British Academy: The UK's National Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences

What’s wrong with English local democracy? Can looking back help it to move forward?

A British Academy evening public discussion held on 27 November 2007

Concern is frequently expressed by the government, by the opposition and by voters, about the state of local democracy in England. They point to low levels of voter turn-out, interest and participation ; lack of independence of central government; poor levels of accountability; difficulty in attracting able representatives, especially those who are not white, male or middle class; uneven performance . There is a widespread feeling that, in all respects, local government is functioning less effectively than ‘it used to’. Some look back to a Victorian golden age of civic pride. Others argue that the 1930s was the heyday of effective, accountable local democracy, gradually superceded by central control since 1945, which moved especially fast in the Thatcher years. Others still would agree with Nick Raynsford MP (Minister for Local and Regional Government, 2001-5) that: ‘It is pointless looking back at a golden age of local government. We need to try to anticipate the future and what local government will look like in 10 years time’.

The purpose of the evening discussion, and of a previous workshop held at the British Academy in July 2007, was to try to establish why local government has undergone the changes that it undoubtedly has over the past 60 years, in particular in the direction of diminished independence of central government. And to ask whether anything can be learned from analysing this apparent decline which could assist the revival of local government.

We must not be too nostalgic about the past, or over-critical of the present. Many people are still active in local government and many local authorities provide good services. Never, since elective local government emerged in the nineteenth century has it attracted mass voter participation. There is corruption and incompetence to be found in the history of local government as well as the successful building of local services, institutions and civic pride. Nor was it ever, or could ever be, entirely autonomous from central government. At the very least, even from the inauguration of a locally administered and funded Poor Law in 1601, central government has set a national framework of administration and of forms and standards of provision. Baroness Hollis, historian of women in local government, former leader of Norwich City Council and former government minister, pointed out that it is still easier for local than central government to experiment. The Greater London Authority, after all, initiated the Congestion Charge. Baroness Hollis warned however of the danger lurking in many recent government proposals of a return to the plethora of single purpose authorities with different personnel, boundaries and funding sources which emerged out competing demands for improvement in the nineteenth century, creating confusion which had to be sorted out in the early twentieth century, leading to the heyday of the unitary local authority in the mid-twentieth century.

Jerry White, historian of London, former CEO of a London Borough and now Local Government Ombudsman, argued that from c 1930- 1948 public services were more extensive than ever before, providing health care, education, housing, public transport, leisure services, washhouses and much more, and they were largely locally funded and run. Local initiatives, in the 1930s as in the nineteenth century, inspired central government action applying to the whole country.

But even then not all public services were well run by all local authorities. This led to demands for national uniformity of provision controlled from the centre and the gradual process of centralization. However, White and others at both meetings pointed out that that needs are not and never have been uniform nationally. Also that national service, over which there is considerable central control, such as health and education, by no means meet uniformly high standards at present. The wide local variations in health outcomes and life expectancy, which do not simply correspond with variations e.g. in the local economy, is proof that sixty years of centralized provision, since the foundation of the National Health Service in 1948 has spectacularly failed to remove regional inequalities in health provision and outcomes, which was a major driver of the reforms of 1948.

The challenge of the present is to develop an effective system wherein central and local government co-operate to maintain high minimum standards nationally, whilst being flexible and responsive to diverse local needs and accountable to local communities. As a government minister put it recently: ‘the direction of travel is for public services to look and feel differently in different parts of the country…having a dialogue with their local communities rather than with the centre’. (Andy Burnham, Guardian, July 28 2007). Yet we aspire to this at a time when public expectations and also the technical and professional capacity to meet high standards (e.g. of healthcare) are vastly greater, and also more expensive, than in the 1930s or at any time in the past. As Baroness Andrews, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department of Communities and Local Government put it at the meeting: ‘Has the community ever been so dissatisfied with local services, and so well served?’. We need to be alert to historical change in popular expectations and in capacities as well as in government arrangements.

The crucial question, as David Walker of the Guardian, argued in his contribution, is whether people are willing to pay local taxes to support local services and whether taxpayers in better off localities are prepared to subsidize poorer districts? He suggested that, historically, this has always been doubtful. Baroness Hollis, however, reminded us that local authorities once raised revenue by running enterprises: Norwich ran a crematorium successfully before the Second World War.

History enables us to analyse what has changed and why; what is perceived to be wrong with local democracy and what has worked successfully in the past and what has not. It offers no easy suggestions for change in a society much changed since the nineteenth century and the 1930s and still changing. It challenges nostalgia for past golden ages of localism and too facile reaching for illusory models from the past. Our discussions opened up ways of thinking about a complex subject which will be carried forward in future public events.

Pat Thane, FBA
Leverhulme Professor of Contemporary British History
Institute of Historical Research
University of London

NOTES TO EDITORS

Published:

04 January 2008

1. For media enquires please contact, Michael Reade, External Relations: m.reade@britac.ac.uk / 020 7969 5263.
2. The British Academy is the National Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences.
3. Established by Royal Charter in 1902, the British Academy is an independent learned society promoting the humanities and social sciences. It is composed of Fellows elected in recognition of their distinction as scholars in the humanities and social sciences. The Academy distributes funding to support high quality research.
4. More information about the Academy may be found at: http://www.britac.ac.uk

< back to news listing