“Localisation”, “levelling up”, “empowering communities” – all popular buzzwords with politicians. Localism could be a democratic silver bullet. Where decisions are made closer to the people they affect, the decision-makers become more accountable. More accountable decision-makers generally make better decisions. In practice there is only a mere performance of localism, leaving citizens with ever less influence over what happens in our communities.
I have practised local government law (an important facet of public and constitutional law) for years, representing both local authorities (district and county councils) and those suing them. I have always found local government workers and councillors – whether I am for or against them – dedicated, full of integrity, passionate about their locality and determined to do right by the people they serve.
They are also increasingly overwhelmed: grappling with problems they lack the powers and resources to fully address and battered by the changing winds of Westminster’s latest fad. I have worked with housing officers trying to accommodate ever-growing numbers of homeless people in a shrinking housing stock, antisocial behaviour officers trying to stop drug addicts heaping misery on their neighbours while knowing those people are themselves victims of a deep societal despair that they are powerless to address. I have advised planning officers desperately trying to make the right decision for local people without the resources to do so.
Contrary to politicians’ rhetoric, Westminster has extended its control over local authorities since 2010. A decade of austerity stripped most local government of the means to act independently of Whitehall. Between 2010 and 2020, councils’ spending power was cut by 16 per cent. Cuts generally focused on those areas which didn’t vote for the party in power in Westminster. Councils provided a convenient way for politicians to try to avoid accountability for austerity. Whitehall slashed budgets then left local authorities with the heartbreaking decisions (and blame) about which essential service to cut.
The Cameron government’s “mayoral combined authorities”, installing directly elected mayors in six combined authority areas, provided for important figureheads and, for the first time, introduced directly elected executives to English government. The current Government’s “bespoke settlements” promise to deliver some enhanced powers to nine regions. Yet all of these reforms leave the respective local authorities beholden to central government because Whitehall controls the purse strings.
Even the Mayor of London is beholden to Westminster for funds
Finance is fundamental to public policy. Parliament can hand local authorities all the powers it likes but, unless councils can afford to exercise them, those powers are effectively meaningless. Local authorities have little real ability to raise their own revenue. Council tax is regressive, charging rich and poor the same rates based on a postcode lottery, and insufficient to fund even the core functions of local government. The bulk of business rates must be handed over to Whitehall, where officials (not locally elected councillors) decide what councils require. The, ironically named Localism Act limited local authority’s powers to raise revenue. Even the Mayor of London, holder of the second-largest personal mandate in Europe, is beholden to Westminster for funds. Successive governments have forced him to beg for funds to plug the massive financial hole in Transport For London left by the covid lockdowns.
But, even if local government was given the power (and funds) to address the challenges it faces, can we be sure they would be used in the interests of local people? While I am always impressed by the integrity of those involved, local government is even less accountable than national government. Most council business is done by the local executive. Officers are not elected and only indirectly answerable to councillors. Unlike in Westminster (hardly a model of democratic accountability), council departments are led by officers, rather than elected representatives.
Councillors themselves are often part-time, paid substantially less than officers, and have almost no research or policy support. Meetings of councils and committees are occasional, so the scrutiny they can achieve is limited. Speakers for and against planning applications – often worth millions of pounds and proposing irreversible change to the locality – are often limited to less than five minutes each. There is little legislative initiative.
Moreover, councils are generally unicameral – eliminating the valuable checks and balances offered by an upper chamber. While elected mayors appeared to be a democratic step forward, the Elections Act changed the electoral process for mayors and police and crime commissioners from “single transferrable vote” (whereby voters rank candidates in order of preference – ensuring that the winner has a genuine plurality of support) to “first past the post” (in which the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they only achieve a minority of the votes cast). Coincidentally, this system disproportionately benefits the party currently in power in Westminster.
Localism offers the opportunity to solve a raft of social problems by ensuring that decisions are taken as close to the citizen as possible. But, as much as democracy needs localism, so too does localism need democracy.
Sam Fowles is a barrister, Director of the ICDR, and a lecturer at St Edmund Hall, Oxford. He tweets at @SamFowles
