Voters to control local spending.
Hazel Blears has today made her first public announcement in her role as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, where she declared revolutionary proposals to give greater control to local communities over the budgets of their councils.
In what could prove a small move toward direct democracy, the suggested proposals would require councils to hold public ballots before deciding precisely where money should be invested. The plans would allow communities to direct investments in line with local requirements: policing, recreation, waste, etc. Or at least that’s the idea.
My immediate concern is that of a potential propensity for people’s agendas to become predisposed, perhaps negatively, toward moral panics expressed across national and local media coverage.
Local people certainly know better than anyone the local issues impacting upon their daily lives, but are they really best placed to be making budgetary decisions? I am troubled by the thought that not every citizen will possess an impartial knowledge on local economic and societal issues, as well as a working understanding of budgetary procedures.
This perhaps makes me sound a proponent of technocratic governance, but we elect experienced representatives on the very basis of them being better positioned to make decisions on public policy matters. Something that lessens this unease are further proposals outlined in Blears’ speech that make mention of training investments for local communities in how budgeting operates and how priorities should be selected.
For me, the fact that this training is deemed necessary intimates how operational procedures are beyond the domain of the public and that the intricacies of countless issues would prove too complex for many to fully grasp in a manner that avoids knee-jerk decision making.
Despite these initial hesitations and the fact that many ministers may feel their powers are being weakened through processes of devolution, I remain open and positive toward the propositions for public involvement.
Initially the plan is to introduce the new operational structure across ten councils in the form of a pilot programme in order to assess its ability to successfully adapt to local circumstances and needs. Encouraging signs have been seen in Porto Alegre, Brazil, where similar radical reorganisations have been implemented. It will be interesting to see if the trials across Britain prove both as popular and as effective. Finances will certainly not be a problem. Hazel Blears has stated that pilot councils will be putting aside considerable sums from their budget for the programmes, such as £23 million in Sunderland alone.
At the very least this will prove a very interesting social and political experiment on whether, with a chance to have a say in how their area is run and services invested into, communities will become less apathetic toward politics.
Comments
2 Responses to “Voters to control local spending.”
Leave a Reply
Interesting, this little announcement slipped right by me.
I think your right on pretty much all counts. It would be a little worrying if the entire local budget was decided by local people, we would soon find ourselves surrounded by execution centres and our communities purged of all those who couldn’t trace their roots back to the Norman invasion (or beyond).
But if they have only a limited amount to spend - enough to spark their interest - but not enough for them to do any real damage - then I think it is the perfect tool for getting people involved in their local communities. People will also have more respect for projects they helped sanction.
:D
It’s certainly an exciting time with Brown’s plans for modernising British democracy, but of course the question is just how far will he be willing to go; how much power and autonomy can the populous really be practically allowed?
It’s bound to be a much contested issue. It will be interesting to see just what the outcomes from the pilot schemes are.
Sure, there’s a presentational dimension to his actions, making a deliberate attempt to convince the country that he’s not the authoritarian control-freak of Whitehall legend. Part of this has been his adoption of various Blairite ministers and non-Labour figures (Alan Sugar!). He has even been sitting back and allowing other members of the cabinet have some of the limelight, such as Jacqui Smith in response to the terror attempts in London and Glasgow. But again, might this sitting back be more down to his not being good in the limelight himself?