By Public Servant Magazine
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles explains how the coalition government is setting out to rebalance power and make localism a reality
A friend of mine, a former Congressman from Wisconsin, once said: “If you don’t like the folks, don’t be in our business.” When politics becomes the preserve of people who are only interested in power, the political system starts to break down. That’s what we’ve seen in the past 13 years.
The previous government didn’t like the folks. It didn’t trust them. It always believed it knew best. It left local government toothless, community groups out in the cold and residents powerless to change anything.
The result was that voting rates plummeted, especially at local government elections. There’s no point in voting for someone who can’t change anything. There was no room for creativity or innovation in public services. You followed rules and ticked boxes. And the money followed the power, so London and the South East grew at the expense of everywhere else.
When people ask me about my priorities in government, I tell them we have three: localism, localism and localism. Because if you want to restore faith in politics, you make sure that local government is properly accountable to voters. If you want to rebuild a fragile national economy, you don’t strangle business with red tape and let bloated regional bodies make the decisions. If you want people to feel they have a stake in the future of their communities, you give them a say over what happens there.
So we are determined to rebalance power; wrest control away from bureaucrats, quangos and central departments and push it as far from Whitehall as possible. This is going to fundamentally change the nature of the constitution. It won’t be in a single action or law. It will be through dramatic actions and incremental changes. Localism is the principle that defines everything we do.
You might think all governments talk like this.
But we’re doing it. Already we’ve:
“¢ Made HIPS history and the number of homes being put up for sale has gone up by 35 per cent.
“¢ Given a lifeline to thousands of businesses in ports that had huge backdated business rates hanging over them.
“¢ Scrapped top-down housing targets and regional spatial strategies. Soon I will be announcing the full list of incentives to local authorities that will encourage development.
“¢ Put an end to unwanted “garden grabbing”, putting decisions back in local hands.
“¢ Cut ring-fencing and red tape attached to hundreds of millions pounds worth of central government grants.
Everything the coalition changed has been about giving up control, restoring the balance of power. By the time the Localism Bill is introduced later this year, we’ll have made a start to localism becoming reality. The Bill will give voters more power over local government and local spending. It will free up local government from central control, and will continue to put the community in charge of how their area develops.
What does all of this mean for those working in local government? First, if localism is going to have an effect, local government has got to be ready to seize the opportunities coming your way. Don’t wait around for us to tell you what to do. Already there are a number of councils who are stepping up: Windsor and Maidenhead, Essex, Leicestershire, North Yorkshire and Kent, to name just a few. All councils need to follow their lead and flex their muscles.
Second, localism isn’t just about giving power back to local government. It’s not a tug of war between the two of us. It’s even more important that we push power onwards, closer to people. We want to make sure people can take control and take responsibility in their street, their estate, their town. With neighbourhoods, people working together, as the basis for the big society.
There has never been a better time to be involved in local government. No one working in local government signed up to be told what to do for the rest of their lives by Whitehall. There is a real opportunity for councillors today to have far more fulfilling, rewarding careers; exercising genuine choice; changing the face of neighbourhoods.
We’ve set the scene for the most radical shake-up of power for a generation. Be in no doubt, the revolution starts here.
Eric Pickles says that “localism isn’t just about giving power back to local government. It’s not a tug of war between the two of us. It’s even more important that we push power onwards, closer to people. We want to make sure people can take control and take responsibility in their street, their estate, their town. With neighbourhoods, people working together, as the basis for the big society.”Â
Couldn’t agree more “¦ but I’ll believe it when he strangles that cuckoo – otherwise referred to as “The Stoke-on-Trent Governance and Performance Transition Board”Â. They’re that group of self selected individuals (the majority of whom have never lived in the City) who for some reason still believe that they have a right to interfere with the process we call localism.
Clearly he likes people, how many a week does he eat?
He might on accasion talk sense, but all I see when I look at him is an enormous ex-communist(yes, he was a member of CPGB) who looks like he could munch his way through a three piece suite.
You’re right about the transitional board Lotto, another unwarranted marxist interference with the workings of local democracy.
[quote=Guest Contributor]By Public Servant Magazine
A friend of mine, a former Congressman from Wisconsin, once said: “If you don’t like the folks, don’t be in our business.” When politics becomes the preserve of people who are only interested in power, the political system starts to break down. That’s what we’ve seen in the past 13 years.
The result was that voting rates plummeted, especially at local government elections. There’s no point in voting for someone who can’t change anything. There was no room for creativity or innovation in public services. You followed rules and ticked boxes. And the money followed the power, so London and the South East grew at the expense of everywhere else.[/quote]
The last 13 years? Is this guy for real? Politics has been the preserve of those only interested in power since the dawn of time, why was the last 13 years any different?
[quote=Craig Pond]Clearly he likes people, how many a week does he eat?
He might on accasion talk sense, but all I see when I look at him is an enormous ex-communist(yes, he was a member of CPGB) who looks like he could munch his way through a three piece suite.[/quote]
Stone and glasshouses… If the picture you posted a while back is anything to go by there’s two people who could do with the fat-loss boot camp!!!
What is possibly served by pointing out that Eric Pickles used to be a communist? Earth to Pond… Earth to Pond… come in Pond.
He’s Tory Party Chairman. It’s good to see our lefty moles keeping a low profile. Aren’t people allowed to change throughout their lives? As an infant I had no hair or teeth and constantly shit myself – at least one of those details has changed.
Eric Pickles a communist… jeeeezus.
That actually did make me laugh out loud.
What is possibly served by pointing out that te chairman of the Conservative party is an ex-member of the communist party?
Err, maybe the point is he’s chairman of the Conservative party! Moron.
Didn’t you used to be in the Labour Party? And now you’re a monster raving loony!
Earth to Pond… Earth to Pond… come in Pond.
And your point is? The royal family used to be the House of Saxe Coburg Gotha, snickers used to be marathons, Nick Griffin used to be a young NF activist given to wearing white power T-shirts.
Are you suggesting some covert alliance between CPGB and this ConDem government?… and I’m a moron? It must be about as covert as WatchTower if you’ve rumbled it.
Sometimes, I think you’re just stealing oxygen Craig.
He gives us something to laugh at and make us feel better about ourselves!
I thought you are supposed to be politically literate?
How can the fact that the chairman of the right wing Conservative party used to be a communist, not be of interest?
It is pertinent because once again, it highlights the blurring of the lines that once clearly defined party politics.
Now, it’s like bloody football, with all three main corruptors transferring personnel willy nilly, which just goes to show how much closer together idealogically these three have become, or they wouldn’t be able to do it.
And Billy Bragg is a hypocrite and a sh*te singer.
If you feel the need to quote someone on a political level to yourself, why not quote Dennis Neilson, the homosexual Labour party activist that murdered and cannibalised his young male victims?
Better than that tosser Bragg.
By that logic the BNP must be a bunch of lefties given the number of ex-Labour members in the party.
Earth to Pond… Earth to Pond… come in Pond.
Churchill moved to and fro between the Liberals and Tories, so it’s hardly a modern phenomenon. How many BNP members were in the NF? I only ask because the NF were far more open about their thuggery and race hatred. I’m sure your persistence in trying to establish a link between the Communist Party and the ConDems is damaging nothing so much as the tiniest speck of credibiity you may have retained on here.
Billy Bragg would wear your disapproval as a badge of honour.
No matter how how hard you explain these simple facts Captain Lardass-Caveman simply doesn’t get it.
Unlike the examples you give, the communists and the Conservatives are supposed to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
It’s hardly surprising this city is in the mess it is with this third rate debating and nonsensical examples.
And as for Bragg, he moved to one of the “whitest” parts of the country!
He goes around spouting b*ll*ks about race, then goes to live where these poor immigrants can’t bother him.
Like I said, hypocrite.
Shifting goalposts springs to mind.
Earth to Pond… Earth to Pond… come in Pond.
You see a red under every bed, imagining a conspiracy between communists and tories. You insult Eric Pickles for his physical size, label your opponents morons and tossers, compare me to a serial killer and then have the audacity to decry “third rate debating”?
Beyond belief.
Hay! Pondo, hear you got a busted up garden fence.
Enlighten us?
me too
“make sure that local government is properly accountable to voters”. So in that case give us back the two out of every three local elections that Labour stole from us and like lotto says, kick out the transition board. Also have local elections on local issues only. Don’t combine them with general elections, have a local focus. Don’t combine them with AV/FPTP referendum either, keep the local focus. I want the referendum yes but not on local election day. I have liked libdems to a certain extent (not enough to vote for them in the last elections) but Nick Clegg has not seen fit to reply to the email I sent him on elections, AV etc. Just like all the others they don’t listen.
“If you want people to feel they have a stake in the future of their communities, you give them a say over what happens there.” So what are they going to do about these fake so called consultations – see web link and comments there also:
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/education/Pupils-163-24m-academy-bid/article-2426821-detail/article.html
“We want to make sure people can take control” – that I agree with, let’s keep insisting on what we want and don’t get taken in by the trash we are fed by the council and their ‘consultants’ through the media.
It could be argued that combining other ballots with local elections helps boost turnout, which is usually woeful.
Apart from saving money (elections aren’t cheap) it also prevents those quirks whereby the likes of the BNP sneak in and grab seats. The traditionally poor turnout at local elections exposes a major fault line in the Big Society. Only the rabid political anoraks will get involved – often the people least fit to be in charge of anything.
I have voted one way for Westminster and another for the council in the past, I’m sure most voters are capable of being as discerning.
Indeed Tony it could well be argued as a good thing, but it isn’t very fair if the campaign and media coverage of one election has dominated over the issues of the other. High turn out is great if those who have turned out are fully commited to the vote they are casting. In terms of getting the information out for the electorate to consider it is less effective to have more than one election at once.
The elections shouldn’t be about keeping out or getting in any particular political party, they should be about a well informed democratic decision. Are you calling all our councillors rabid political anoraks?
We saw with the general and local elections together that many people voted labour locally as well as nationally, I think this incuded those who wouldn’t normally bother to vote locally and didn’t give the local issues enough consideration. It’s not just about the BNP, only 1 liberal democrat councillor and 2 conservatives were voted in and several hard working comitted local independents lost their seats. I think even labour were surprised so we’ve probably got some labour councillors who only expected to be a name on a ballot paper for their party, suddenly to their shock actually elected.
This experience shows that it is really not a good idea to have a vote on more than one election or issue at the same time. I know it is more work and cost to hold the ballots separately but I think for the sake of good quality democratic representation this should be done. Although having the AV/FPTP referendum on the same day as the local election may be not quite as bad as having a general election with a local election, because the issues are that bit more different, it is still a very bad business in my opinion as the votes will contaminate each other.
The referendum would bring out extra voters some of whom may not have given much thought to real local issues. Also it is possible some voters who are wanting to vote locally vote in the referendum without much thought. I agree with you about voting differently in different elections and that voters can do that, but for some they will only have wanted to think about one vote but are just tempted to put the same vote in for the other election while they are there.
I think every election campaign and vote should be truly focused on one aspect of politics; local, general, referendum, scheduled SEPARATELY in order to allow space for proper debate and thinking and informed voting on the issue and achieve a more democratically representative outcome. Ideally the votes would be years or months apart to allow this proper focus on the relevant issues, but if that is not easy they should at the very least be on different days, such that people turning out to vote genuinely want to vote on the issue and have put a bit of thought into it.
I would liken to see the AV/FPTP referendum held in February 2011 or November 2011 and the general election date to move, to be regularly say in the November of a year. Better still would be 4 year fixed term parliaments with elections half way in between those of areas which have local elections every 4 years, but it is always possible for a parliament to finish early so this spacing could not be guaranteed to continue, which is why a different time of year is better.