Conservatives - what sort of society do you want? Some thoughts.

If the Conservative Party in the UK wants to thrive in the future it needs - as I've said before - to start thinking about sociology:

Because social issues now matter more than economic ones, for more people, there is a realignment coming at some point. The offer that the two parties give to the electorate will shift from being rival answers to how to cut (and bake) the pie. It will shift to a contest over which conception of society – diverse versus ordered – wins out. The precise mechanics of how this will happen are uncertain, but that it will happen just reflects the fact that one’s position on the social cleavage now matters to people.

The British political system makes this "realignment" difficult - or at least unlikely to happen in the convenient, media-friendly manner of a new political party or parties. The by-election result in Newport West, even if we apply the usual caveats about such things, show that the chances of another party - left, right or centre - superseding the two main political parties is small.

This doesn't mean, however, that the shift from economy to society as the main focus of public concern won't have a profound effect on our politics. And it does mean that conservatives need to begin to think about the sort of society they want to build while recognising that economic truths remain economic truths and can't be wished away.

When people accuse some conservatives of wanting "to go back to the 1950s", they fail to realise the significance of what this might mean in an actual policy platform. Nobody wants to go back to the real 1950s and lose the central heating, the cars, the mobile phones and the computers (or for that matter to get back the racism, sexism and homophobia) but people would like some things we have less of now that were normal in the 1950s.

What isn't to be liked about a crime rate that's less than a fifth of the rates today? Don't we like the idea of a job for life? And stable communities where people trust each other? When people hark back to better days long ago, these are sorts of things they think about. All of them are about the social environment, about the kind of people we are and the sorts of communities we live in. None of these things are incompatible with free markets, with social mobility or with economic growth. But they are less achievable in the centralised, one-size-fits-all, government by spreadsheet that we have right now.

When the spreadsheet wranglers talk about localism, they think of grand regional mayors wielding (quite vague) "powers" not district councils. And the focus of these mayors isn't community, family or neighbourhood but economic growth, regional competitiveness and the levering of central government decisions into local benefit. It is an entirely utilitarian focus on what Deirdre McCloskey called "Max U" - prudence only - and doesn't respond to those societal concerns about what people can see around their homes and in their lives.

Conservatives (with or without the big 'C') need to start framing their ideas about community and this means getting to grip with housing, with the manner in which the welfare system fails the poorest, with crime and justice. Conservatives need to start talking about buses rather than trains, about care workers rather than tech grandees, and about the environment we live in rather than the abstract finger-wagging of climate change. Above all we need to challenge the idea that everywhere is the same and can be treated the same - the managerialist ideology that has dominated our public administration for three decades. If it is our school, our hospital, our police service then this needs to be reflected in the way people relate to it.

I observed once that, at least in Bradford, the police appear to have retreated to huge, anonymous barracks that look more like something escaped from a Kafka-esque state than a local police service in a democracy. The convenience for operations management of such arrangements has outweighed the idea that the police are citizens in uniform protecting the place where they live.

The same assessment can be done for the NHS, where huge institutions with nameless, faceless appointed boards have replaced community hospitals, where (even in a comfortable place like Cullingworth) the doctors travel in from altogether grander, posher places to do their doctoring, and where the diktats of a distant bureaucracy determine what happens even if it is a really stupid thing to do in some places.

I might be wrong in thinking that the answer lies in a real localism, in actual, practical devolution of control over much of government to local communities. But I do think that, as the pathetic debacle of trying to leave the EU has shown, the current system we have has become so detached from normal society that its prescriptions - prepared by those men and women with spreadsheets - are at best annoying to and at worst actively damaging the neighbourhoods and communities that make up our nation.

....

Local protectionism is no way to raise economic growth in poor places - a critique of inclusive growth

****

The RSA, that trendiest of slightly left wing think tanks, has launched a thing called the 'Inclusive Growth Commission':

Chaired by former BBC economics editor Stephanie Flanders and building on the success of the RSA’s City Growth Commission, the Commission will seek to devise new models for place-based growth, which enable the widest range of people to participate fully in, and benefit from, the growth of their local area.

The core of the Commission's argument is:

Public services and welfare remain fragmented; economic and social policies often seem to pull in opposite directions. Although growth is happening and unemployment falling, large sections of the population are not benefiting. Big wealth gaps and large numbers of economically inactive people have negative impacts on local economies, life chances and social cohesion. Costs to the state remain high, growth is low and prosperity the privilege of a few.

It seems an entirely noble idea to look more closely at how, to borrow a phrase, the proceeds of growth can be shared. The focus - entirely right for a geographer like me - is place-based, stressing the uniqueness of a particular town or city and seeking development solutions that resonate with that locality. The problem is that the RSA, like many other such organisations, has taken as its text the idea that inequality is the cause of poverty in places like Manchester, Liverpool and Bradford.

The worry I have with this place-based model, especially when coming from a centrist, 'government is good' ideology, is that we fall easily into the ideas about resilience, the local multiplier and social models of business. Here's Neil McInroy from the Centre for Local Economic Studies (CLES):

Overall, the plans to build a more inclusive growth model faces a choice. On the one hand the commission can add a stronger social face to an economy which works for the few, not the many. In this, they will reveal some of the problems of growth and this will prompt some policy changes. However, will the commission’s recommendations alter the longstanding frame to local economic activity – where productivity and growth has a pre-eminent position and is viewed as having much higher importance than that of inequality and poverty?

McInroy sets out a 'critique' based on his organisation's position - alongside the New Economics Foundation, Transition Towns and the New Weather Institute - as advocates of what I call local protectionism. For McInroy there is a dominant regional growth model - agglomeration - that needs to be challenged if we are to get an inclusive economy. Essentially in the critique the place-based model means that growth has to be spread across a region rather than being focused on city centres and 'growth hubs'. McInroy will point to the success of Manchester city centre and then to the fact that, despite this success, the metropolitan area of Manchester still contains many of England's poorest places.

It also has losers – city region peripheries, smaller towns and the low skilled. We must look at areas beyond city centres to outer boroughs. We must focus much more on local supply chains and ensure investment to local small businesses is on an equal footing to global corporates and global investors.

In here we have the problem - that reference to 'local supply chains' will be familiar to anyone reading the output of CLES, NEF and NWI. It refers to the view that local supply chains keep more money within the community than supply chains based on the national economy. The idea of the local or regional multiplier is central to this assertion - NEF make a good living from plugging their LM3 model to all and sundry (despite it having no real theoretical basis or any robust empirical support). The problem is that the local multiplier is something of a myth - the impact of excluding national supply chains is, in effect, the same as any act of protectionism. So any gain from having the money circulate within the community for longer is lost in that community having to pay higher prices.

The second element here is the persistence of the view that welfare payments somehow contribute to a local economy. It's true that the very poor places in Manchester and Liverpool receive large amounts of the money we redistribute (giving the lie to those who say there is no dispersal, no 'trickle down') but it is also true that, however valid that welfare payment might be, it still carries an opportunity cost. If the money wasn't raised in taxes it would have been used in another way - perhaps on consumption, maybe invested.

No-one disputes the objective - we'd like more of those people dependent on benefits not to be dependent on benefits. I'm guessing that's what the RSA mean by inclusive growth. The issue is how we go about this - do we run the risk of a slower rate of growth by insisting that large sums are redistributed in some way. If we reject the idea of agglomeration as a driver of growth, then we have to put something in its place. The problem is that the alternatives on offer from the likes of McInroy will act only to futher damage local economies by raising prices and decoupling them from the more successful national economy.

In the end local economies thrive because government does not direct them - the vanity of the RSA position and the stupidity of the CLES outlook is that there is some magical role for local or regional government in delivering both economic growth and a less unequal society. For me the reduction of actual poverty is more important than endlessly fretting over measures of inequality (or 'relative poverty' as folk like to call it) and this is brought about by government not obstructing the drivers of growth. It implies lower taxes when often poorer places have high taxes. It demands less regulation and intervention when the preference of big city governments is to intervene more. And it requires that we connect poor places to the rich places making it possible for people to travel - economically and physically - from the former to the latter.

....

Quote of the day - on 'buying local'

****

It is widely held that, by some feat of magic, buying stuff at higher prices because it is 'locally-sourced' or 'independent' represents a coherent regeneration strategy. We're told that this approach builds something called 'resilience' and that the 'local multiplier' means that, as a result of this local spending, we are all richer and wealthier (as opposed the the more prosaic truth that the owners of those locally-sourcing independent business are richer and wealthier whereas us consumers are poorer and less wealthy).

Courtesy of the Samisdata blog comes the defining truth about the nonsense of this idea (at least in economic terms). A tad sarcastic but oh so accurate:

In olden times, armies would lay siege to cities to cut them off from outside trade. The strategy forced the city to “buy local” until it was so prosperous that everyone was too rich and lazy to fight. (Rocco Stanzione)

All this transition towns, localism and such like is quite simply protectionism given a different name. And the only beneficiaries of protectionism are the protected businesses. No-one else benefits.

....

Empathy in regeneration: hugging the poor and saying 'there, there'

****

Julia Unwin, boss of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has written a book about combatting poverty. I have yet to read it but I'm pretty sure it will be the usual curate's egg of calls for government intervention and creative ideas for responding to the inefficient distribution of economic gain.

However, the response of some - in this case Neil McInroy from the Centre for Local Economic Studies - is to return to the idea that economic reality shouldn't be described because it's insufficiently empathetic. And worse to suggest that our policy-making should be guided by empathy not evidence:

Too often policy has little empathy toward the poorest.  We already know that the policy default settings, such as trickle down and a ‘rising economic tide will lift all boats’ are just not strong enough to tackle poverty, even in times of growth.  But increasingly, some policy seems alarmingly detached from the plight of the poorest.

For Neil and his ilk, asking why people are poor rather than merely how we should relieve that poverty is a problem. Rather than seeking to eliminate the causes of poverty - why people rely on state-handouts, how some people fail and require relief, the way in which the economy (and society) places barriers preventing escape from poverty - Neil wants us to carry on with his cuddly consensus, with policies best described as "giving the poor a big hug and saying 'there, there'."

Empathy is fine but saying that it necessarily describes the actions - the distorting interventions of Neil's preference - required is to misuse emotion as a policy tool. Emotion guides us to the need to act not the nature of that action. And we've used Neil's qualitative, judging approaches to policy for 40 years - during which time the poorest places in England have remained just that, the poorest places in England.

I don't care how much empathy Neil has - his policy prescription, currently dubbed "place-based" but in reality a localised protectionism, will act only to make matters worse for the poor with whom he empathises so readily. These 'place-based' policies are fantastic for the better off in poorer places - they love all the growing stuff, the collectives, the community meetings. But the poor aren't included - they're looking on as cheaper food is denied, as business is condemned and as a fake "resilience" makes the world less open and more expensive.

Empathy is a fine emotion. But is isn't any sort of guide to what we should do to make people's lives better.

....

So much for localism...

****

Councils can have localism just so long as they do as they're told by the unelected:

The research shows more than half of the 55 non-London local plans submitted to the Planning Inspectorate under the new system proposed a reduction in housing targets.

However, of the 18 plans passed by inspectors, eight were forced to increase their housing targets. Just two plans have been passed with lower housing numbers than set by the old regional planning targets and government household projections.

Not releasing land for housing may be wrong. It may be right. But if we really believe in giving local communities power it's for them to make those right and wrong decisions not an unelected inspector.

....

First salvo in the town planners' war on community is fired...

****

I recall a planner - a very senior planner - describing the localism act and its neighbourhood planning ideas as "the thin end of the wedge". It is a threat to their power and control - and they want it stopped:

The neighbourhood plan for Dawlish had been drawn up by a steering group of local representatives, including Dawlish Town Council and Teignbridge District Council.

The plan, which proposes 900 new homes over the next 20 years, has been examined by Christopher Balch, professor of planning at Plymouth University.

This is the first - an experiment that looked to be going well until this representative of the planning world arrived:

Balch’s report, published today, said that the plan reflected the National Planning Policy Framework by "providing a positive approach to plan-led growth". But he added that "it is not possible to demonstrate that the provision for housing growth is based on an objective assessment of housing requirements", as Teignbridge District Council’s emerging core strategy is yet to have been settled.

You see, dear readers, the local community had done it for themselves and hadn't employed the services of Professor Balch or his pals. So:

Balch said that Dawlish’s proposed neighbourhood plan is "neither positively prepared nor justified".

His report recommends that the Dawlish neighbourhood plan should not proceed to a referendum. In a letter to the council, Balch said: "This could only take place once the strategic policies of Teignbridge District Council have been settled and changes had been made to ensure full conformity."

That's it - the plans are no good because they don't confirm with other plans that have yet to be drawn up. Other plans that will involve planners not the local communities. And so - in my judgement contrary to the spirit of localism - Professor Balch, in the interest of planners everywhere has fired the first salvo in their resistance to communities having any say in what is, or is not, built in those communities.

I hope the referendum goes ahead and sticks Professor Balch's report where the sun don't shine.

....

The only way to achieve this would be to scrap it...

****

...surely?

The Government attempted to quell concern that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could effectively become a ‘development tax’ this week, during a Lords debate on the Localism Bill.

Since it is a government impost on development, it is surely a tax? After all, if the developer thought that "community infrastructure" necessary it would build it and cost it within the proposed development?

The only way to stop it being a development tax would be to scrap it or make it voluntary.

....

How to create a housing crisis - remove the right to develop!

Amidst all the special pleading and NIMBY critiques of proposals to change the planning system – you know make it a little simpler so as to allow decisions on development to make some sense just occasionally – not many people have stopped to think.

Firstly, when I say planners are anti-business and anti-market I mean it. This doesn’t make them evil but it does reflect the fact that the planner’s job is to control development (these days, in a fit of correctness, it is termed “development management”). So, whatever those planners might say, their activity represents a cost to the developer – to business – that distorts the market. However much this ‘development management’ might be a good thing, its advocates cannot argue that they do not distort the market and add costs to development.

Secondly the idea of devolving planning responsibility to local communities is a good one. For years planning decisions have been made in the context of a room filled with seemingly endless policies, statements, guidance and precedence leaving the local councillors charged with the decision (subject to costly appeal of course) with little or no choice. Replacing this vast overload of regulation with 52 pages of a National Planning Policy Framework (ideally enshrined in statute and therefore not subject to the usual ministerial mission creep) is a good thing. As indeed is recognising that communities can and should be allowed a substantial input to the rules under which development decisions in their community are made.

But this devolution requires a balance – a protection against the inevitable NIMBY and BANANA objections. We have to state – right at the top of the page in big capital letters – that, ceteris paribus, the owner of a property has a right to develop that property. And to profit from that development if that is his intention. If we do not have this right, we grant to neighbours the power – given the tyranny of democracy – to stop any development.

The proposed “presumption” in favour of “sustainable” development does precisely this – it recognises that the planning system already presumes in favour of development (if the plan says a piece of land is housing land it will be developed as such however much neighbours campaign to stop the development) and adds a caveat of “sustainability” that may or may not actually mean something. There is little substantially different in this from the current over-complex system.

The challenge for local communities is to take the offer on the table – and local councils should support them in this – and develop plans that allow for housing development, that recognise the need for rented housing and that are determined by local need and demand rather than by the decisions of some distant bureaucrat who has never visited nor is likely to visit.

In Cullingworth, increasing the size of the village by around 10% would not be a problem – this is 100-150 houses and there are existing permissions for around 70 already. The remainder could come from developing sites within the current village boundary and permitting the conversion of redundant agricultural buildings to residential use. This would not impact on the ‘green belt’ nor would it need to be done in one fell swoop - it could be spread across a flexible ten-year plan period.

Scale this sort of locally-led approach to development up across the country – assume that current permissions will be developed and that historic designations for housing (however much we may not support them) will remain – and the one million or so houses we need can be delivered without the sort of high profile “they’re concreting over the countryside” campaigns we are familiar with through the pages of the newspapers.

It is this approach that could come from the localism proposals and the limiting of national direction over planning. But we cannot further nationalise property rights by removing the presumption in favour of development – that would be wrong and, just as bad, would make existing challenges meeting housing need, especially in the south east into a real crisis.

....

Planners aren't anti-business. Oh no...

****

Both Civic Voice and the RTPI are concerned that government amendments to the Localism Bill in May, which would allow neighbourhood forums to be created solely for "promoting the carrying on of trades, professions or other businesses in such an area", will give business too much power to create neighbourhood plans to suit their needs other those of local communities.

Got that folks - the planning system cannot be used positively to promote business - or that's what the Royal Town Planning Institute want. And they say they're not anti-business?

...

A question for Peter Oborne - and maybe for central office

****

According to Peter Oborne, my election campaign is being centrally directed and is an insult to localism. Well, not mine but Tory local election campaigns in general:

For there is a paradox at the heart of the Conservative campaign. It has been expertly managed by Stephen Gilbert, the Prime Minister’s political secretary. Local candidates have been sent template leaflets which, while leaving space for the insertion of local messages, are in all essentials produced in Conservative HQ. 

I guess I'd better get onto Mr Gilbert (whoever he might be) and ask where my leaflets are then!

This article - and I like Peter Oborne - is a classic example of swallowing whatever arrogant cant some bloke 'close' to the PM tells you. It's utter piffle.

...

Thoughts on the planning system....

I was thinking today - in one of those idle moments - why it is that we are so conflicted about ownership. And, more importantly, why we persist in the almost feudal belief that ownership is a permission rather than a right.

Except of course that, in the case of real estate and related property rights, this is the case. We are, de facto, serfs and have been since 1947:

In 1947 the Town & Country Planning Act was published, providing the first comprehensive basis for the control of development and land uses in this country. Before 1947 the use of land and development was largely uncontrolled, although some limitations were exercised through Public Health and local Acts.

The 1947 Act introduced a comprehensive system for the control of development and since then (with some specific exceptions) no land owner has been entitled to carry out any development without first obtaining the necessary planning permission.

You can only make use of your real estate property with the permission of government. Only those uses that our masters permit are allowed. And the government can (and does) act precipitously, aggressively and arbitrarily to enforce its feudal authority over our land.

While other parts of the 1945-1950 Labour Government's attempts to enforce socialism through fiat are gradually being dismantled (the nationalisation of industry, elements of the "welfare state", the assumptions of free care and so on), nobody - not even the most swivel-eyed right winger - is questioning whether we should start to dismantle the "planning system".

The current coalition government is saying that its "open source planning" proposals represent a dramatic and radical shift in the planning system. Which at one level is true - the 'regional' agenda is removed and greater 'community engagement' is promised. But the truly radical change - a real presumption in favour of development - is nowhere to be seen. Planners will still cling to their authoritarian powers to direct the uses of our land and can still, at the stroke of a pen, turn someone from a pauper to a plutocrat. And they love it - and hate any diminution of their power:

The Institute said it was particularly concerned that the government’s proposals to abolish regional planning – contained in the proposed Decentralisation and Localism Bill – are based mainly on an objection to imposed regional housing targets rather than to the principle of strategic planning.

The RTPI added that it “strongly advocates” the need for strategic-level planning that co-ordinates development and infrastructure between different areas, provides a wide range of environmental policies, and ensures that the needs of the wider than local community are properly addressed.

You can't just let people decide for themselves what to do with land - it might not be 'strategic' (whatever that may mean)! The truth is that these powers, linked to what the Yanks call 'eminent domain' and we call 'compulsory purchase', provide government with the ability to confiscate land for almost any purpose.

Giving local places more controls is a real step forward - and the 'community right to build' (the 'thin end of the wedge' as I heard one planner call it) allows communities to make development choices themselves rather than allowing the planners to make their random, arbitrary 'strategic' choices. But we need to go further - to really trust local places to discuss, debate and negotiate development between landowners, builders and the people whose amenity is directly affected by that development. Without the expensive, rules-bound, legalistic planning system to prevent sensible, locally-supported developments proceeding.

I spend more time arguing for flexibility in 'green belt' controls - to permit farm conversions, to allow holiday lets, to facilitate modern farming practice and to let landowners make careful, supported decisions about sensitive landscape - than I do "defending" that green belt from rapacious developers.

Perhaps what we need is a real local 'tribunal' process - with our without us councillors - that arbitrates between the landowner's rights and the rights of those affected by development. All the volumes of planning guidance (or "statements" as they now are) do not help this process - they merely act as a barrier. This isn't an argument for scrapping planning but a case for trusting local people and the people they elect to make the right decisions - free from lawyers, planners and inspectors.

....

Bradford could just give Cullingworth the cash and let us get on with it?

****

There’s a dawning realisation that – while the ‘cuts’ will result in an net increase in Government spending by 2014 – they are going to have a massive impact on the delivery of services. Already we see the doom and gloom headlines:

Birmingham City Council to make £230m of savings

Or

Chief executive Tony Reeves can't rule out compulsory redundancies

Or

5,600 Bristol public sector jobs are set to be axed within six years

The volume of ill-informed shouting is rising (such as describing £230 million from a £3,500 million budget as 25%) and this is drowning out those voices asking whether this really is a chance to do things rather differently. And within the Councils themselves the focus is on those elusive, mythical beasts – “efficiency savings”. Recruitment freezes (a further joyous nail in the Guardian’s coffin I hope), better sickness management, senior management restructures, facililies consolidation and the delights of ‘cuts talk’.

What I don’t hear from these big councils is – we’ll stop doing it. Let’s hand our assets over to community organisations, to parish councils, to new trusts. Let’s find out whether effective, flexible public service delivery is possible without the superstructure of massive local council bureaucracy. And let’s try out other solutions – social enterprise, the voluntary sector, small business, co-ops, self-help groups – to delivering local services.

Perhaps we might take the idea of a ‘place cheque’ promoted so keenly by the Local Government Association and apply it to local communities – handing over the cash the Bradford spends in Cullingworth on street cleaning, emptying bins, filling in potholes, fixing street lights and providing a warden service. And the parish council, the ward members, the village hall management and others can buy the services we need – back from the Council or from other suppliers if that’s our wish.

It has to be worth a try – but I’ll be holding my breath a long time before we see it happen!

...

Remember localism? It means local councils decide officers' pay not the Chancellor!

***

I’m probably in a minority but I think the posing and posturing from all three parties over the pay of senior public servants misses the point by quite a few miles. Now don’t get me wrong, I think that we need to be careful stewards of public funds (now that would be an original thought) but paying someone running a £1 billion plus organisation like a large local authority £150,000 or so doesn’t seem all that unreasonable. I’d like to make them a bit more accountable but that’s got nothing to do with pay.

And more to the point - if we believe in localism then what a local council pays its chief executive, director of development or chief street sweeper is nothing at all to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister or indeed any of the dysfunctional shower down in Westminster. It's for elected local councillors to decide. Understand Dave?

...

Dear Caroline...don't we believe in localism?

***

Caroline Spelman, the Shadow local government and communities secretary has decided to go into bat for the owners of crap local papers. You know the ones - not much news and a declining readership of mostly elderly folk.

Now local councils have realised that communicating with the public - a duty of theirs - is not well served by relying on local papers that two-thirds or more of local residents don't read. These Councils produce their own newspapers - Bradford does this with the (multi-award winning) Community Pride.

However, Ms Spelman is entitled to her opinion. If she thinks local newspapers are fab that's just dandy. But what she's proposing - changing the law to stop local councils producing their own news sheets - is wrong. And none of her business. If local councillors decide that this approach is best for the residents they serve that should be their choice. Of course if those residents agree with Caroline they can vote someone else in, collect petitions, write to the paper or whatever.

Caroline - our policy is called LOCALISM, That means it's our bloody decision not yours. Understand?


(Editors note: my wife is Advertising Director for a local newspaper and has approved this post)
...

I want my government to be local, approachable and effective - not merely "efficient"

I recall Arnold Moore, the Managing Director of Knightsbridge Furniture Productions, explaining to me about BS5750 (for young folk that's ISO9000). It was roughly like this:

"You see Simon, I have to have BS5750 because I sell to hospitals. It means I can make good or bad furniture - but whichever it is is do it consistently."

I was reminded of this occasion by an item (I can't credit mutual back-slapping with the term "debate") on this morning's Today programme between Sir Michael Bichard and Prof Tony Travers from the LSE. The discussion was supposedly about "localism" (which presumably is why the BBC had a former Whitehall civil servant and a big government academic to comment) but focuses mostly on a strange beast called "Total Place". This wondrous innovation excites all the bureaucrats but is just another sad little attempt to join up the activities of different government "agencies" at the local level.

And the focus? you've guessed it - greater "efficiency". The same driver that created big national quangos, huge distant "unitary" authorities and the commoditisation of local services. The aim is to "deliver" those services very efficiently - a task that is achieved at the cost of any personality, variety or local interest. So-called "community consultation" replaces the ability of the ordinary resident to actually speak with someone who actually delivers the service that person wants to receive.

What we've lost in this drive for efficiency is a sense that services have to be effective - to aim to give to the resident what that resident actually wants from their government. We're told we should be pleased when a rubbish collection service gets an 80% satisfaction rating! That's one out of every five people who are not happy? If these services faced competition they would really struggle on those performance levels - regardless of their financial or operational efficiency (much of which as connoisseurs of the "Gershon Efficiencies" will know is fiction).

For all its hype "Total Place" is just an add on to LAAs, CAAs and all the recent paraphernalia of "joined-up" government. And the truth? Until we allow local control of decision-making across these areas - which means local control of police, health and environment - we will not get effective services. What we will get is an endless set of initiatives driven by cod efficiency and centre-focused bureaucratic culture.

A I've said before the real test of "localism" is when government gives local institutions back to the people. I'll believe the fat cats of central government's pontificating about "localism" when this happens and not before.