Sorry, what are you whinging about – not very clear. Are you asking Denham to develop law or policy to prevent localism or maintain certain things like the community strategy? We’ve got that Public Health & Involvement Act and virtually all councils have been screwed over by single status (see Leeds as a prime example of the (one would suspect) unintended consequences of policy development on the back of a fag packet.

If you could clarify I’d be most grateful.

Richard

I’m not sure how seeking to bring to wider public attention proposed legislation that will lead directly to harming the services delivered to millions of people can be construed as a whinge, but there you go.

No, I’m not asking Denham to do anything about policy or about legislation. Clearly if the Tories get in they can do what they want. All I want Denham to do is to use his profile to highlight during the coming election campaign what the Tories are up to, with a view to the Tories not winning the next election (or winning local elections on a Trojan horse localism manifesto), and I’m seeking to assist him in doing that by putting the matter up for public notice on a well-read website.

So the Tories have not changed one bit. Who would have thought?

Not the sheeple public who are about to get the shock of their lives when they vote these clowns into office.

“That’s why the Tories are using it as cover for their plans to introduce, ‘within weeks of coming to power’, says Cameron, sweeping legislation that will allow councils to sweep away a raft of commitments to their residents, and start to compete gleefully with each other for which one can deliver the LEAST services.”

Then surely said local councils will be voted out?

Richard @4

Yes, that is what I would hope, and that is the good ol’ democracy ideal, but that will only be in the fullness of time when great damage has been done, especially but not solely in those councils that elect en bloc every four years and who will have three years of Tory admin before the voters get that say. I think it is reasonable to raise it as an issue on which to campaign before we get to that stage.

the New Local Government Network (NLGN) (who are supportive of the proposed legislation, like the Local Government Association)

Because those bodies are largely composed of high-ups, not direct service providers, but commissioners etc. Their personal positions aren’t as under threat as actaul services are, and some may even get a bonus for being the most ‘innovative’/savage with the axe.
Big danger is Denham (as with so many New lab policies) simply copies the Tory line for fear of the Mail getting too upset otherwise,and attempts a watered-down version, which through this Govt’s incompetence ends up as bad as the Tories’ version. Also, budget/easyCouncil is a notion that possibly appeals to Blairites (weakened/minimal local govt allowing greater control from the centre, but all with a third way cloak or guise of localism)

And yet I will accept all that to get rid of new labour who lets not kid our selves have worked harder for the middle class , then it has for the poor, and if you live in a council house god help you. no thanks we need change maybe that change will hurt, but sadly it hurts like hell under Labour.

Dear Paul

It’s a toughie to be sure. Ofcourse it’s imperitive that local residents are aware of the variance of voting in both local & nationals and I concede it’s an unfortunate position for Labour Cllrs in that the recognition factor of (most perhaps?!) people is mainly of national policies.

It has always surprised me how local government is never a general election issue – with the amount of money spent on it, we still get NHS, defence, education etc but never what LG is up to. I wish you well on your campaign but i’d be inclined to believe that Denham is in a tricky position in that focussing on LG would have unintended consequences for another public sector group which are already under threat (Kirklees laying off 1/3 of its staff over the next 5 years for example).

Good luck with it but seeing as you’re not up for election this time I think you should accept that this will be the nadir for local Labour Cllrs and that the Tory honeymoon (world cup excepted – fingers crossed!) will last about 4 minutes and then you can rebuild.

“Localism is such a hard thing to argue against. Either you’re genuinely in favour of devolving power and resources, or you can’t really say you’re not.

That’s why the Tories are using it as cover for their plans to introduce, ‘within weeks of coming to power’, says Cameron, sweeping legislation that will allow councils to sweep away a raft of commitments to their residents, and start to compete gleefully with each other for which one can deliver the LEAST services.”

Can I just try and see if I’ve got your logic right here.

You’re saying that localism is just fabulous but that localism mustn’t be allowed to include the idea that local councils can decide for themselves, locally, what they actually want to do?

Shorter Worstall: “We have to destroy local services in order to save them.”

For curious reasons my posts here are repeatedly censored out. So much for open debate.

@4: “Then surely said local councils will be voted out?”

Don’t bet on it.

Remember this news report of December 1997 and then ask how long did it take to change the council?

“A council at the centre of a police fraud inquiry has been criticised in an independent report for blatant junketing which cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/40990.stm

The whole point of localism is to introduce – or to strengthen – a post-code lottery in providing for social safety nets.

Localism will intentionally put us back to local administrative structures similar to those of the Elizabethan poor law:
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/elizpl.html

I’m really not impressed with the financial competence of councils after so many stashed away millions in balances with failing banks in Iceland:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7660741.stm

In the late 1980s, Hammersmith and Fulham council lost hundreds of millions in interest swap trades which were ultra vires – beyond its statutory powers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate_swap

Neil,

doesn’t Tim have a point … if localism means the power to take decisions locally, doesn’t that mean allowing councils to cut services, if that’s the local decision, as well as perhaps introduce or improve services? If the choices are constrained from the centre, then it’s not localism, is it? If you think that choices do need to be constrained from the centre (to ensure councils do not use their local mandates to “sweep away commitments to their residents”) then perhaps localism isn’t such a great idea?

Luis,

The truth of the matter is that localism means creating a post code lottery for the complete range of services provided by local government.

It would effectively amount to a return to the local administrative structures established by the Elizabethan poor laws in 1601.

Besides that, the many dozens of councils which stashed millions in balances in failing banks in Iceland shows just how incompetent many local authorities are.

Bob,

From which we conclude that the first sentence of this post, is false.

Bob B. It seems to me that many peope with experience from their job do not have time to be councillors. Therefore many councillors are those with the time and therefore lack experience and expertise. The days when the local manufacturer, foremen, chartered engineer, architect, solicitor , farmer , craftsman etc, etc,were councillors is long gone, as their jobs are too demanding with regard to time.

@15 – Charlie2. Yup, not wrong there. Luckily where we are, virtually all meetings are held in the evenings so only cabinet members have to blag off a few hours a day sometimes for photo opps, meetings, blah blah and officers paid by the tax payer have to organize their time around the Cllrs. Should really happen everywhere these days. Equip the Cllrs with laptops & blackberries and everyone wins. Democracy & local government have to be adaptable to modern life.