The UK political system is one of the most highly centralised in the world. Despite all the talk of localism and greater local control, Westminster and Whitehall still have most power and sign-off most major decisions. There is also, of course, the issue of money…
Compare this to other countries where states and cities have a much larger degree of control over policy and finance. Their politics are closer to their citizens whereas in this country people have little idea about what local authorities actually do aside from collecting the refuse.
Of course, in some areas, particularly planning and development, local authorities are the key decision making body but for most other issues Westminster and Whitehall remain in control. Even those powers that are being devolved still retain some form of central government process through agreement, sign-off, or need for ‘their’ money to be spent. Civil servants sometimes have ‘observer’ status on local bodies as well which does not seem like the model definition of devolution.
There are a lot of bodies doing good work to change this and are championing a more local approach – the Local Government Association, the Core Cities group, and the new Key Cities group to name but a few. There is a danger though that their campaigns are deflected by the cuts and austerity agenda. Their positions become dominated by arguing against budgetary cuts as opposed to highlighting how they can achieve better results. This in turn impacts on their standing with Ministers and trickles down to officials as well.
They undoubtedly need the firepower of think tanks such as the Centre for Cities and Centre for London to provide workable ideas but they then need to sell these to central government.
But there is an iron law of centralism at work – when local politicians become MPs they somehow forget to devolve power. Under the last Labour government local authorities, and other parts of the public sector, became lost in a sea of centrally imposed targets and initiatives. For the Coalition, the need to make cuts meant that spending decisions had to remain with HM Treasury.
The preference for centralism is also partly a product of the media as well. They constantly call on central government to take action and ensure something happens and want to blame Ministers if anything goes wrong. This makes Ministers even less willing to ‘let go’.
A full analysis of all those involved would reveal that the broad thrust of policy, guidance and/or direction are set centrally whilst implementation may be local.
Constituency MPs themselves often have split allegiances between the strict party discipline applied at a Westminster level and the need to be re-elected by local constituents. How often have we seen a MP support their Government’s position on reform of the NHS of Post Offices and then campaign against the closure of a local hospital or post office?
Policies do not fit neatly into a ‘local’ or ‘national’ box; it is far more complicated than that. For those wanting more decentralisation then the only time to achieve this is when a new Government first enters office and are full of joys of victory. Looking at the Coalition’s most recent announcements shows that even when there is talk of localism, the reality is different – failure to devolve funding in line with the endorsed Heseltine Review, cuts to first budgets of Local Transport Boards and a failure to deal with the recommendations of the Mayor of London’s Finance Commission. Far from joining ‘the Metropolitan Revolution’ as recommended by Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley, so far we have seen few signs of moving away from the centre.
For lobbyists the lesson is clear, even if the issue you are looking at has been devolved to a more local level, there is rarely total local control – the hand of Westminster remains firmly on the tiller. The difficulty can be in getting anyone to admit this.