Local government in the UK is a mess, but the ancient system we have in the City is more accountable than most – and the whole country benefits, says James Price
Mothin Ali, an accountant who also runs a gardening blog, declared his election as councillor for the Gipton and Harehills ward in Leeds a “win for the people for the people of Gaza” before shouting “Allahu Akbar”. It will have come as little comfort to the frightened and starving people of Gaza and as a surprise to the Green Party, for whom he was standing, and who are now investigating his comments.
But it does reveal the worrying way in which votes can be hijacked as vehicles for national, or even international issues over which our representatives have very little sway. Local councillors should really be focusing on potholes and bin collection, not war in the Middle East. The fact that a man like Ali can get himself elected on such a platform is down to an accountability gap in our system.
Local government in Britain has been a mess for a long time, since at least the historic county system was swept away in the 60s. Various innovations, from the devolved Parliaments and assemblies to metro mayors and police and crime commissioners have been brought in piecemeal with differing results. And yet Britain still remains the most centralised country in the OECD, with tax raising powers and much else reserved for Whitehall.
The absurdity of this hit home for me last summer with the announcement that the department of levelling up would fund the installation of chess tables, each costing £2,500, in public spaces. The locations would be determined by which local authorities rated highly on something called the “index of multiple deprivation”. You don’t need to be a grandmaster to wonder why on earth this was something a central government bureaucrat was in charge of administering.
There is admittedly a chicken-and-egg problem here; if the quality of local government is not high, there is a risk that devolving power will go disastrously wrong – just look at the corruption in Labour-controlled Liverpool. However, if local government powers are limited to hanging baskets and flower shows, talent will not be forthcoming either. We also need to rationalise the thicket of local governance layers and have a more transparent way for the public to be able to find out who actually has responsibility over what.
The creation of new metro mayors has been a positive development with positions often occupied by individuals with enough of a profile to argue for real power. Andy Street, who until this past weekend was mayor of the West Midlands, brought his vast experience as former boss of John Lewis to bear in building up his region. But far too often, those with business experience, not to mention those running the businesses that make a local area thrive, end up merely being on the receiving end of local political tussles.
However there is one example of local government that works better than most – the City of London Corporation. The 7,400 residents of the Square Mile are completely dwarfed by the 500,000 people who work there every day, therefore businesses and organisations can register representatives to vote in the local elections. The City of London is, of course, unique both in terms of its population and its form of governance, which predates the Norman Conquest. But it does have the benefit of giving voice to those with real influence on the economic success of the Square Mile – and indeed the country as a whole.
Imagine if, instead of local government being about sectarian conflicts thousands of miles away, or hard-working local councillors suffering because of the antics in Westminster, all those with a stake in the local area had a say and were focused on the issues that really matter to their electorate. I’d vote for that.
James Price is director of government relations at the Adam Smith Institute