During the 1980s, Central government moved away from the belief that local government should provide services efficiently (collectivist approach) and moved towards a more consumerist idea which emphasises value for money and efficiency instead of democracy and accountability. Measures taken by the Conservative government included the sale of Council houses and the private tendering of services. Plus a major shake up of the organisation of the National Health Service (NHS) and the education system; which although strictly do not come under the control of local government, they were controlled by local (i.e. not central) bodies and can be argued to be still an important argument in the erosion of local government power. The Conservative party believe that the removal of certain provisions such as education from local government control is in fact a further enhancement of democracy. this is entwined with an individualist perspective of welfare provision, "Ask not what the state can do for you but rather ask what you can do for yourselves" seems a fairly apt summary of the Conservative attitude.
Financially, local government has been made to adhere to central government targets more stringently. Traditionally, there were three main sources of revenue; charges, central government grants and local taxes. Since 1945, the level of the grant has steadily increased so that by the mid-1970s, it contributed around 60% of all local revenue. The 1977 Layfield committee argued that the local system was badly need of reform. For Layfield there were two solutions, more central control or greater local accountability. The subsequent Green Paper stated "that, whatever happened, the Government wanted greater central control over local government spending". In 1979, Mrs Thatcher came to power with her calls to 'roll back the frontiers of the state' and together with a determined Treasury, the central government begun to trim local authorities' finance; they cut the grant; refused to allow the raising of charges, sometimes taking the control away, as with the non-domestic rate; rates and its following systems have to be set within stringent central limits or severe penalties are imposed.
There have also been problems with the two-tier structure and the adequacy of the traditional role of local government as service provider. The introduction in 1980 and extension in 1988 and 1991 of compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) has changed the way local government is viewed. It was argued for in terms of efficiency. The belief that private industries are more efficient than public ones; that local government services were cosy monopolies kept away from any competition which lead to inefficiency, poor management, heavy subsidisation and powerful unions.
One of the Conservatives' party most popular policies under Mrs Thatcher was the right to buy programme where council house tenants could decide whether to buy their home or not. This policy was extended after 1986 to allow housing trusts and a proliferation of private landlords. This policy had a number of implications, firstly it questioned the states role to provide, secondly it removed a viable source of income from local governments, and thirdly it removed an area of responsibility away from local government weakening its overall position further. In education, the most significant change has been the Education Act (1989) which allows schools to opt out of local authority control and become directly funded by central government.
Different interpretations give rise to different ideas about whether local government fulfils its proper democratic role. The constitutional approach argues that Parliament is sovereign and can do as it will. The elected representatives support a government within the framework of the constitution. Local government is regarded within the constitution as a creature of Parliament: created for certain purposes which may be developed according to the policies of the central government.
Under this constitutional theory, it does not actually matter whether local government is democratic as long as it continues to execute the will of Parliament. The main reason for democracy is to legitimise the actions of the government. Central government is considered legitimate and so are its actions because it is democratic. However, local government is created by central government and so is already legitimate, therefore this extra form of democracy, i.e. local elections is superfluous.
The local election of May the 4th is a good example of whether local democracy is necessary. The crushing defeat which the Conservatives received was blamed on a very low turn-out by Jeremy Hanley on Radio 4s morning programme (5.8.95) and John Gummer in the Telegraph (5.8.95). Normally, turnout is around one third of the electorate compared with 70-80% for the general election. This simple figure shows a level of apathy amongst the electorate when it comes to local government and again, questions can be asked as to the worth of democracy if local government is only voted by around 15% of the population. What the local election could be interpreted as, is then is an elaborate opinion poll of the success of the central government
Local government has also been seen as a check on the central government, "the existence of local authorities with some degree of autonomy from the centre has long been regarded as a bulwark protecting the liberties of the British citizen against excessive power." The recent changes in structure and role appear to weaken local governments' ability to act as a check, therefore the overall quality of democracy has been reduced.
The pluralist approach differs in that it sees formal law as relatively unimportant; society and political processes more important. It argues that the state cannot be drastically altered by one single section of the population, secondly it argues that those who control policy making are elected and therefore are accountable to the wider public. Here the state is a framework for competing groups to gain favour. In this theory, no one group in society can exert overall control, but each group has a contributory influence in decision making. It follows from this that local government originally had a small but influential role in society; the erosion of local government power has done little to change this ability because of the way the state is set up.
The Marxist approach rejects the pluralist idea that the state is neutral, power is dispersed and basic consensual politics exist. For Marxists, the state is the expression of the dominant class in a capitalist state, it will favour the accumulation of capital for profit. The state may however give non capitalist concessions to stop an uprising, such as welfare provision and increased social consumption. Some Marxist commentators, for example Cynthia Cockburn describe local government as an extension of the central state. This denies autonomous action by the local government and sounds similar to the Constitutional theorists. Councillors are only able to work within the context of the ruling class. This again asks questions about whether democracy is valid. In this argument democracy is just another tool to keep the proletariat complacent. However as with the constitutionalists, the idea of local government checking central government and furthermore, the conflict between the two groups during the 1980s does destroy the argument.
For the central government, local governments proper democratic role is as an enabling one. It should be able to allow various companies to compete in providing different services in the cheapest and therefore the most efficient way. Nicholas Ridley, when secretary of state at the Department for the Environment, suggested that his idea of local government was a body which met once a year to hand out contracts. As far fetched as this statement sounds, it is plausible when given the battles which central government has had in removing local power. It could be realistically argued that there could be a time when the local government does so little that questions about whether they should exist will be brought up. Local government democracy appears to have diminished but it still fulfils the role which Parliament wishes it to. As stated earlier, if Parliament is sovereign and it defines what local should do then local government does fulfil its' full democratic role. Only specific cases such as the allegations against Dudley West council recently about the irregular sale of council houses does local government democracy fail.
The main body of the British population appear to favour the old providing style of local government. This collectivist ideal still has not been broken down by the present consumerist style of 'value for money'. They still feel that it is the states role to provide the services that they deserve. It can be seen here that each community, local government means local accountability. Councillors are elected to the local government in order to serve the community by providing services to the local area. They do not see the enabling role as fulfilling the democratic requirements of the post.
Local governments' proper democratic role is an ambiguous term. There are many different ways of interpreting this phrase. The one which seems to lend the most weight is the constitutionalist approach which argues that local government is a function of the centre and as long as it fulfils the role prescribed to it by the centre, it is playing its full democratic role. The main argument against this is the pluralists' which shows that other groups in society also have an important role.
It appears that central government is the most important actor in assessing the level of local democracy. As stated earlier, the definition of the proper democratic role in this essay is best defined by the relationship between central and local government. This relationship is unbalanced, with central government holding most of the power, mainly due to the sovereignty of Parliament. Local government therefore fails to play its' proper democratic role when it fails to fulfil the tasks which central government wants it to complete. This refers to corruption and inefficiency of the administration. While local government is not inefficient or corrupt it plays its proper democratic role.
Bibliography.
Budge, I & McKay, D.(eds.) The Developing British Political System: the 1990s.
3rd edition. Longman. Harlow Essex. 1993.
Bulpitt, J G. Party Politics in English Local Government. Longman. London. 1967.
Coxall, B & Robins, L. Contemporary British Politics: An Introduction.
Macmillan. Hampshire. 1990.
Dearlove, J & Saunders, P. Introduction to British Politics. 2nd edition.
Polity Press. Cambridge. 1993.
Elcock, H.
Local government. Politicians, Professionals and the Public in Local Authorities.
2nd edition. Methuen. Suffolk. 1986.
Hampton, W. Local Government and Urban Politics. 2nd edition.
Longman. New York. 1991.
Hoggett, P & Hambleton, R. Decentralisation and Democracy. SAUS. Bristol. 1987.
Jones et al. Politics UK. 2nd edition. Harvester Wheatsheaf. Hemel Hempsted. 1994.
