John Oxley is a consultant, writer, and broadcaster. His SubStack is Joxley Writes.
Today, large chunks of the country will go to the polls for their local representatives. Councillors, mayors, and police and crime commissioners will all be facing the test of public approval.
Yet in all these contests, there is an unknown balance between them being judged on their own achievements, and the fortunes of the parties they belong to.
This is, in part, unavoidable. But it is also the result of the way all of these roles find their powers heavily fettered by central government.
Britain is one of the most centralised states in the OECD. Local government has responsibilities but, often, lacks power; statutory duties (especially around social care) determine how it spends most of its money. The ability to raise funds is also curtailed, with government rules restricting council tax changes and other levies often impossible.
Many other decisions taken locally can be overruled by the government, with ministers able, for example, to veto councils and mayors over certain planning decisions.
It is perhaps a natural tendency of government to hoard power. Our electoral system makes this worse: people are unsure where responsibilities lie, so governing parties can get the blame for local decisions, and vice versa.
Most of all, however, our political culture seems to push back against devolved power, focusing on its problems rather than opportunities.
In British politics, there are few phrases more powerful than “postcode lottery”. Idly watching the news the other day it was invoked on several stories about public services.
That two different parts of the country should have different rules or different priorities is seen as obviously wrong. Differing provision is assumed to be unfair and a negative outcome, rather than an opportunity for areas to decide what to focus their attention on themselves.
Often, it feels, this is even done by politicians who promote localism. MPs will talk about repatriating powers from Westminster, then complain about how they are used. The fear of differing outcomes means councils are reluctant to use the powers they have, and government is loath to give them more.
When councils thought about experimenting with four-day working weeks, for example, ministers were quick to overrule. Decisions can be made locally, it seems, provided they are all made the same way.
This is in contrast to many other countries. In Canada, you notice the gas prices change as you enter a new province – some of the taxes on fuel are set and retained locally. In many parts of Europe, there are local income taxes. A Dane in Copenhagen will two per cent less tax than one in Roskilde, just forty minutes’ drive away.
In the US, of course, states have wide powers to set not just their own fiscal rules but other laws too, giving vastly different experiences. Rather than reviled, the postcode lottery is seen as an important part of local autonomy.
There are clear benefits to this. Firstly, each area can become an incubator for the sorts of policies it likes. All political decisions come with advantages and trade-offs, some of which are hard to assess without exposing them to the real world. Local authorities can be a testing ground for things that can scale up to greater success as other areas copy them.
Equally, it can be a conduit for ideas that work in certain circumstances, rather than being stuck with ill-fitting solutions sent down from above.
More than that, greater freedom for local decision-making also means more choice and more freedom for individuals – who can choose the areas that best suit them.
This is best shown in America. If reproductive rights really matter to you, you can live in California, but if the Second Amendment is more important, you can enjoy those rights in Mississippi. If it’s a tie, Vermont offers liberal access to both abortion and assault rifles.
British devolution would perhaps not be as extreme, but places could differentiate themselves with lower local taxes, or perhaps hyper-funded local services.
Greater local autonomy could also help power national growth. At present, local areas bear much of the upfront costs of growth policies but feel disconnected from the results. If wages surge in a city or town, most of the benefit in terms of tax receipts are retained by central government.
Meanwhile, the local authority has to deal with the increased demands on infrastructure with only indirect contributions from richer residents.
In these circumstances, we start to understand why towns stand in the way of their own growth. Cambridge, for example, is pushing against the Government’s attempt to make it bigger and richer.
Perhaps with more local fiscal control, they might see the advantage of growth. If they didn’t however, in a UK with more local autonomy, another city could snatch it from them – opening the labs and drawing the investment without Whitehall having to be involved at all.
To do any of this, however, we need to get over our squeamishness about local variations. The postcode lottery shouldn’t be a bogeyman but should be an accepted consequence of places having different needs and desires. As Conservatives in particular, we should be wary of the centralising state that plays on these fears, instead understanding that local decision-making can mean greater accountability and greater freedom.
The drive for “more choice” has underpinned some of the party’s best policies. In academies and free schools, for example, we recognised the important benefits that could come from allowing things to happen differently. This has led to lots of schools with different ethos and approaches.
Some have soared, and others have made mistakes. But overall it has driven up standards, and given more people choice over how their children are educated; few people now seem to mind the divergences.
The same approach should be rolled out to local government. There’s a strong case for giving towns and cities more of a say and less central direction. That, however, means being comfortable when they do things differently and where they make mistakes.
Government should be less greedy of its powers, and we should be less wary of local differences. Rather than lamenting postcode lotteries, we should be celebrating and maximising local innovation and decision-making.
The post John Oxley: There is no empowering local government without accepting that postcode lotteries will result appeared first on Conservative Home.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: John Oxley
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, http://www.conservativehome.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.