Abuzz about the White Paper

Topics: round up of responses to and opinions on the Local Government White Paper Strong and Prosperous Communities.

Here's a link towhat the LGA and IDeA have said. The LGA response (link to a pdf file) is also a really good summary of what's in the White Paper.

The links below certainly do NOT necessarily reflect the views of the IDeA (my employer)- or even me personally! I just rounded up published responses as I found them.

Council associations:

London Councils - they broadly welcome, but wish there'd been a bit more talk about finance.
Association of North East Councils - welcomed the White Paper, and quite glad it was launched in the North East

Local government in the North East is at the heart of place-shaping, which is about taking responsibility for the economic, social and environmental well-being of citizens and communities. These are the key themes we have committed to in our recently launched 2006/07 Manifesto, which have real resonance with Government thinking, as set out in the White Paper.

Westminster says White Paper recommendations should go further and faster for excellent councils like us.

‘Whilst we warmly welcome these new proposals as the first step, we want the government to go further and faster to give local councils the powers to make a real difference to people's lives. Further powers should also be granted to those excellent Local Authorities, such as Westminster Council, who are efficiently managing their resources and delivering best value public services.

Opposition parties

The Conservative Party: Caroline Spelman, Shadow Local Government Secretary started out with some praise:

"Let me begin on a note of consensus. I entirely agree with the Rt Hon Lady when she said this morning 'local government is in much better shape since 1997'.

...but then...

The reason, of course, is that the Conservative Party is now the largest party of local government, and the Labour councillor is now an endangered species.

She also questioned the timing (why now ahead of Lyons and Barker reviews) and where the real devolution from central to local was to be found.

The Liberal Democrats

Ming Campbell thinks it's a mess:

Until we know what the proposals are going to be for the financing of local government, it seems to be pretty remarkable to discuss the powers of local government because the two - powers and finance - are inextricably linked.

"It's a mess, frankly, and Ruth Kelly, I think, has rushed ahead with this document. She should have waited until we get the Lyons report in January, then we could have had a comprehensive discussion about local government, not least because of the fact that so many people in this country feel entirely disconnected from local government.

And Andrew Stunnell, LibDem shadow Local Goverment minister doesn't think much of it either

"...it was a wasted opportunity and it does not address key issues of
local democracy and accountability."

Think tanks

Involve - a think tank supporting citizen engagement says

At long last Ruth Kelly has launched the much-anticipated Local Government
White Paper: 'Strong and prosperous communities'. After months of speculation as
to exactly what it would contain the final version does not feel like it lives
up to the hype surrounding it.

The Local Government Information Unit was broadly supportive but summed it up as:

“This is a small step towards stronger local democracy that has been presented as a giant leap."

There is point by point commentary here. This being probably the most biting criticism:

“The White Paper fails to provide a constitutional position for local government, as called for by the Lyons Inquiry, and to really commit government to subsidiarity and their obligations under the European Charter of Local Self Government. The words double devolution have gone because there is such limited devolution from Whitehall to Town Hall.”

The Adam Smith Institue appears to have published their response on the basis of the press release and not the official document. On ASI blog, the denounce centralism and say that real localism is about local financial control. They are not optimistic about the details of the white paper:

it is unlikely that Ruth Kelly will endorse any such vision. Centralism will prevail, and along with it, apathy and poor service in local government.

Unions and trade bodies

Unison likes the stronger role for local communities - but is concerned about an environment of cutbacks and pension reductions - and:

no matter how much the Government wills it, you won’t get successful changeunless you bring the workforce with you

The Confederation of British Industry says:

"We welcome the focus on efficiency, user engagement and greater use of
competition in delivering improved services."

But they were less keen on potentially expensive neighbourhood governing bodies.


What the bloggers say:

Rob Hopcott says: Democratic Flaws in New vision for UK Local Government unveiled in White Paper

Ordinary people who have tried to debate local issues sensibly with local councillors and have been confronted by a wall of uncommunicative silence and obfuscation may well question whether genuine benefits will be achieved. They may even hold their heads in their hands and wonder which planet the authors of the White Paper are on.

From the blog Stumbling and Mumbling:

There's much to be said for Ruth Kelly's proposals to reform local government; more decentralization and greater accountability. However, in emphasizing the need for "strong leadership" Ruth is merely betraying New Labour's faith that leadership is always the solution.

And it goes on to compare localism with managing a football team. Me, I love a good sports analogy. Political punditry is a game of more than two halves.

Free Think - a Liberal Democrat blog - didn't think much of the White Paper.

Considering the many ideas that have been floated around for so long (see our Local Heroes debate) people should be more angry by the half-baked proposals here. Local Government needs a radical make-over. With its further proposals for stronger (and longer lasting) council leaders - what is presented here is more a completion of the reforms Labour proposed in 2000.

And also wondered why the White Paper was low on finance details (i.e. why not wait until Lyons findings?)

Looking for a Voice thought it was a "sham".

Real Local Government and real local decisions will only be made with the
benefit of local taxation, if central government is still the tax collector and
not devolving the setting and collecting to local government, this is still more
government, not less.

About Whose News has an interesting post which compares British and French local government systems.

In contrast to France’s structured system, the British one is a shambolic muddle. A typical fudge some would say.

The blogger appears to lament that most services are centralised enough - and local things (like traffic calming and flower displays) aren't local enough in the UK.

Another LibDem blogger is critical (LibDem Voice)

The Government’s new proposals for local government sound like decentralisation. Councils will get the power to create their own by-laws, and public services will get more scrutiny from the public.

But on closer inspection, it’s the sort of decentralisation one would expect from Labour. Without a reform of local government finance, Westminster still plays the tune as it pays the piper. The by-laws are spun as a new way to fine people for anti-social behaviour, as if Labour haven’t realised that enacting more and more laws is not as effective a way to curb crime as better policing of the laws we have.

Back to main page