Local governent: do as you're told.

 In the mid 1930s, just before I was born, there  was a proposal that our local Unban District of Birstall, with its own elected Council, should be merged with the next-door Borough of Batley. A referendum was held to judge public views on this and the results were:

For the proposal:     25

Against:               3500 

Spoiled papers:     190

Nevertheless the "powers that be" went ahead and forced through the merger (take over?)  

This enlarged Borough of Batley endured for just over 35 years when, under the  Heath Conservative government’s proposals, we in turn were merged (taken over?) to form the Metropolitan District of Kirklees. This is  a massive area which includes  Huddersfield , Dewsbury, Batley, Cleckheaton, Heckmondwike and  much of the Colne valley.   It could not be called Huddersfield because that would have annoyed the burgers of Dewsbury, and vice versa.  

So it is called Kirklees , which is one of the places where Robin Hood is alleged to have shot his arrow to determine where he should be buried (though that Kirklees is in fact over the border in Calderdale, the name imposed on what is otherwise Greater Halifax.)

These, along with the Metropolitan authorities of Leeds, Bradford, and Wakefield were originally overarched by the West Yorkshire County Council, but this was abolished (along with the Greater London Council) by Mrs Thatcher because it persisted in electing a Labour majority. 

It is unlikely that Kirklees and similar Metropolitan areas will be affected by the present Labour government's proposals for local government reform sine we are already Unitary Authorities - we have no District Councils to deal with more local needs and services.  But most of the country still has them.  They are to  be abolished, as Labour's proposals follow the trend, of taking local government further and further away from the people it is designed to serve.

The proposals will reduce rather than  enhance local democracy.  In the words of the conclusion of the Guardian's leader when the White Paper was published just before Christmas, the effect is to streamline local government so that it might more effectively carry out the instructions of Westminster and Whitehall. (summarised as recollected from memory.)

Taking the administration of local areas further and further away from the people they serve reduces the sense of belonging and ability to exert influence.  Democracy only works well if people feel a real sense of involvement: that they can work together to "do" things, rather than have something done to them.

A  uniform and streamlined system of local government of large areas may sound more efficient, but it isn't.  It is now accepted that the UK is the most centralised of the developed democracies and this assumption that "Whitehall knows best" is one of the reasons why our performance in so many area is so relatively poor.

The proposals increase the number of directly elected executive mayors, whether local people want one or not. (West Yorkshire didn't, but got one anyway).  This system, borrowed from the US, places the emphasis on personalities rather than policies.  The personality may be  good at both publicity and policy (Andy Burnham?) or maybe just good at publicity (Boris Johnson.)  Government by councillors elected to implement policies may sound dull bit is likely to be more effective.

 The proposals seem to favour dividing the country into city regions.  This is a mistake:  rural, semi-rural and urban areas are not acolytes feeding the needs of the cities they surround: they have their own priorities and needs..

 Finally there are no proposals for  local government to have any serious independent powers of taxation.  The humiliating, wasteful and potentially corrupt (levelling-up funds for Rishi Sunak's Richmond constituency) system of competing for funds dispensed at the whim of the the centre remains in place.

As argued previously on this blog, there is a need of a root-and-branch reappraisal  of how the UK is governed. We should set up a commission, perhaps advised by  citizens assemblies, to try determine what structure will best serve our future needs.  In the meantime, the present parts of the imperfect system should be adequately funded to perform the functions required of them.

 

 

The Public Realm

 The end of the year seems a good time to compose an inventory of the state of the UK's public realm after 14 years of Conservative rule.

Prison estate: under-staffed, rat-infested; so close to capacity that new ggovernment forced to release inmates to make room for  more recent offenders.    Courts:  buildings closed or neglected, insufficient functioning toilets for jurors, iiinsufficient barristers, long waiting-lists (up to two years or more) for trials  NHS: Hospitals, crumbling buildings, long waiting-lists;             Insufficient  GPs;  few “designated “ doctors; 8am phone-call lottery.           Nurses; massive shortage; too few in training (result of abandonment of            bursaries.)           Dentists; completely unavailable in many areas.  Schools: restricted curriculum, arts/music etc neglected; crumbling concrete in buildings; shortage of teachers. Universities: many on brink of bankruptcy; grade inflation; overseas students discouraged.  Local government: savage cuts to grants: forced to abandon vital services  (eg Sure Start)  Social care: long-standing problem left unaddressed.  Roads: pothole infestation  Privatised industries: Inadequate regulations  and rip-off dividends to owners (often foreign governments.) eg Water; sewage pollution;                                                      Railways; inadequate services; cancellations Housing: failure to build sufficient for affordable rent or purchase  Stock Exchange: flight of key firms from.  Money laundering: London now the word’s capital for.  Key industries and assets: sold to overseas buyers (eg ARM!)  Poverty: percentage of families in poverty increased.  BBC: Savage cuts to this World Class institution, especially the World Service  House of Lords: unprecedented number of new “peers” created; failure to reform  Democracy: restrictions on voting, reduction of powers of electoral commission.   IIn my view this list, or something similar,  should be brandished every time the tories claim to be ready to form a government again.  I'm sure I've not thought of everything: amendments and suggestions for additions welcomed.   for balance, is there anything that is better at the end of 2024 than it was in 2010 .  Well, we pensioners have done rather nicely, thanks to the Triple Lock (introduced at the insistence of  the Liberal Democrats, who played a noble but unrewarded part in making the Tores less bad than they proved to be  after the first years of tTory Rule, when they escaped from our restraining hand.)  But the basic state pnsion still compares very unfavourable to those in similar developed countries.) Anything else. . . ?

 

Starrmer's six good intentions

 

 

Analysts of  the US election results seem to have come to the preliminary conclusion that  whereas the Democrats fought on  high-minded policies extolling decency and democracy the Republican message resonated more closely to the real needs of the majority of the people. The Democrats could also point to an economy which, theoretically is in good shape, with low unemployment, inflation reduced to a manageable level and relatively fast growth, but “ordinary people”, whom right-wing talk-show host Tucker Carlson describes as “the people who can actually change a flat tyre, who pay [their ] taxes and work 40 hours a week” feel that the economy is not working for them. 

They do not feel “better off” today than they were four years ago (or even, in the US14) and  they are prepared to overlook Donald Trumps immoralities because he  speaks to their condition  and is more likely to fix it.

It is probable that the Labour Government believe that something similar applies to Britain and that is the reason for Sir Keir Starmer’s much heralded  bread and butter milestones.  They seem designed to appeal to our own “left behind,”  though  need further and better particulars to make much sense.

 The originally- promised Fastest growth in the G7  has been wisely converted  to “higher living standards in every region of the country." Fine if  the growth is equitably shared, sustainable and non-polluting, and the measurement includes rising standards of public services in each regions as well as private consumption.

Building 1,5 million homes will be great  if they are affordable, the majority are council or housing association dwellings for rent,  they are not available for second homes, the right to buy is severely curtailed or abolished, and  any “planning uplift” arising from the sale of agricultural land for building  goes to local government or the exchequer and not the landowner.

No more that 18 weeks waiting time for operations in the NHS for 92% of patients: fine if the rest of the health services also improve (some of us would like no more than 18 minutes waiting time to contact the GP) and include public health provision, along with adequate provision of social care.

An additional 30 000 police and allied officers “on the beat.”  Also fine if allied with an efficient court service to accommodate the extra offenders who are caught,  a well-staffed probation service to persuade offenders to follow more orderly paths, and a clean and up to date prison estate to house those who must be incarcerated in humane and civilised condition, along with effective education and training facilities to promote rehabilitation.

Getting 75% of five-year-olds ready for school.  I think this should be 95% and in this area we do need a “nanny state” to do the job, whatever the Daily Mail and Express say about it. Something like “Sure Start” must be restored, and local government provided with the funds to finance it effectively.

Clean power by 2030  should be non-negotiable, will be terribly expensive and should be genuine and not obscured by the pretence of “carbon capture.”

We must earnestly hope that the government achieves enough of the above, and more (eg, rescue the universities, provide local government with the funds to do their job, properly fund education and…and ….and . ..) sufficiently to convince voters, that they, preferably in alliance with other progressive parties, should be returned to government for at least another term. A move back to the discredited Tories, especially in alliance with the xenophobic Reform Party, should be unthinkable.

 But even if this is achieved, Britain will not have become the efficient modern equitable country we deserve to be.  

 In his speech Starmer gives a hint of blaming the civil service for being obstructively complacent.  Maybe they are, I have no experience (other than watching "Yes Minister"). 

The real problem is that Britain’s government structures are “not fit for purpose.”.

We need commissions, all-party symposiums, citizens assemblies or something to consider:

Devolution: our government is far too centralised.  Genuine power, with tax raising functions, need to be passed down effectively to our nations, regions and localities.  To my mind directly elected mayors are the wrong vehicle and for the most part are a sham.

A complete rethink of our taxation system, taxing unearned rather than earned income, bads rather than desirable activities, and leading to a greater measure of equality.

The machinery of government, with  fairer voting  systems which elect a parliament, national,regional and local government assemblies and councils which effectively hold their executives to account, strict control of the funding of the parties vying for power and measures to secure fair and balanced media coverage of political activity  

There is no sign at the moment that anyone is paying attention to these root and branch reforms that we need. If we ignore this need than the problems we face in 2029 or whenever, may be ameliorated, but they will remain and still be daunting.

Come kindly death

 I'm pleased that the Commons have voted in favour of Assisted Dying.  The majority was a slim one, 330-275, which reflects the strength of arguments on both sides.

To my mind the strongest argument in favour is that, in both Oregon and Australia, where assisted death has been legal for some years, now 66% of those who ask for and receive the "end it all" package don't actually use it.  Clearly it becomes  an "insurance."  it could actually improve palliative care and the quality of life in the last few days since it empowers the individual with the knowledge that  if things get "too much, she or he is in charge and can put an end to agonies and indignities which are no longer tolerable.

The arguments against carry weight, not least the additional demands on the medical and legal services.  It is not flippant to point our that it is difficult enough for the "poorly but not actually at death's door" to gain the services of just one doctor, never mind two, and judges are already facing a backlog of cases in which accused and victims experiencing waiting times measured in years rather than months.

 I am not too  much moved by the argument that greedy relatives might coerce someone into ending their life  in order to get their hands on the potential inheritance.  Surely they could wait six months?  More serious is the possibility that the patients with not long to live might  pressure themselves into thinking they are "a burden" and so end their lives prematurely.  An  Australian contact assures me there is little evidence of either of these situations "Down Under,"  but how would they know?

 These and other issues will be thoroughly thrashed out in the Committee Stage, Report Stage and Third Reading of the bill, and then all over again in the House of Lords

 Opponents of the bill express concern around the "slippery slope" argument: that this first step could open up the ;possibility of voluntary euthanasia in vastly extended circumstances.  There is little evidence that this has happened in other countries, but one area to which I should like to see it extended is to conditions such as motor neurone disease (MID) where the body degenerates and the mind remains intact.  Such a condition could become intolerable well before the last six months of "life" are diagnosed.

 Kim Leadbeater, the sponsor of this bill, is my MP (no longer for Batley and Spen, but now Spen Valley.)  If the bill becomes law  she will be remembered in history one of the great social reformers, along with Lloyd George, Sydney Silverman, David Steel and Roy Jenkins.  A fitting memorial for her murdered sister Jo cox.