Who do we want to run us?

Localism is the new buzzword. Ministers claim they want to hand more powers to local mayors, part of a new political vogue for decentralisation

Published in the Evening Standard 27 October 2005

Ken is about to get his reward. A man who, by his own admission, loves power is poised to get a whole lot more. The government is embarking on a full-scale review of the way London is run and few doubt what it will decide when it concludes early next year: more muscle for the mayor.

That's big news for him – but also for the rest of the country. For this could be the most concrete evidence yet of a new push towards decentralisation, shifting power away from Whitehall to the towns and cities of Britain. If it happens, it will mark a genuine change in our national culture, which for so long has seen the country run from the top down by a central government issuing one-size-fits-all edicts for every corner of the land. In its place could come a platoon of Ken Livingstones, mayors allowed to run Britain's towns and cities their own way.

Committed decentralisers have been urging just such a change for years. Now, though, they find a receptive audience in the nation's leading politicians. If politics were fashion, “localism” would be the new black: the vogue idea championed by all three main parties. David Cameron's Notting Hill set drool at the mere mention of the word; Labour's policy gurus invoke it constantly; Lib Dems have talked local forever.

So at a conference on the future of the capital organised by the London School of Economics yesterday, academics, council leaders, business types and politicians from rival parties forged a rare consensus: London's experiment in self-government, begun in 2000, has worked. When Ken himself arrived, it was to hear that those who follow these matters closest want his reach to be even greater.

Even those who were once sceptical – including Blair himself – have been won over. The first phase of devolution from central government to City Hall having proved such a triumph, Downing Street is ready for phase two.

Livingstone himself does not pretend that a huge philosophical shift is under way, at least as far as the government is concerned. As he explained yesterday, “Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have tried running the country from the centre for eight years, and they've realised you can't do it.” Finally, glumly, aware of the limits of the centre, they have no choice but to delegate. Combined with John Prescott, a card-carrying regionalist, and you have the three most powerful men in politics ready to usher in what Ken called “the next wave of devolution.”

I buy most of that explanation. Ken is right that Blair and Brown would only give up powers if they saw no other option. The default mode of all governments is to hoard authority to themselves and never let go. The first wave of devolution in 1997 – creating the parliament in Scotland and assembly in Wales – only happened because Blair was saddled with a commitment made by John Smith too solemn to break. Unless pushed, those with power keep it.

But even if the motives are less than pure, should we welcome this fresh surge of decentralisation? Or course we should. For democracy means rule by the people and such rule is meaningless unless it is exercised close at hand, where people live. True democracy would see each decision taken at the lowest level possible, with power “lent” to those above only when necessary.

The reality, as we know, is very different. The British habit has been to decide everything centrally - “The gentleman in Whitehall knows best” - unless forced to do otherwise. Any move to reverse that pattern has to be good.

So of course Blair and Brown should let Ken have a greater say in housing or commuter rail services, to name just two areas under review. While they're at it they should grab powers currently held by the Government Office for London and give those to him, too. If that name doesn't ring a bell, don't worry. Few bodies could be more obscure. Even though Londoners voted seven years ago to create a mayoralty, this heaving bureaucracy, a creature of Whitehall, has continued operating – and even got bigger. It should be radically shrunk, cut down to size as brutally as the old Scottish or Welsh Offices after devolution.

That's the whole point of localism: power to those we can see and elect – in this case the mayor – and away from those who remain unseen and out of reach. There are caveats. First, if the mayor is to become stronger, he has to be scrutinised more closely: the current powers of the Assembly over the mayor are feeble.

Second, any restructuring would betray the spirit of localism if it beefed up the mayor solely at the expense of London's 32 boroughs. There are some duties that make more sense in his hands – disposing of the city's rubbish is one – but if the new review merely sucks power up from the boroughs, rather than pulling it down from Whitehall, it will not be devolution at all. It will be a new form of centralisation.

Livingstone reckons the Government is plumping up the London mayoralty to make it a more attractive model for other cities in Britain to follow. I hope that's true. But if it is, our national politicians should prepare themselves for a major culture shock.

For localism means letting go. Ministers will have to allow some cities to make mistakes, while others flourish. No longer will it make sense to aim for a single, uniform standard of services across the country: some will be better than others. Critics will call it a “postcode lottery”, but devolution means difference - or it means nothing.

It's not just politicians who will have to change. If we see a problem in our area, there'll be no more running to central government to complain – as we do now. We will have to lobby local decision-makers, the ones we elect. I want this “new wave of devolution” to be real. If it is, be warned: it won't be Tony, Gordon or Ken who will have to make it work – it will be us.

Posted on October 27, 2005 09:52 AM

---