Writing as an ex Parish Councilor with no powers at all, I am entirely in favour of local democracy with a meaningful precept to be spent on specific local responsibilities. The concept of “bottom up” as opposed to “top down” (the method favoured by those who know better!!) dates back to the Anglo-Saxons prior to the Norman Invasion and is with the full acquiescence of the people. This leads, and would result in a return to, the basics of local democracy and is the direction we should be taking.
“In terms of general trends in the social application of knowledge, there are a number of ways in which decision making has tended to gravitate away from those most immediately affected and toward institutions increasingly remote and insulated from feedback… Even within democratic nations, the locus of decision making has drifted away from the individual, the family, and voluntary associations of various sorts, and towards government. And within government, it has moved away from elected officials subject to voter feedback, and toward more insulated governmental institutions, such as bureaucracies and the appointed judiciary. These trends have grave implications, not only for individual freedom, but also for the social ways in which knowledge is used, distorted, or made ineffective.” ( ‘Knowledge and Decisions’ (1980), pp163-4)
The implications Sowell recognised back in 1980 have increasingly happened. Also, there was a book published in 2008 which analysed the serious problems in public sector functioning in the UK. This was 'Systems Thinking in the Public Sector' by John Seddon, an occupational psychologist. This detailed how the functioning of public services in the UK had been undermined, in particular during the Blair government years (but also prior to then). I am not aware that governments since 2008 have done anything effective to improve matters.
Appropriate decisions need to be made by the appropriate people, at the appropriate place or level within any system. In contrast, 'command and control' from above typically brings about dysfunctional systems where most people have seriously restricted choices.
Subsuming local councils into bigger organisations will further undermine appropriate decision making, as well as democratic accountability.
Scotland had something like what is being proposed enacted in 1975 - 12 Regional Councils. I recall it being unpopular but can’t remember much about why. The system was abolished in the mid-1990s. Might be worth looking into.
I can’t say I’ve seen anything about a consultation related to the reorganisation. Was it even in their manifesto? To me it’s a backward step, it may save money but it removes ‘local’ government too far from the people.
Paul – I appreciate that you have worked in local government in the sense that the London Fire Service is part of it, but as someone with experience of both unitary and separate County/District councils I have a different perspective.
Most Districts are too small to operate effectively with economies of scale, while Counties are often too big to pick up local needs. The proposed system creates unitary councils that are in between covering all local services.
The public don't understand who does what and are often confused about which to contact with a problem. e.g. Counties deal with highways (potholes), District with litter and bins. The results is endless confusion and delays.
Not sure where you got the 90% reduction in councillors, but this can't be right. Many councils are already Unitaries including all London boroughs, many towns and cities and even some rural areas and won't be affected by the changes. Lots of councillors don't want this because they fear losing their financial allowances that have become part of their income. Staff (mainly management and back office) also fear losing their jobs.
If done properly the changes should improve efficiency so more of tax payers money can be spent on public services rather than bureaucracy.
Parish councils don't have powers to provide essential public services and are really just consultative bodies. They do play an important role in communicating local concerns and don't cost much so having a few more wouldn't be a problem.
I agree that local elections should not be cancelled or delayed for years. They are a fundamental part of our democratic system.
Fair enough Paul. I hadn't spotted the link. The piece talks about a reduction in the number of councillors from 12,000 to 1,200. This relates to two tier shire areas. The professors don't say how they've calculated this but presumably on population size. This doesn't make sense to me as rural areas always have more councillors per head due to a lower population density. For comparison, London boroughs alone have 1800 council seats.
Sadly you sum the problem up in those 3 little words at the beginning of para 5 "if done properly"! What possible hope is there that it will be as this government has failed at every single thing it has tried to do so far.
You are right of course. Although the Government won't be managing the reorganisation, the councils themselves will be doing it. Some will do it well, others poorly, irrespective of their political persuasion.
It is a sad state where we don't expect government to do this properly or trust politicians to exercise good faith in building more efficient and accountable structures.
I think I'd support this change if it meant more Labour councils and oppose it if it meant more Tory (whether of the Conservative of Reformist variety of Tory) councils
Writing as an ex Parish Councilor with no powers at all, I am entirely in favour of local democracy with a meaningful precept to be spent on specific local responsibilities. The concept of “bottom up” as opposed to “top down” (the method favoured by those who know better!!) dates back to the Anglo-Saxons prior to the Norman Invasion and is with the full acquiescence of the people. This leads, and would result in a return to, the basics of local democracy and is the direction we should be taking.
It makes a change not to see a foreign flag flying over City Hall, Paul...
To quote Thomas Sowell:
“In terms of general trends in the social application of knowledge, there are a number of ways in which decision making has tended to gravitate away from those most immediately affected and toward institutions increasingly remote and insulated from feedback… Even within democratic nations, the locus of decision making has drifted away from the individual, the family, and voluntary associations of various sorts, and towards government. And within government, it has moved away from elected officials subject to voter feedback, and toward more insulated governmental institutions, such as bureaucracies and the appointed judiciary. These trends have grave implications, not only for individual freedom, but also for the social ways in which knowledge is used, distorted, or made ineffective.” ( ‘Knowledge and Decisions’ (1980), pp163-4)
The implications Sowell recognised back in 1980 have increasingly happened. Also, there was a book published in 2008 which analysed the serious problems in public sector functioning in the UK. This was 'Systems Thinking in the Public Sector' by John Seddon, an occupational psychologist. This detailed how the functioning of public services in the UK had been undermined, in particular during the Blair government years (but also prior to then). I am not aware that governments since 2008 have done anything effective to improve matters.
Appropriate decisions need to be made by the appropriate people, at the appropriate place or level within any system. In contrast, 'command and control' from above typically brings about dysfunctional systems where most people have seriously restricted choices.
Subsuming local councils into bigger organisations will further undermine appropriate decision making, as well as democratic accountability.
Scotland had something like what is being proposed enacted in 1975 - 12 Regional Councils. I recall it being unpopular but can’t remember much about why. The system was abolished in the mid-1990s. Might be worth looking into.
I can’t say I’ve seen anything about a consultation related to the reorganisation. Was it even in their manifesto? To me it’s a backward step, it may save money but it removes ‘local’ government too far from the people.
Paul – I appreciate that you have worked in local government in the sense that the London Fire Service is part of it, but as someone with experience of both unitary and separate County/District councils I have a different perspective.
Most Districts are too small to operate effectively with economies of scale, while Counties are often too big to pick up local needs. The proposed system creates unitary councils that are in between covering all local services.
The public don't understand who does what and are often confused about which to contact with a problem. e.g. Counties deal with highways (potholes), District with litter and bins. The results is endless confusion and delays.
Not sure where you got the 90% reduction in councillors, but this can't be right. Many councils are already Unitaries including all London boroughs, many towns and cities and even some rural areas and won't be affected by the changes. Lots of councillors don't want this because they fear losing their financial allowances that have become part of their income. Staff (mainly management and back office) also fear losing their jobs.
If done properly the changes should improve efficiency so more of tax payers money can be spent on public services rather than bureaucracy.
Parish councils don't have powers to provide essential public services and are really just consultative bodies. They do play an important role in communicating local concerns and don't cost much so having a few more wouldn't be a problem.
I agree that local elections should not be cancelled or delayed for years. They are a fundamental part of our democratic system.
Hi, Cliff. The 90% figure came from Emeritus Professors of local government Colin Copus and Steve Leach. See hyperlink embedded in the piece.
Fair enough Paul. I hadn't spotted the link. The piece talks about a reduction in the number of councillors from 12,000 to 1,200. This relates to two tier shire areas. The professors don't say how they've calculated this but presumably on population size. This doesn't make sense to me as rural areas always have more councillors per head due to a lower population density. For comparison, London boroughs alone have 1800 council seats.
Sadly you sum the problem up in those 3 little words at the beginning of para 5 "if done properly"! What possible hope is there that it will be as this government has failed at every single thing it has tried to do so far.
You are right of course. Although the Government won't be managing the reorganisation, the councils themselves will be doing it. Some will do it well, others poorly, irrespective of their political persuasion.
It is a sad state where we don't expect government to do this properly or trust politicians to exercise good faith in building more efficient and accountable structures.
But history will be well served by those objectively recording how it all ended.
I think I'd support this change if it meant more Labour councils and oppose it if it meant more Tory (whether of the Conservative of Reformist variety of Tory) councils