In education, the expansion of academy schools means that more and more local schools are being funded directly by Michael Gove rather than by local authorities.

Cutting out the middle-man is hardly a sin against localism. This is (spending) power being removed from bureaucrats and handed to headteachers and governors. You don’t get much more local than that.

Parties favour localism when in opposition, and centralism when in government. Why should this government be different?

The big thing about localism, with the tories and New Labour, was that it was guff. Until local authorities are more dependant from the budgetary constraints set by Whitehall it will all be mere rhetoric. We have had all sorts of supposed devolvements of power downwards to local government at all levels, but always with little or no cash to make it work.

By the way, please don’t say, “Silos”. It’s just irritating.

I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why any form of ‘localism’ is desirable when it comes to the provision of key public services. Of course local communities should be making decisions about local sports facilities, parks, libraries, transport etc etc; if the people in one town want a skate park and the people in the town next door want a bowling green, that’s fine. But when it comes to the sort of services we think are basic entitlements that should be available to everyone, to the same standard, regardless of where they live – education, health and social care etc. – that just doesn’t make sense, does it? When did ‘postcode lotteries’ become a good thing?

Localism good, post code lottery good too?

Thank you, Rick Muir. Localism or regionalism or devolution appeal to politicians on paper but are contradictory to national planning.

@1 Flowerpower identifies that change in school management “is hardly a sin against localism”. But that argument is mistaken. Local authorities are removed from the management system, but the money stays at the top. Quantity of money is determined by central government; the only element of localism is how it is used. Borsetshire voters and councillors cannot determine the quantity of money is spent on Borsetshire schools.

OP: “Real localism depends on the ability to transfer powers and the accountability for exercising such powers to the local level. Indeed ippr research has shown that in cases where power has been devolved to a visible and elected local body, so responsibility is seen to have shifted by the public. This is clearly the case in post-devolution Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – but also with the Mayor of London.”

Sadly, England cannot (on the surface) cope with the concept of internal devolution. The North East of England assembly referendum was fumbled to ensure that regional development agencies and health management remained under control of government appointees. The advocates of OpenDemocracy appear wedded to the idea of an English parliament, with a few exceptions.

The North East of England assembly referendum was a setup designed to fail. Had the question been asked in Yorkshire (big enough to be a region) whether health and economic development should be controlled by a regional government, the answer would have been yes. And abolished quangos would have paid for regional government.

OP: “By contrast, in health and education there is no elected figure between frontline providers and the Secretary of State. When things go wrong – as they will – ministers will soon find themselves sucking powers back into the centre.”

That is a good argument for regionalism too. Secretaries of State will not be running things on a day to day basis. They might retreat to their former role as an interjector when things go badly wrong. But minor regional or local problems should not be a concern.

@4. G.O.: “But when it comes to the sort of services we think are basic entitlements that should be available to everyone, to the same standard, regardless of where they live – education, health and social care etc. – that just doesn’t make sense, does it? When did ‘postcode lotteries’ become a good thing?”

Services can be delivered in different ways. Local authorities are allowed to do what they want as long as they meet the standards.

Meeting the standard does not mean matching the best. If you suffer from lung disease associated with coal mining, your treatment will be better if you reside in Yorkshire rather than Norfolk. The doctors in Norfolk will “meet the standard” and will recommend that you meet their colleagues elsewhere.

I am not an economist, but I presume that your use of the expression “postcode lottery” might provoke one of them to say “utility”.

Something that started under Labour has not been mentioned – it is the creation of City Regions. Greater Manchester is one, and its creation scuppered ideas of a larger North West regional identity. An area around Leeds is another one (not sure of the boundary there). A big chunk of the West Midlands is likely to be next. And with that (see work done by Manchester University geographers) comes more centralisation of jobs, longer commutes, the demand for the HS2 railway.

Whether the drive for the City Regions was entirely a Labour one, I don’t know. Maybe some other ideologues were involved. But the legislation is there. Personally I would like this country to become more like Holland, and also to have investment in working practices and infrastructure that reduces the volume of commuters. So what has ippr done to raise the red flag about this growing centralisation?

For what it’s worth, I do believe in localism, but I do also believe that most services should be managed and run on a county basis. For example, I wouldn’t want to trust my borough council with running health or education services, but I probably would trust a county council with them since then they’d be operating services on a scale where they have an idea of local needs but can look at the big picture as well.

@Charlieman
The English Democrats have had their biggest successes in Yorkshire on the back of a policy of an English Parliament.
Any change in local government whether it be regions or counties is a matter for the English people after they have an English parliament.
The regional balkanisation of England was designed from the outset to destroy England, and is a major plank of the LibLabCON’s strategy to remove the most EU-sceptic country in the EU.
I come from Lincolnshire and I fail to see why part of my home county should be administered from Yorkshire.
England has always been a culturally diverse country based upon its ancient counties. Yet we all stand together as the English people. This is exactly why the counties were the first target in the eradication of England.
The people in the counties of Durham, Northumberland and that part of north Yorkshire realised this and rejected the NE assembly emphatically. I don’t believe the rest of Yorkshire would have voted any differently.