Nimbyists of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your reputation with politicians!

Two interesting publications have recently come about.  One is the much-publicised report by the Office for National Statistics suggesting that people are happier in rural areas and small market towns, while they are unhappiest and most anxious in urban areas.  The other is a book by developmental economist, Paul Collier on the impact of immigration, called Exodus:  Immigration and Multiculturalism in the Twenty-First Century.

While Collier has previously focused on the impact of a lack of common culture in African countries, he has now turned his attention to the impact of immigration in the developed world and the erosion of mutual regard.  Mutual regard is lost when people have very different cultures – whether that be tribal differences in the modern African state or multiculturalist divisions in Western countries.  Collier appears to realise what politicians do not: That concern about immigration has much more to do with a loss of a common understanding of norms of behaviour and values, than economics alone.  Diversity has a corrosive effect on a shared identity and therefore undermines trust in a society.  This has nothing to do with race, but everything to do with the damaging doctrine of multiculturalism and the sheer scale of immigration in recent years.

The ONS report on the other hand makes clear that we are less lonely and less anxious when we live in more local communities – the market town in particular stands out as an ideal form of community.  Of course what holds the market town or the village together is that people know each other – they are not strangers in their own community.  People have a common understanding of norms of behaviour and shared values. 

The common thread to these two publications is a fact that might be blindingly obvious to the man in the Dog and Duck, but is rarely articulated and completely misunderstood by the political class.  That fact is surely that what strengthens community is the local and the cultural things held in common.  We all need to belong to community to feel fulfilled and we need to share common values, manners and standards with our neighbours.

The way to achieve this goal of the happy society is to live in smaller and more homogeneous communities.  This is directly contrary to all recent governments’ agendas, which have pressurised local authorities to build more and create larger and less homogeneous communities.  Indeed in the blogger’s own home district, a recent report has shown that the primary cause of housing demand is immigration. 

This leads to two negative effects: It undermines the smallness of the community and makes it more diverse.  This is not at all good for general wellbeing.  It must be right to recognise that a healthy society is not only about how economically rich it is, but how happy people are.  We can be materially wealthy, but spiritually poor.  The latter poverty is far more serious.

This blog is not arguing that we should close the doors on everyone, rather the argument is that a society can deal better with immigration, maintain its own wellbeing and make the immigrant more welcome, when people are better assimilated.  That requires a strong community into which the immigrant can be absorbed.  Otherwise we all end up as lonely atoms randomly bouncing around a bleak and urban world.

The Government is looking closely at how to increase general wellbeing.  Surely, the lesson from these recent publications is that we need less development in our small towns, more controls on immigration, protection of our nearby green spaces.  It is time for the political class to acknowledge that concern about these issues is not only about house values, but is a valid concern about losing something far less tangible but far more valuable - our wellbeing.  It is time to start listening to and stop dismissing the so-called Nimbyists!   

A Right to Live in Suburbia (originally published as part of a Localis pamphlet)

The topic of social housing is particularly relevant to the Localist agenda. Central Government has pushed through its own agenda by a means of financial sticks and carrots. It has been very difficult for local housing authorities to follow their own local policy in this arrangement favouring centralized control.

Whatever the merits of councils as landlords as opposed to registered social landlords, the Government has not allowed a proper competition of social-housing models. Financially it has penalized those councils that retain their stock and placed the councils under pressure to transfer the stock.

Whereas housing associations can access other forms of private funding to meet the standard, the Government restricts the sources of funding local authorities can access and it can be very difficult to draw down government grants. Housing portfolio holders I have talked to have expressed their frustration at having no option but to transfer the stock, because of the way the Government funds councils.

Furthermore, social landlords must meet centrally determined targets regarding repairs and improvements. These targets can differ from the wishes of tenants. For example, whereas the Government’s Decent Homes Standard requires new bathrooms, tenants might actually be concerned about dilapidated fences and gates. Because of the funding arrangements the Central Government’s wishes will normally trump the wishes of local tenants or indeed local members.

“Negative subsidy can no longer be defended on grounds of

redistributive justice”

Government subsidy is calculated according to what a local authority should be charging in rent and then by calculating how much the authority should receive from or pay to Government if that notional rent were charged. A percentage of rental income is taken by Central Government if it is calculated that were the “correct” rent charged would lead to a surplus. Thereby well managed housing revenue accounts are penalized. This system is known as negative subsidy.  Negative subsidy is entirely contrary to the principles of localism. Working against the concept of ideas being tested at a local level, it perversely encourages failure and discourages success. In such a set-up, where successful landlords must pay for the failing landlords, there is no incentive to manage effectively and innovatively.

Furthermore, negative subsidy can no longer be defended even on the grounds of redistributive justice. Most of the money collected from councils now goes into general government expenditure, rather than supporting other councils, which have a housing revenue account in deficit. Waverley Council is taking a lead in campaigning against this inequitable funding system.

“The Localist concept of different local solutions being found is potentially being suppressed”

The Government has recently suspended another controversial policy: rent convergence. This required local authorities to converge their rents with housing association rents, thereby significantly reducing one of the main attractions of remaining as a local authority tenant, that being the lower rents. Failure to converge can be punished by the Government funding system.

Because of the credit-crunch, the Government will no longer be forcing through this convergence.  It is clearly desirable that tenants should be enabled to take responsibility for their own lives, exercise choice and follow their aspirations. It would be wrong to prevent tenants from being able to move out of council housing or councils from transferring their stock.

Notwithstanding this, it cannot be right that competition of ideas is being suppressed and local solutions not being implemented because of pressure from the Centre. It is important that local authorities are able to respond to the local demands made upon them, whether

that be a demand to transfer the housing stock or to remain with the Council as the landlord.

Tandridge District Council is on target to meet the decent homes standard and because of the overwhelming wishes of its tenants to remain with the council as landlord, unusually it has been able to exercise the so-called fourth option, and retain its stock. However, because of negative subsidy and capital receipts legislation, it would not be able to finance the

debt to launch a project of building new council houses, whatever the wishes of local members or those on the housing list might be. Once again the localist concept of

different local solutions being found is potentially being suppressed.

One important change in policy direction must therefore be a genuine devolution of decision making to local authorities that are directly answerable to their tenants. This should mean that tenants’ wishes are genuinely responded to, rather than the Whitehall bureaucrat’s

concept of what the tenant would wish.

Another important change should be to increase the tenants’ choice. Choice-based letting is a new system that allows those on the housing list to bid for a limited number of properties available. Because the stock available is fairly limited, although this shift in power away from the bureaucrat to the tenant has proved popular, it is not as radical a shift as might have been hoped.

From the policies being implemented or being discussed in the realm of ideas, it is clear that there are genuine Centre-Right solutions that would both devolve power and give tenants more choice. Local solutions are still being found, despite the straitjacket the Government

has imposed on local housing authorities. If local authorities and people were to be given greater freedom to test out local projects, the opportunity for new and innovative solutions would be even greater.

Please find the fulll pamphlet here:

http://www.localis.org.uk/article/136/Priorities-for-Reform-of-Social-Housing-in-Inner-Cities.htm

One Tier or Two (Originally published as part of a Localis pamphlet of the same name)

 Government needs to be closer to residents

All politicians seem to subscribe to the idea of localism. Rather like

“motherhood and apple pie” it is something that by definition is

regarded as good and much lip-service is paid to the concept. Looked

at more closely, however, much of what has been done in the name

of localism, such as attempts to regionalise the United Kingdom, have

actually removed power further away from the individual and rather

increased the tiers of government and bureaucracy.

What then, is the true localist agenda? Our existing system of

local government in this country is in the process of being tinkered

with via the setting up of a number of unitary councils. Much of

the debate about localism on the Right has focussed on the role

of county councils, while the Government has looked to increase

the regional structure on the one hand and devolve power to

parish councils, the smallest forum of local government, on the

other. In this article I intend to concentrate on that more overlooked,

but very much frontline form of local government, the district council.

To be clear, when I am referring to district councils I am talking

about rural district or borough councils within the two-tier local-government

system, as distinguished from unitary borough or district

councils. It is my argument that the two tier system is more democratic,

more accountable and more local.

Coming from a Centre-Right standpoint, I regard localism as a

means of bringing power closer to the individual so that individuals

can have more choice over how they are governed and how public

services are delivered. If Government is more receptive to individual

choices it will by definition be more accountable.

District councils are of a small enough scale to be more responsive

than counties or unitaries and are still able to deliver effectively

because they employ their own bureaucracy. Unfortunately, districts,

like other tiers, have been more and more restricted by central and

European diktat that undermines the concept of local representatives

making local decisions. To address this, the Government should

abandon its plans for more unitary authorities and free local authorities

from central control.

Front-line services

In terms of its localist credentials, the United Kingdom’s system of local

government does not score well. The United Kingdom has one of the

lowest numbers of councillors per 100,000 voters in Europe. Compared

to a country such as France, where one mayor can represent

around 350 voters, the United Kingdom looks less democratic in a

local context.

Where councils are strongest are where their local accountability makes them responsive to local residents needs and wishes in the deliveryof frontline services. A smaller council is less bureaucratic and more democratic, because the councillors are known by their voters and have a smaller officer body to steer. The alternative to more local delivery by delivering services from the centre is likely to be cheaper, but it will be less responsive to the demands of the electors. In the drive for efficiency, centralisation undermines choice. I feel the balance should be on the side of greater choice for residents. If choice is the driver, then local authorities will act more like private companies in their delivery of services. They will be sensitive to the wishes of their consumers.

As any neo-classical economist knows, central planning is less

responsive to local and individual demands and undermines diversity

A smaller council is less bureaucratic and more democratic, because the councillors are known by their voters and have a smaller officer body to steer and competition of different models. A useful real-life example of district councils being innovative and responsive in their delivery of their

services is Tandridge District Council’s waste contract.

Tandridge has negotiated a contract that fulfils the residents’ preference

for a back-door waste collection. It may be that this front-line

service is more expensive, but it is what the users of the service prefer

to pay for. Were the waste collection service delivered county wide

or across a section of the county on a unitary basis, it would be far

more difficult to respond to the preferences of Tandridge residents.

In a predominantly rural district, with an aging population, a backdoor

service works and is preferred by council-tax payers. A service

deliverer that covered a wider area would have to reach for the lowest

common denominator, where different needs had to be addressed,

for example urban versus rural.

Another general argument for services being delivered by smaller

bodies is that it enables alternative methods to be tested. The larger

the organisations, the fewer are the opportunities for experiment. Innovation

is more likely and better methods are more likely to be tried out

if there are more service deliverers.

Another key area of innovation that enables district councils to learn

from one another and adopt best practice is joint-working. This brings

the advantage of economies of scale without the loss of local autonomy

or responsiveness to voters’ preferences.

Are unitary authorities the solution?

To remain true to the spirit of localism it must be right to accept that

unitaries are the right answer in some cases but not others. It all

depends on the local circumstances on the ground. For example, a

city such as Plymouth is naturally a unit with a clear identity, but a

County such as Cornwall is diverse and the unpopularity of the

moves towards a unitary authority demonstrates that a keen sense

of local identity works against single tier authorities that cover a

large area.

The argument for unitaries usually put forward is that service delivery

works better if there is one organisation delivering. It is not

resident-friendly and can be very confusing if one authority is responsible

for one service and another for other services. Waste is a clear

example of this, where districts are responsible for waste collection

and counties for waste disposal.

That may well be the case, but it does not undermine the central

point that the more local the level of service delivery the more responsive

it is. Rather than a definite argument for unitaries, this point could

be employed to argue that more frontline services, such as road maintenance

could be devolved to districts.

Where unitaries undermine localism they are a step in the wrong

direction. For example, prima facie it must be the case that reducing

the number of local councillors reduces democracy and accountability.

This is usually the result when districts and counties are replaced

by unitaries.

Another argument in favour of local-government reorganisation

often put forward is the savings that will be made. The jury really still

is out on this though. As I understand it, too often the creation of

unitary councils has been far more expensive than originally expected.

Local government reorganisation can prove a costly exercise.

As mentioned above, many of the advantages of amalgamating

tiers of local government can be achieved by joint working with other

councils. This can achieve all the advantages of working together,

achieving best practice and making substantial savings without the

cost, both financial and democratic of moving towards one tier.

What’s wrong with the present system?

In short the answer to this is not enough localism and too much topdown

decision making. Much ink has been spent on why powers

should be devolved back to county councils and the arguments are

well rehearsed, but it is also the case that district councils operate

within a straitjacket set up by central government. A culture of topwww.

down targets, ring-fenced grants and negative subsidising has led to

a situation where local councillors are often in a position of simply

implementing central government policy. This undermines local

accountability and means that the local councillor is often viewed as

ineffective.

To take one key example, when voters elect their local councillor onto the local planning authority, they expect that they will be represented.  Instead they find that local councillors must give more weight to  government policy statements than their own local planning policies and if they do defy the thrust of central government policy to meet their

own local needs, they may well find themselves overridden by the planning inspectorate.

The disadvantage of local decisions being overridden in planning

matters is that it allows the local councillors to take decisions while

avoiding consequences. For example it can mean a populist stance

is taken and then the blame laid on the inspector when he overturns

the decision; alternatively, councillors can rely too much on what an

inspector is likely to do when making their decision and thereby overlook

local needs. It is important to emphasise that local councillors

usually work very well within these constraints, but when decisions are

overturned residents understandably ask, “what is the point in a local

planning authority if the centre has the final say?”

If local councillors were given greater responsibility for their decisions

it would actually work against the so-called “NIMBY”

temptation. Councillors would not simply be able to play to the

gallery when they knew for example that an unpopular affordable

housing estate needed to be built. Greater power would mean real

responsibility being taken and would make local councillors more

accountable. Voters would feel that there was far more point to voting

in local elections if the representatives they elected had real power to

make decisions.

A similar example of the present problem of over-centralisation is in

the realm of housing policy. The local housing authority has very

limited autonomy. Most of what it is responsible for is in effect dictated

by central government guidelines. For example, rent increases in

council accommodation rent-increases are now required by government

guidance to converge with the rents of housing associations. A

recent decision to lower the level of increase because of the economic

climate was initiated by central government.

The issue of rent increase was once a matter of genuine debate in

town halls up and down the land. It was an emotive issue on which

local representatives could vote according to their political principles.

Now the level of debate is very limited because, in reality, there is

very little local autonomy.

Although central government only issues guidance, it rewards those

housing authorities that follow the guidance on rents and penalises

those who do not follow the guidelines via the subsidy mechanism.

Central government relies on the subsidy mechanism in a number of

ways to control local housing policy.

The most inimical aspect to localism of the subsidy system is negative

subsidy. This is where local housing authorities that manage their

housing stock well and thereby, according to government calculations

should be in surplus, are required to pay money from their housing

revenue accounts to central government.

A genuinely local policy on transferring or retaining stock is also

very difficult to maintain. Local authorities are required to ballot

tenants on stock transfer. If councils cannot afford to meet the government

requirement of decent homes standard, they are put in a

position where they have little choice but to transfer the stock.

It might be asked why it is a bad thing that local housing authorities

are cajoled into increasing the living standards of their tenants. Of

course no reasonable man or woman would oppose improvements in

living standards on the grounds of a political theory. If local accountability

is taken away however, then it becomes far more difficult for the

local councillor to champion the cause of tenants in his or her ward or

for the tenants to truly hold their social landlord to account. For

example, if the decent homes standard requires one piece of work to

be carried out and the demand from tenants is for another more pressing

piece of work, the local need must fall subject to the central,

uniform perspective. Centrally-imposed solutions mean less opportunity

for local solutions truly applicable to the specific needs of the

specific tenants.

Solutions

The goal of localism must surely be what European treaties refer to as

subsidiarity i.e. allowing decisions to be made at the lowest possible

level. For local authorities to have real autonomy top-down targets

must be drastically curtailed and local authority funding must be

looked at again. Power should be devolved not to new quangos at a

regional level or parish councils with no bureaucracy to implement

local wishes, but to the district level as seen in the two tier system.

There can be no real freedom for local authorities, without reform

of local government funding. The more local councils are responsible

for their own funding, the more they can be held to account, rather

than simply competing to spend more and larger government grants.

For this reason the national non-domestic rates, or business rates,

should be retained at least in part by local authorities. This would

also encourage local authorities to promote economic growth, as their

revenue would increase with the number of businesses.

The argument of this article is that district councils are in the frontline

of democracy and therefore most responsive to local pressures.

Given the greater number of district councillors and the smaller wards

it is easier for voters to recognise and interact with them. The district

councillor is usually in the heart of a small community and is usually

known.

When the district councillor is at work he or she is dealing with a

much smaller officer body and therefore councillor influence over the

direction of council policy can penetrate any officer cadre that might

exist. Larger bodies are far more difficult to penetrate as the elected

member is faced by a large bureaucracy. Ironically this can mean that

councillors on larger councils do not have a strategic overview and find

themselves only able to concentrate on small-scale ward level problems.

The democratic steer of the overall direction is therefore weak.

Districts are of a size with a small enough officer staff for members

to have a truly strategic influence that is responsive to the direction

that their voters feel the community should be heading. Therefore

voters have more of a say about how they are governed.

In terms of participation in democracy, districts because of their

size, if freed from central control, are the right level to increase

engagement. Furthermore, by dint of the fact that there are more councillors

there are inevitably more activists engaged in the political

process, such as delivering literature, canvassing, knocking up on

polling day. 

All these ways of being involved increase engagement

with the voter. The fact that districts provide more volunteers directly

engaged is in itself a way of involving more people in politics.

On this basis, the possibility of devolving more services to the district

council should be looked at. At one time district councils were responsible

for highways, why not return this responsibility? If education were to be the responsibility of district councils rather than the county, councillors accountable to a smaller

number of voters could have a much greater voice over issues affecting the schools in their ward. It would probably be necessary for the building to remain in the ownership of the

county councils, but the delivery of education could become the responsibility

of the less remote, more local district council.

These are but a few suggestions. The main point is that if we truly

believe in localism, those local authorities that have more localist credentials

should be given more responsibilities. Rather than creating

new tiers of government at a higher level and giving them an overall

say on local issues, true devolution is about freeing the existing local

councils that for too long have often only been able to act as rubber

stamps for central government policy.

Please find the full pamphlet at:  http://www.localis.org.uk/images/articles/Localis-One%20Tier%20or%20Two_.pdf