Fighting for the soul of localism
4:51pm Thursday, 30th August 2007
Whatever happened to the new localism? A few years ago it was the hot topic of party conference season. Today, not even the New Local Government Network, which arguably invented the idea, has fringe meetings about it.
Part of the answer is that localism is the new orthodoxy. The government is reducing targets, focussing on making councils into strategic place shapers and trying to build a new relationship at the local level. That might not sound too radical, but it's a lot better than the situation five years ago.
But one of the problems with localism was always going to be that the British establishment likes governing in a centralised way. The idea of negotiating with 350 councils on the business rate terrifies the business community, for instance.
So if the big localist push of the past decade seems beached on the shore of a fundamentally centralised society, we probably need to start thinking about what to do next.
The answer lies in a real ambiguity at the heart of the idea of localisation. Progressive thinkers like Matthew Taylor celebrate the idea of many small political communities making their own rules and decisions, but the Conservatives can celebrate it for exactly the same reasons. It creates more sites of negotiation and more opportunities to assert particular kinds of morality.
In the US, the republican call of 'state's rights' is precisely intended to protect the ability of local decision makers to make beastly decisions that the politically correct federal government might not like. This approach dovetails precisely with David Cameron's interest in local charity and social enterprise zones. Local morality for local people.
So the war for localism is won, sort of. But as we create more spaces for political negotiation and decision making, we also being to create new political and moral battlegrounds. The battle now is not for the principle of devolution, but for which party will claim its soul.
Wonder why NLGN isn't doing a fringe meeting on that?
Part of the answer is that localism is the new orthodoxy. The government is reducing targets, focussing on making councils into strategic place shapers and trying to build a new relationship at the local level. That might not sound too radical, but it's a lot better than the situation five years ago.
But one of the problems with localism was always going to be that the British establishment likes governing in a centralised way. The idea of negotiating with 350 councils on the business rate terrifies the business community, for instance.
So if the big localist push of the past decade seems beached on the shore of a fundamentally centralised society, we probably need to start thinking about what to do next.
The answer lies in a real ambiguity at the heart of the idea of localisation. Progressive thinkers like Matthew Taylor celebrate the idea of many small political communities making their own rules and decisions, but the Conservatives can celebrate it for exactly the same reasons. It creates more sites of negotiation and more opportunities to assert particular kinds of morality.
In the US, the republican call of 'state's rights' is precisely intended to protect the ability of local decision makers to make beastly decisions that the politically correct federal government might not like. This approach dovetails precisely with David Cameron's interest in local charity and social enterprise zones. Local morality for local people.
So the war for localism is won, sort of. But as we create more spaces for political negotiation and decision making, we also being to create new political and moral battlegrounds. The battle now is not for the principle of devolution, but for which party will claim its soul.
Wonder why NLGN isn't doing a fringe meeting on that?
LOGIN to add comments
Comments