save money, but then of course so would centralising all decision-making in Westminster, and we don't do that.
So if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Indeed, the Boundary Committee notes (p. 13) that 61% of responses received during consultation were in favour of continuing with the current local government structures.
But the Boundary Committee was very clear (p. 12) that their remit was not to compare new proposals with the status quo, but simply to assess the capacity of the new proposals.
Conversely, many Exeter residents would feel disenfranchised if their elected City Council is abolished without a vote. And this sense of powerlessness would only grow when in the future there is some decision that the mega-council takes that goes against the interests of Exeter. There will be no democratic buy-in.
I predict that under a Devon mega-council, Exeter residents would grow resentful of their inability to decide their own affairs and those in rural Devon would grow resentful of what they would claim to be Exeter's preferential treatment.
3. The process should be democratic
I wrote above that the review was unwanted, and that there is no obvious problem to be solved here. I might of course be wrong about that. There might well be a groundswell of opinion in favour of change. The point is we just don't know. The 125,000 people in the city of Exeter have not been asked, and there are no plans to put the options to the vote.
Apparently, there was "strong opposition to removing Exeter from the rest of the county for local government purposes". How could the Boundary Committee know how strong the opposition is? It carried out no surveys. How strong was the opposition to abolishing Exeter's council? They don't know.
Instead, we have had two consultation exercises that have been managed by an unelected quango consisting of 8 people. It is not clear that submissions to the exercises have been either representative or properly taken into account. Huge sums have had to be wasted on lobbying by the respective councils, on responding to the process and on the legal challenges. This all comes out of our taxes, both council tax and general taxation.
The Committee admits (p. 12) that they did no systematic comparison of the proposals under consideration with the status quo. The balance of the submissions to the consultation exercise was in favour of the status quo. Indeed, many were strongly against the Devon mega-council idea. Yet the level of support for the different options was ignored. Where is the democracy in this?
Moreover, this method of evaluating proposals also does not encourage competing proposals to be compared systematically. This is a serious flaw.
The Appendix to the Committee's advice contains a breakdown of the preferences expressed by submissions made in the consultation exercises. Bearing in mind the caveats about lack of representativeness and quantitative intent, this data shows that 61% want the status quo; 15% want the Devon mega-council; and 11% want some form of Exeter unitary. Given that the consultation made clear that a simple Exeter unitary was not a proposal under consideration, it is possible that this option might have garnered more support than this.
Why am I labouring this point about the level of support for the different options? Well, precisely because of the reason the Committee ended up with its conclusions.
The Committee decided that the Devon mega-council proposal has the capacity to deliver the Secretary of State's five specified outcomes (the list beginning with "be affordable", above). And that the Greater Exeter proposal would be likely to deliver four out of the five. The one it wouldn't is "be supported by a broad cross-section of partners and stakeholders".
Specifically, looking at the crucial page 29 of the advice document, it is clear (when the status quo is excluded as an option) that the bulk of submissions from Exeter - including the University, the City Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the residents associations - want some form of unitary status for Exeter. But many submissions from outside Exeter - typically county-level organisations such as the Devon & Cornwall Police Authority and the Devon Primary Care Trust - were strongly opposed to this option.
So, to try to make the point as clear as I can...
As far as the Committee can tell based on its limited data on public opinion:
Final Thought
It is open to the Secretary of State to decide on any of the options, with or without modification. Or he can take no action.
I would humbly suggest to him on the basis of the three points above that the Boundary Committee have done what they have been asked to do, but that this exercise has shown that there is no groundswell of popular support for the abolition of Exeter City Council.
I'm not going to go into the hugely complicated details of the whys and wherefores of how we ended up in such a ridiculous anti-democratic situation. It's easy to blame the parties in Exeter, the parties in Devon, the Boundary Committee, and the Secretary State who initiated this unwanted process. But I'm prepared to presume that all were trying to do the best as they saw it.
And all is not yet lost: John Denham, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, won't be taking a decision on what should happen for six weeks, allowing representations from all interested parties. It is also in doubt whether there is time for legislation to be passed before the General Election.
But I've followed the story closely, read through all the documentation, and I want to make three points about the process we've been through. (Section and page references are to the document "Advice to the Secretary of State on unitary local government in Devon", 7 December 2009, pdf available via this link)
1. Democracy should be the main concern
The function of local government is not just delivering services. Otherwise we could abolish councils altogether and have a team of civil servants dictating how much gets spent on which services and what policies are to be enacted.
The financial aspects of local government are therefore important, but so too are the democratic mechanisms by which those in power are held to account by those who are subject to that power.
So how are democratic ideals reflected in the criteria the Boundary Committee were given to evaluate proposals for changing local government in Exeter?
Proposals needed to...
- be affordableThe first and fifth criteria are not about democracy ("equity" was interpreted solely in terms of access to services).
- be supported by a broad cross-section of partners and stakeholders
- provide strong, effective and accountable strategic leadership
- deliver genuine opportunities for neighbourhood flexibility and empowerment
- deliver value for money and equity in public services
At first glance, the second, third and fourth criteria seem to be about democratic accountability. But actually they're not:
For the second criterion, the Boundary Committee interpreted "support by a broad cross-section" as finding instances of support amongst a variety of partners and stakeholders in the consultation process. They did not consider whether the proposals would result in ongoing popular support for whatever local government administration happens to wield power in the future. If, say, elections repeatedly returned Devon mega-council administrations with sharply differing policies to those favoured by the 125,000 inhabitants of Exeter, the Devon mega-council would be seen as lacking a democratic mandate in Exeter. But the Boundary Committee's interpretation of this criterion meant that this consideration was ignored.
For the third criterion, the Boundary Committee didn't see democracy as an integral part of "strong" and "effective" strategic leadership. Indeed, their assumption seems to have been that a substantial part of "strategic leadership" is a high-profile leader, rather than a council that builds wide consensus towards a clear, sound, agreed strategy. Meanwhile, their main concern about "accountability" seemed to be that having different councils responsible for different services tends to "blur" who is responsible for which service, rather than the more democratic concern that abolishing a city council decreases the extent to which the people of the city can call its representatives to account. Clarity of responsibility is important for democracy, but that's not the same as democracy.
For the fourth criterion, neighbourhood "empowerment" looks promising, but it is clear (section 2.18 onwards) that this is interpreted as "clarity of roles and responsibilities", good communication with residents, and "community forums" that "reflect community identities" to enable views to be heard. This ended up in a proposal (section 4.27) to create a "Community Board" for Exeter that would, inter alia, develop "vision", implement a community action plan, influence budget allocations, promote community cohesion, hold the Devon mega-council to account, shape local planning policy and act as a sounding board.
The Boundary Committee is vague on how such "Community Boards" would be appointed, despite describing them as "a well thought out approach to localisation" (p. 15). As far as it is concerned, the Devon mega-council is democratically elected, so it is up to that body to ensure that Community Boards are representative of the communities they cover. So, in essence, Exeter's Community Board would be a glorified sub-committee of the Devon mega-council, with no direct democratic mandate from the people of Exeter.
It would be truly unbelievable for the Boundary Committee to imagine that such a Community Board offers a better model of local democracy and empowerment than our current city council.
If democracy had been the main concern of this review, than the financial aspects would naturally have been a big consideration because the democratic mechanisms would need to be evaluated for cost-effectiveness. But by ignoring democracy, the Boundary Committee ended up focusing solely on the delivery of services.
So, in summary, democracy was not the main concern of this review of local government, and was consequently ignored by the Boundary Committee. The result was a proposal that constitutes a massive reduction in democratic representation and accountability.
2. The status quo should be an option
Two proposals were examined by the Committee:
- a county unitary authority, aka the Devon mega-council (i.e. all of Devon, except Plymouth and Torbay)
- a "two unitary pattern comprising Exeter & Exmouth and Rural Devon", aka the Greater Exeter proposal
The current setup is that Exeter has a city council that looks after the city's housing, planning, parking, environmental health, museums, libraries, parks, waste collection and so on. It seems fit-for-purpose, has one of the lowest council taxes in the country, and has a democratic mandate from the people of the city. Most importantly, the folk of Exeter can chuck the current buggers out if we don't like what they're doing in the city.
Meanwhile, we also have a Devon county council that is responsible for schools, social services, roads and a few other things that are typical of county councils. This council also seems fit-for-purpose, and is able to defer to Exeter when that makes sense. Despite being based in Exeter, though, it seems (to me) a slightly remote entity.
A sharper division between the two councils might arguably be helpful, and I personally would prefer more powers over Exeter moving from the county council to the city council; but in essence, there's no obvious problem to be solved here. Centralising all decision-making in a mega-council would in principle save money, but then of course so would centralising all decision-making in Westminster, and we don't do that.
So if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Indeed, the Boundary Committee notes (p. 13) that 61% of responses received during consultation were in favour of continuing with the current local government structures.
But the Boundary Committee was very clear (p. 12) that their remit was not to compare new proposals with the status quo, but simply to assess the capacity of the new proposals.
Conversely, many Exeter residents would feel disenfranchised if their elected City Council is abolished without a vote. And this sense of powerlessness would only grow when in the future there is some decision that the mega-council takes that goes against the interests of Exeter. There will be no democratic buy-in.
I predict that under a Devon mega-council, Exeter residents would grow resentful of their inability to decide their own affairs and those in rural Devon would grow resentful of what they would claim to be Exeter's preferential treatment.
3. The process should be democratic
I wrote above that the review was unwanted, and that there is no obvious problem to be solved here. I might of course be wrong about that. There might well be a groundswell of opinion in favour of change. The point is we just don't know. The 125,000 people in the city of Exeter have not been asked, and there are no plans to put the options to the vote.
Apparently, there was "strong opposition to removing Exeter from the rest of the county for local government purposes". How could the Boundary Committee know how strong the opposition is? It carried out no surveys. How strong was the opposition to abolishing Exeter's council? They don't know.
Instead, we have had two consultation exercises that have been managed by an unelected quango consisting of 8 people. It is not clear that submissions to the exercises have been either representative or properly taken into account. Huge sums have had to be wasted on lobbying by the respective councils, on responding to the process and on the legal challenges. This all comes out of our taxes, both council tax and general taxation.
The Committee admits (p. 12) that they did no systematic comparison of the proposals under consideration with the status quo. The balance of the submissions to the consultation exercise was in favour of the status quo. Indeed, many were strongly against the Devon mega-council idea. Yet the level of support for the different options was ignored. Where is the democracy in this?
Moreover, this method of evaluating proposals also does not encourage competing proposals to be compared systematically. This is a serious flaw.
The Appendix to the Committee's advice contains a breakdown of the preferences expressed by submissions made in the consultation exercises. Bearing in mind the caveats about lack of representativeness and quantitative intent, this data shows that 61% want the status quo; 15% want the Devon mega-council; and 11% want some form of Exeter unitary. Given that the consultation made clear that a simple Exeter unitary was not a proposal under consideration, it is possible that this option might have garnered more support than this.
Why am I labouring this point about the level of support for the different options? Well, precisely because of the reason the Committee ended up with its conclusions.
The Committee decided that the Devon mega-council proposal has the capacity to deliver the Secretary of State's five specified outcomes (the list beginning with "be affordable", above). And that the Greater Exeter proposal would be likely to deliver four out of the five. The one it wouldn't is "be supported by a broad cross-section of partners and stakeholders".
Specifically, looking at the crucial page 29 of the advice document, it is clear (when the status quo is excluded as an option) that the bulk of submissions from Exeter - including the University, the City Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the residents associations - want some form of unitary status for Exeter. But many submissions from outside Exeter - typically county-level organisations such as the Devon & Cornwall Police Authority and the Devon Primary Care Trust - were strongly opposed to this option.
So, to try to make the point as clear as I can...
As far as the Committee can tell based on its limited data on public opinion:
- The status quo is the preferred option of the majority.
- If the status quo isn't possible, the people of Exeter would prefer a unitary Exeter to a Devon mega-council.
- If the status quo isn't possible, rural Devon would prefer a Devon mega-council to a unitary Exeter.
Final Thought
It is open to the Secretary of State to decide on any of the options, with or without modification. Or he can take no action.
I would humbly suggest to him on the basis of the three points above that the Boundary Committee have done what they have been asked to do, but that this exercise has shown that there is no groundswell of popular support for the abolition of Exeter City Council.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Bad news for Exeter
The Boundary Committee has just published its advice that Exeter City Council should be abolished in favour of a single council for Devon. Not good news.
It's now up to John Denham, the Labour MP for Southampton Itchen, who is currently Secretary of State for "Communities and Local Government" to make a final decision on what happens to Exeter's city democracy.
It's now up to John Denham, the Labour MP for Southampton Itchen, who is currently Secretary of State for "Communities and Local Government" to make a final decision on what happens to Exeter's city democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)