A study commissioned by Unlock Democracy from De Montfort University.  Unlock Democracy is campaigning to reverse the centralisation of power from local government to central government in England and restore it back to local communities. 

Executive summary

Communities thrive best when those who serve them locally are accountable, engaged, listen to residents’ concerns, and have a vision for their area with the power to implement it. This is what local authorities have the potential to deliver. But when autonomy is denied, not only are elected representatives left disempowered, but community voices are stifled and expectations dashed too. 

1. CENTRAL-LOCAL RELATIONS: CENTRALISATION ON STEROIDS? 

To deliver this vision, a balanced relationship between central and local government is essential. Yet, over time, the balance has increasingly tilted towards the centre, leaving local government and the communities it serves weakened.

•  Until the late 1970s, councils could be defined as ‘sovereign’: they had jurisdictional integrity, a high level of autonomy on key services, and democratic legitimacy. The lack of constitutional protection for local government has allowed a shift from a model of the ‘Sovereign Council’ to a more disempowered local government.
•  Central government has been deploying a wide range of ‘tools of central control’. Central-local relations have been ‘juridified’; secondary legislation has been increasingly used as an indirect, yet powerful mechanism of re-centralisation; contractualisation and ‘conditional localism’ have become the norm.
•  The combined use of these tools has had damaging effects. Local government’s autonomy and power – and that of the communities it serves – have been eroded by the centre.

2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE: WEAKENED BY A THOUSAND CUTS 

Central control over funding is key to the character of central-local relationships in England and determines local government’s degree of autonomy. 

• Since the late 1970s, different administrations have used the tool of funding controls in different ways. But the direction of travel has been clear: loss of financial autonomy has led to a loss of local government autonomy. 
• In recent years, there have been attempts at reversing this trend – with councils being able to raise and retain more income locally. And yet, this has coincided with severe financial constraints and centrally prescribed targets, meaning more local discretion over inadequate funding can, in turn, exacerbate a ‘postcode lottery’ in service delivery.
• The Covid-19 crisis has now put additional strains on an already fragile system of funding. Many local authorities were already on the brink of collapse after 10 years of austerity: the lack of adequate support from the centre is now leaving them with no choice but to cut further essential services for the communities they serve. Meanwhile, many councils may not be able to survive the ‘perfect storm’ generated by the Covid-19 crisis.
• As reflected in recent research (NAO 2021; IFS, 2020) the system of local government cannot be fixed anymore with short-term interventions, and requires to be stabilised in the long term.

3. DISMEMBERING LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 

Until the late 1970s, local government was recognised as the principal local player, with relative discretion and autonomy. This trend has radically changed over the past decades.

•  Councils have been stripped of many of their primary service delivery roles. At best, local authorities are now one provider amongst many, and face increasing difficulty in maintaining strategic oversight on key services.
•  Councils have, at the same time, faced financial pressures and the imposition of additional duties which have perpetuated the trend to outsourcing and alternative methods of delivery.
•  As a result, councils now have responsibility without power in many, crucial, policy areas – such as education, housing and social care. l Changes have been complex and fast paced, creating a ‘tangled web’ of management, delivery, fragmentation, lack of clear lines of accountability and muddled structures.

4. SQUEEZING DEMOCRACY OUT OF THE LOCAL: REPRESENTATION DEFICITS AND ‘TANGLED WEBS’ OF ACCOUNTABILITY 

The role of local government as representative of a community, as well as provider of collective services, has been steadily weakened through central government reforms implemented over the past decades. 

• Local government’s representation and legitimacy has been reduced: the size of councils has grown, the number of councillors has fallen, and the introduction of ‘backbench’ councillors has left many local representatives playing only residual roles.
•  Within councils, the introduction of the executive/cabinet model was meant to improve accountability. Instead, it has arguably introduced a more managerial model, while also fostering the creation of ‘two tribes’ of councillors, with very different leverage over local affairs. As a result, the influence of the average councillor has been reduced, and the role of the councillor has been increasingly ‘managerialised’ and ‘depoliticised’.
•  Councillors now also sit at the centre of a maze of multiple accountabilities. They are under increasing pressure to develop different skills, capabilities and modes of oversight that are often difficult to ‘juggle’. In this way, there is a risk that ‘accountability gaps’ emerge, leaving communities disempowered. 
• New ‘tangled webs of accountability’, especially over service delivery, have also coincided with local government being bypassed by a ‘new magistracy’ of unelected bodies, and having to operate within an organisational and institutional arrangement with fuzzy boundaries. 

The erosion of local democracy has been substantial, putting into jeopardy local government’s ability to continue providing a vital democratic link for the communities it is elected to serve. For the sake of local democracy the tide must be turned. 

That is the conclusion of a CNN analysis of the David Cameron/Greensill scandal published a few days ago. The drip feed of examples continues, and there are now seven inquiries in progress, so CNN’s judgement could be premature.

However, what caught Owl’s attention was the chilling reasoning: “the public repeatedly shows that its priority is getting through the pandemic at all costs. If at a time of crisis that means giving contracts to friends to get the job done, it’s unlikely to make a significant difference to support for the government.”

Analysis: A political scandal is swirling in Britain. But Boris Johnson is unlikely to drain the swamp

Analysis by Luke McGee,  edition.cnn.com (Extract)

“It’s hard to find any way in which this doesn’t look phenomenally grubby, from the inside or outside. That might explain why current Prime Minister Boris Johnson has failed to publicly support Cameron, and has ordered an independent inquiry into his behavior.

However, anti-corruption campaigners in the UK are skeptical that any good will come of this inquiry.

“The UK’s real problem is that whilst we do have procedures in place to regulate lobbying and post-government appointments, they are just woefully inadequate,” says Daniel Bruce, chief executive of Transparency International UK.

Bruce points out that the two specific mechanisms that are relevant to the Cameron scandal are particularly weak.

First, the Register of Consultant Lobbyists, the only formal list of those lobbying the UK government, only captures people lobbying for companies or bodies who are external consultants. Bruce’s organization estimates that the vast majority “of lobbying is done by people who work directly for the person they are lobbying on behalf of,” says Bruce.

In the case of Cameron and Greensill, Cameron was a contracted employee for the firm, so sidesteps the register policy — which was introduced by Cameron’s government in the first place.

Second, Bruce points to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which advises whether or not people like Cameron should take postings once they have left office.

“This one is absolutely unfit for purpose. Even if it does find any wrongdoing, the worst punishment it can deliver is a strongly worded letter,” says Bruce.

Any inquiry into Cameron’s behavior is likely to find that he breached no rules. And if that inquiry fails to look at the broader issues surrounding lobbying — and the toothless bodies that regulate it — future scandals remain inevitable.

The inadequate rules on elected officials possibly cashing in on their position sadly extend to those who are currently in government, not just ex-officials who are looking to get rich post-office.

“The only real protection we have from government sleaze is an apolitical civil service telling ministers what they can and cannot do,” says Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, a non-profit organization that uses law to protect public interest.

“Yes, we have a ministerial code, we have registers of financial interest. But breaching the ministerial code doesn’t mean you’ll get sacked. And very few MPs have stopped filling their pockets because of public shame,” Maugham adds.

The fact that the UK doesn’t have a codified constitution to protect against this kind of alleged abuse is a constant source of irritation for many. Maugham points out that “America is a modern country whose founders foresaw the potential for abuses of power, but the UK has never really had anything like that.”

The Cameron scandal comes at a time when there is pressure for Johnson’s government to address stories that during the coronavirus pandemic, it more often awarded lucrative government contracts to people connected with the administration. So, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Sunak’s involvement would be an extra source of aggravation for ministers trying to shake accusations of cronyism.

Indeed, the opposition Labour Party is already using the scandal to attack Sunak, a man who has variously enjoyed positive press for much of his response to the pandemic.

Bridget Phillipson, Labour’s Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, says that the Chancellor “is happy to stand in front of a camera when it suits him and splash public cash on boosting his brand, but won’t answer questions about his involvement in the biggest lobbying scandal for a generation.”

However, neither of these stories are likely to give Johnson the appetite to drain Westminster’s lobbying swamp.

“The public rarely pays attention to these stories because they already assume this level of corruption is happening,” says Ben Page, chief executive of polling firm Ipsos MORI. He adds that even in the case of the Covid cronyism, “the public repeatedly shows that its priority is getting through the pandemic at all costs. If at a time of crisis that means giving contracts to friends to get the job done, it’s unlikely to make a significant difference to support for the government.”

Government sources say that their own internal research shows similar results and that if the UK’s pandemic is over sooner rather than later, these sorts of scandals will be a minor issue compared to the public relief. A minister told CNN that they are confident that even if stories emerge that people connected to the government won contracts in a public crisis, they will be forgiving of the fact these were not normal times, especially in areas that have been successful, like the vaccine rollout.

Washington DC’s reputation for influential lobbyists is obviously justified. If it wasn’t, Trump’s anti-swamp rhetoric wouldn’t have found such a keen audience. But in reality, for all the money that exists in American politics, the UK trails behind when it comes to stamping down on this type of grubbiness.”

A couple of days ago “DN” posted this comment on EDW:

“On BBC News website today there is an item about Northampton Conservatives misleading voters, in saying they will protect libraries when they had voted to axe them. Surely something similar with the Conservative Party election leaflet in Seaton and Colyton area ” working alongside Neil Parish he wants to see the hospital bolstered into a community based facility offering high quality care and sustainable health and well being related services”

As I remember it Neil Parish did very little to save our hospital- or much else for our local community. It was the East Devon Alliance Councillors who have been working their socks off to save our hospitals. All the Tories did was to do everything they could to destroy our hospitals and deprived us of some local health services we once had, and lost all the beds. They betrayed the local people. Trust a Tory- never!”

Well, this story has become active in the Axminster, Colyton and Seaton election areas as can be seen from Martin Shaw’s blog. Martin Shaw is the EDA candidate for the Seaton and Colyton County Division.

What is intriguing is that it is the Axminster Tory candidate who has strayed from his patch to try to defend the indefensible. Health care, not just locally but nationally, is one of the Tories Achilles’ Heels.

Axminster Conservative says I’m ‘scaremongering’, but he knows that Seaton Hospital has remained in limbo ever since his colleagues ditched our beds

 seatonmatters.org /April 15, 2021

In a tweet responding to my Nub News article about NHS Property Services’ offering the Seaton Hospital site for housing development, Axminster Conservative candidate Ian Hall has accused me of ‘scaremongering’.

However Ian was present at County Hall three and a half years ago, when his Tory colleagues voted down our last chance to block the closure of Seaton’s beds – in the full knowledge that the CCG together with NHS Property Services, which owns all East Devon’s community hospitals, was preparing an ‘estates strategy’ to identify surplus sites to be sold off. He also knows that at the time, his Conservative government was offering incentives to NHS organisations to identify such sites.

So Ian should not be surprised that it has now emerged, via the Midweek Herald, that NHS Property Services offered our site for development and that this offer is even now being presented to EDDC’s Strategic Planning Committee as one of the options for meeting the excessive house-building targets which his Government has, on top of everything, imposed on East Devon.

Ian may not be worried that NHS PS were also offering up a quarter of the Axminster site, but I expect many of the people of Axminster, who like us in Seaton actually paid for their hospital, will have different ideas – and may well turn to Independent candidate Paul Hayward, who will actually stick up for them, instead.

in Seaton, where NHS PS put up half the site, everyone understands that if 14 houses are built, the Hospital will no longer exist. As I made clear in my article, there is no specific closure proposal. But the information confirms that we have been right all along to be alarmed. Perhaps if there is no scare, NHS Property Services will officially take the offer off the table?

Ian is right of course that we need to cooperate in a health plan for the Axe Valley, also involving Lyme Regis, with both Axminster and Seaton hospitals. But the Triangular Health Forum he mentions has hardly got off the ground despite years of intermittent talk. Meanwhile, until the vaccination programme, Seaton Hospital remained in limbo, almost half empty, still all too ripe for the asset-strippers.

Also:

Two days ago, whilst visiting Dartmouth, Boris Johnson said of the growing backlog of our over-burdened healthcare system:

 “We’re going to make sure that we give the NHS all the funding that it needs, as we have done throughout the pandemic, to beat the backlog.

“We’ve put about £92 billion already extra into the NHS this year and we’re going to do whatever it takes.

Sorry Boris but it isn’t that simple to roll back years of underinvestment in an instant. Consultants, Doctors and Nurses can’t be bought “off the shelf” no matter how much cash you pour into the pockets of Management Consultants – Owl