Discussion Thread: Give more decision making and taxation powers to local government

This is an archived discussion thread for the "Give more decision making and taxation powers to local government" voting page. Voting, and this discussion thread, have now closed.   

Richard 1 month ago

trgriffin liked this.
I ran for office in my ward at the last local election and urged everyone to go out and vote, even if it was against me. Most people just didn't care one way or the other and a "None of the above" box would ring a wake up bell for everyone! Spoiling a ballot paper does not have the same level of universal recognition and remains the "unspoken option". 
You cannot expect people to vote for you if your name is not on the form, so why should we expect people to spoil a paper/vote for none of the above if the option is not a visible one?

None of the above offers a very simple "first step". It requires no real change, costs no money and yet is a giant leap towards many others (Including Greater powers for local government), as Politicians will have to work harder for support.

Greater power for local government IS a good thing, but it requires a good deal more thought.
I don't like the idea of giving tax raising powers to a person who only needs 1000 votes to get their hands on the purse strings...
Moreover, funding local councils locally would be fine for wealthy areas, but if I were to tell the people of the Rhonda Valley that they had to stump up their own cash when the demographic leans towards the retired or unemployed, I think they would reopen a pit and bury me in it.

trgriffin 2 weeks ago in reply to Richard

1 person liked this.
I disagree with the idea that local councillors have their hands on the purse strings - certainly not in any meaningful way. The cash is dispensed by the unelected and unaccountable executive in accordance with government policy. Local councillors are there to rubber stamp decisions and provide a thin shred of democratic accountability.

trgriffin 1 month ago

europhile and 3 more liked this.
I am not sure about this proposal. The present system in my area consists of three layers;
County - responsible for police, education, social workers etc...
District - for Planning, rates and rubbish collection etc.....
Town (Parish - 50,000 population and largest town in the District) responsible for nothing much beyond maintaining the park and the play equipment. Maintains a chief executive (formerly Town Clerk) at £50,000 + per annum, an assistant chief executive, at least three managers and somebody who does the Town Clerks job. 

The District Council should be abolished, it is nothing more than a Quango with the career minded Chief Executive and officers enacting Government business irrespective of the needs of the local taxpayers. An illusion of democracy is maintained by dozens of ineffectual councillors, all on expenses 
The town councils should have an elected mayor and executive (and accountable) responsibility for local urban and rural affairs, with strategic planning, rates etc, reverting to the County. This would dispose of a whole expensive layer of government and give the Town Council a proper job.

europhile 2 weeks ago in reply to trgriffin
 
trgriffin liked this.
We live in a similar situation though not quite as big as you, we are a town with a very strong identity and are an historic town but are under the control of a borough council which is almost universally see as being favouring the major town rather than us.
People should feel that they are a part of a unit to which they identify.
I have some experience of France and the comparison is that a local town near where we live in the summer has a population of 9,000 people and the maire feels he is not sufficiently in touch with districts of the town so he has annual or bi-annual public meetings with the people in districts of the town. A town of 50,000 is already too large to be close to the people. Ward councillors are often just party nominees and not particularly known to local people.
As you say the employees of existing councils really run them and for them it is a career and they may be good, indifferent or plain bad. Have we been lumbered with too many tasks by the central government which make local initiatives difficult. Local taxation is difficult due to disparities in wealth. The areas which need most help are probably least able to afford it.

trgriffin 2 weeks ago in reply to europhile

1 person liked this.
What I was trying to say is that the present system has developed a momentum of its own and that the executive (professsional bureauocrats), part of a nationwide network, operate entirely outside and are wholly unaccountable to the population. 
There is a democratic fig leaf in the form of the elected councillors, but they have no power beyond fiddling with a few minor items (car park charges etc). Policy in all major items is determined at all times by the Government and remonstrations by any inexperienced councillor (the experienced ones don't bother), is met by the argument that it is 'against government policy'. Thus our District Council is nothing more than a government quango. The sad part of it is that all the councillors are Party placemen and present themselves in the local press as crusaders who 'get things done'. It is quite pathetic really if it wasn't for the fact that the council tax inexorably rises year after year well above the rate of inflation. Why, when the so called 'services' decrease in inverse proportion?
I love visiting France and notice that the smallest towns have a marie who appears to have real executive powers, and a direct responsibility within the community. Because the marie is local he/she tends to know, and is known, by everybody and is answerable on a day to day basis.
None of my neighbours even knows who their ward councillor is, no wonder they don't bother to vote!

rosspe 1 week ago in reply to trgriffin

1 person liked this.
I'd agree with the idea of abolishing district councils. they have limited but statuatory powers. These services can be passed up to unitary or county councils and then enhance the parish and town councils by passing community powers down to them, we they can focus on not just running services but empowering community groups and representing people and speaking up for them. The downside for the political parties is that it is likely to see a growth in independent non-aligned people outside the party framework. But when we say power to the people we need to mean.

Then you could have true ward councillors representing streets not districts. While we have district councils no powers will be passed down to the parish or town level, so they need to go. This can represent huge cash savings too, as well as duplicated council officers and chief execs in our area we could save a quarter of a million pounds a year on councillor allowances.

As an aside though to get this to work, you would probably need to have compulsory voting at a local level, otherwise the chattering classes would just elect themselves and it would be about tax and not services.

Roger 5 days ago in reply to rosspe
Any particular reason why the current parish councillors aren't already acting as the champions of the people you think they will become under your system? Parish and town councils would simply be a rose by any other name. No sane government is going to pass down district council powers to a body that has little or no officer expertise. Giving PCs planning powers without proper controls would be an immediate throw back to the good old days and the old boy network that meant you got your planning permission if your face fitted. Even then I think many of the members at that level would just be far too close to things to be sufficiently objective. My experience is that parish councillors have little or no interest in gain the experience they would need to take on the functions of a district council. 20 plus PCs with at 5 or even 10 members on each, giving a figure of 100 plus. How many bother to turn up for meetings with the district or to joint training events - 10 at the most! I think PCs have great potential to be the real voice of their communities, my town isn't even parished, but they need to up their game if they want the job.

laurence 1 month ago
local decision making should include restoring to local councils the right to determine their business rate - central setting of the unified business rate is one of the remnants of the Thatcherite poll tax changes, and emasculates local democracy

aileenmattyahoocouk 1 month ago

trgriffin liked this.
Go further = devolve budgets to community councils

Mike Campbell 3 weeks ago
 
trgriffin liked this.
All of the ideas and proposals in this project have some merit for some people...but not for others eg 'Stronger Local Government' might glean many votes and be placed on the Power 2010 agenda but where is the opportunity to vote the proposal down by casting a vote against? The same applies to all the other ideas?

I am vehemently opposed to giving more powers to Local Government whilst, as some writers on this forum have said, it is really only a mini version of the drossy national system of government we have to endure at present. Where do I vote against?

Certainly, there are great opportunities to have real issue politics flourish at a local level but unless the local electorate have the chance to seriously control or influence national revenues, it all becomes a waste of people's time and efforts. There is no way the beyond-the-law powers of HM Treasury and HMRC are ever going to be controlled by the people....all governments will see to that, so we can all kiss goodbye to hypothecated use of our taxes or having them used for OUR priorities. 
So utterly useless is our system that I personally would love to see the individual citizen have the ability to legally opt out of the State and, more so. local government services, never mind give them more power of any kind. We should all be doing more for ourselves rather than being willing to accept second-rate services that are provided on agendae not in tune with our real needs.

GuyAitchison 3 weeks ago in reply to Mike Campbell
Hi Mike - We took the decision to have just pro votes. The idea is that these are all the reforms chosen by the Assembly and therefore already enjoy some legitimacy and we want to find the best of these.

trgriffin 2 weeks ago in reply to Mike Campbell
Well put.......but what else can we do except fulminate on the Power website?

John 3 weeks ago
There is an argument to pull back from income tax [of any sort] as a form of government revenue, possibly basing any such alternative on 'wealth' in the pursuit of simplification and fairness - I would argue instead that the interests of local government are best served by distinguishing what local government should/must do, and what part democracy should play in achieving it.

Is it generally understood on what basis one would need to contact a local councillor/MP/MEP with a query? - it is with this in mind that resolving [what might be construed as] this 'democratic tangle' is of such importance, and what must surely underpin a debate on how local government can be effectively empowered.

Mike Campbell 1 week ago in reply to John
 
1 person liked this.
There are many very bright, informed comments being posted here on this issue. most of which express a great deal of disenchantment with the entire spectrum of the 'status quo' of revenue raising and the ways in which local and national governent operate. We really need to be thinking of radically differnet ways of doing things re the tax levies we are forced to accept and endure. Business rates are a totally ridiculous way by which a company can contribute its fair share to the host community, since there is no real cognisance of turnover and ability to pay appropriately. Get rid, I say! 

Local sales taxes and turnover taxes make evryone in a community a stakeholder... and not a sponger.... and those on a minimum wage salary should receive a refund of all sales taxes paid. Benefits should be paid by the State to the poor and the unemployed from national revenues.

We just have to try something completely different, because our present system entrenches current practices and current establishments who are so unwilling to countenance change of any kind, less their power be diminshed.

Kevin Elks 2 weeks ago
 
2 people liked this.
A far better idea for local government is to make them accountable to the local people. Local government is generally corrupt, officer led and not at all accountable. The elected councillors tend to treat their position (in the main) as a poor relation to the Westminster Government where they use it as a 'gentleman's' club. Councillors are split up onto various committees so as to dilute their authority and the paid staff are a completely different power base than the elected officials.

The local government ombudsman is nothing more than quango set up to keep the public quiet and in general to protect the LA, NOT the people the LA's abuse. 

The Dover District Council as a prime example made the position of Chief Executive redundant, paid the former CE redundancy (tax free statutory payment) and then went about circumventing the law by appointing an interim manager, then, appointing the head of technical services (Planning etc) to the redundant post and if you really doubt my word read the following as an example of corruption: http://www.petermoulder.co.uk I was told by a cabinet member of the DDC "we were told by legal that if we did certain things we might just be able to get away with it".

We desperately need a randomly selected panel of overseers with the power to order investigations, see all documents (including legal advice) and sack officials that are found to be lacking.

We need to get all levels accountable both nationally and on a local basis. At the moment LA's can do what they like with no moderating chamber as there is with national government.

Peter Monk 1 week ago in reply to Kevin Elks
Whay you say may be truse of Dover BUT, having worked for a number of local authorities (mainly in London) my experience is that you are way 'off target'. 
Generally officers are kept on a tight rein, althought the same cannot be so readily said of elected members - so much for the oversight of the electors!
Who is going to moderate the 'overseeing' panel, and what would stop a forceful panel pursuing a vendetta against one or more officers no matter how able, committed and unbiased he/she may be?
However, that said, I am aware that many shire and DC councillors are only too happy to let the officers dictate policy and actions - BUT that brings us back to the uninterested electors. QED.

Kevin Elks 3 days ago in reply to Peter Monk
Peter monk wrote:
"However, that said, I am aware that many shire and DC councillors are only too happy to let the officers dictate policy and actions - BUT that brings us back to the uninterested electors. QED."

You support my position on this by your statement as quoted and I reiterate my stance that we must make them accountable, both elected and paid staff. This is the fundamental problem with this country of ours, no accountability of those that rule us. It is no good blaming the electorate when we clearly have a system of election that is not representative of the people (first past the post). Accountability will only come when we change things so we have accountability 'embedded' in the very fabric of our governance.

You also state:
"Who is going to moderate the 'overseeing' panel, and what would stop a forceful panel pursuing a vendetta against one or more officers no matter how able, committed and unbiased he/she may be?"

There is no need to moderate the 'overseers' as they simply investigate, raise queries and make sure the rules of accountability are applied. By a random selection from the electorate as per a jury and a set of new nation wide rules of transparency, existing and preferably improved law, the overseers would simply 'apply' those tools in open meetings. National rules of conduct or a panel constitution or both would include a system for discontents to remove members of the panel if they break the rules.

None of these things are difficult if there is a determination to achieve noble objectives of accountability and remedy at ALL levels.

Roger 5 days ago in reply to Kevin Elks
Sounds like the electorate are getting exactly what they deserve. If they can't be bothered to vote and can't be bothered to stand against these despots, it serves them and you right!

clivemalim 5 days ago
and dismiss the quango's as unelected and not responsible to any elected body

Roger 5 days ago
Assuming we give local government more money to spend and more power to do so, are we in danger of seeing the whole saga of the 70s repeated? Councils such as Liverpool were seen as loony and out of control for some of the 'madcap' ideas they spent taxpayer's money on. Was this one of the reasons Maggie Thatcher took so much power away from LG in the first place? Even today, did I not read about a council that spends money on 'remembering the abolition of slavery' and is now looking at cutting that spend because of the squeeze on public spending.
How are taxpayers to be protected from the madcap ideas of extremist administrations? Are we likely to see a need to hold a taxpayer referendum before they can do anything that cost more than a few pounds?

simhedges 2 hours ago
Give more power to Regional Government - power to build motorways, regulate airports, manage healthcare, police force, taxation, etc. Beneath them have a tier of unitary authorities. And, of course, have elected regional assemblies. Also align the TV regions with the political regions, so that we get coverage of our regional government from our local BBC and ITV regions. Democracy depends on an informed electorate, and frankly most of us have no clue what our local council gets up to.

Reactions

johnpopham 5 days ago

From Twitter via BackType

What do ppl think of Power2010: Countdown to a new politics? http://bit.ly/8XNOVV
Hide

jamesgraham 1 month ago

From Twitter via BackType

I've voted for "Stronger local government" on POWER2010:http://www.power2010.org.uk/votes/entry/empower-local-government