Nick Clegg’s speech to the Local Government Association has been highlighted elsewhere, but I wanted to give it a quick plug here too.
I’m a strong supporter of giving as much power to local communities as possible. I have admitted before to some doubts about how you deliver it effectively if local authorities are not closely involved, but that is just a detail. But Nick Clegg’s speech to the LGA shows a clear difference in attitude towards local communities and public services between the Liberal Democrats and the other parties.
This speech also shows again something that Nick seems to be doing far more in speeches than previous leaders. That is highlighting where the Liberal Democrats have power and doing good things with it. It not only shows that we do what we say, but that we also are trusted to be in power and that we do good things with it.
The subject of his speech may not be the sort of thing that turns on the voters. As much as it interests me, I can’t see people rushing to the polls to vote Lib Dem because we believe in devolving power. But what it does do is give people a sense of what we are about and what our core beliefs and principles are.
5 responses so far ↓
antireptilian // 4 July 2008 at 1:13 pm |
” It not only shows that we do what we say, but that we also are trusted to be in power and that we do good things with it.”
Clegg reverses his role on the constitreaty, abstains in the commons allowing it to pass, and backing it in the Lords allowing it to pass.
He states in an interview with Andrew Marr that he is pro European Union. Clegg is a two faced schill, and cannot be trusted.
Jock // 5 July 2008 at 8:23 am |
In what way does that make him two-faced? To say you’re pro-EU and then to enable pro-EU legislatioini seems consistent to me even if I do disagree with it.
Anders Hanson // 5 July 2008 at 2:38 pm |
The Lib Dems didn’t promise a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but on the constitution. It is clearly a matter of some debate whether they are the same or not, and something on which no one who has studied it in detail agrees. Nick Clegg happens to think it isn’t and therefore he is being consistent.
But as I wrote on this blog at the time, I do disagree with Nick on that point. The general public do think it is the same thing and therefore we probably should have backed the call for a referendum in parliament.
Carl Lee // 6 July 2008 at 11:49 am |
Of course devolved or decentralised decision making is attractive but it also has to be acknowledged that a number of negative externalities flow from this. People talk about ‘post-code’ lotteries in what drugs are or treatments are funded by the devolved NHS decision-making structures. Furthermore some communities will be affected by the ‘tyranny of the majority’ , this may be particularly problematic for non-white citizens in areas such as Stoke where the BNP may soon hold power. Finally on some issues such as climate change central government is urged to take a lead but when it takes ideas such as ‘polluter pays’ waste disposal into some communities the local community reject it on the basis that it does not fit with their personal perspectives.
Some communities have far more social capital than others and so will be able to compete for scarce resources more effectively. The issues are significant. All I see Clegg doing is talking in soundbites. I’ve just read his speech. I can’t help wondering whether he is in the same Lib Dem party that has been running Liverpool for the past decade. That is the Liverpool that has handed over control of large parts of the city centre’s public space to be policed by private commercial interests, a bankrupt city, a city with an expensive legacy as a result of an international profile raising event- sound familiar.
I trust Paul Scriven will not be going to them for advice.
Anders Hanson // 7 July 2008 at 9:21 am |
Of course not everything can be devolved, and the examples you give are some of them. But I think in terms of how public services are provided there are a lot that can be done locally. I think the problem over the years is that most parties have talked about how important localism is (including Labour and the Tories who largely destroyed it) but very few people have done it.
You cite Liverpool as an example. However there are many Lib Dem authorities that are good at it. It might be a small authority, but one that I used to live in – Eastleigh – had a major commitment to localism and a lot was devolved to local communities. In fact they even passed some responsibilities to parish councils, which in many cases were not Lib Dem run.
I don’t know all of the ins and outs of the problems in Liverpool, but although things have been difficult recently when the Lib Dems first took control they were widely praised for the huge positive difference they were making. If you compare it to the days of Labour control, the current issues with the European Capital of Culture are tiny.
Liverpool’s decision to hand control over to private investors is their decision though – that is the point of localism. It isn’t one I would advocate for Sheffield, but each city has to choose its own way of doing things and what works well in some places may not work well elsewhere.