Localism under attack

Alas, poor Localism! What cries are committed in thy name! As the Localism Bill makes it way towards royal assent the principle that local communities should be entrusted with determining what they want to happen in their localities is under attack from all sides – because it turns out political parties can’t bear to empower people in case they make the “wrong” decisions. Fresh on the heels of the draft NPPF – which suggests that neighbourhood plans are only Good Things if they want even more growth than any other planning policy under the sun – Labour’s shadow housing spokesman Jack Dromey (the man selected from an all-woman shortlist) has suggested that regional strategies centrally imposed need to be brought back (apparently the empirical evidence of their lack of success last time round doesn’t matter).

A more creative use of politicians’ time might be to identify ways of financing infrastructure investment so that it can precede growth rather than follow it (“we don’t mind more homes but we can’t cope with the numbers we’ve already got” has to be one of the commonly used phrases among councillors) and finding the courage to lead from the front in local areas and make a positive case for more growth (something the draft NPPF had the courage to do).

Nick Stanton, Lib Dem consultant, Curtin&Co

Lib Dem conference 2011

Following this year’s Autumn conference, Lib Dems have been left to reflect on a difficult 500 days in coalition. The focus has been on the lessons the party can learn from its time in government to date, and how it can continue to influence the legislative agenda moving forward.

Coverage of the conference has tried to paint the familiar picture of a frustrated, majority left-wing party membership who feel dissatisfied with the party’s current direction, and particularly the leadership of Nick Clegg. There is certainly an element that conforms to this but, as has been noted by figures within the party, the picture is far more complex.

The party leadership are delivering the “strength through compromise, nation before party, people before politics” message with far greater conviction and confidence. One is still left with the impression that the virtues of compromise are being sold to the membership by Ministers on a continual basis, but they are no longer doing so in the phase of mass discontent and scepticism.

Chris Huhne, amongst others, used the American Right’s failure to compromise on economic reform and the near-dire consequences as an effective illustration of the risks involved in ‘playing politics with the economy’. Continued unease has perhaps in this sense bought the coalition time and lent credibility to the government’s overarching and continued emphasis on 'stability at all costs'.

Of course, despite these moderate positives, voting figures over the past year are a real wake-up call.

The local election results and heavy loss on the AV referendum were an absolute disaster and something that the party will have to come to terms with. The post-mortem into the AV capaign has been abandoned as part of this process - probably no bad thing.

In spite of teh above, there does seem to be a feeling that the party is beginning to turn a corner, or at least that it has begun to feel more comfortable in its own skin.

However, in its response to a number of controversial areas of government policy,it is fair to see that the party has not been brave, particularly in confronting public scepticism over one of the supposed ‘shared values’ of the coalition partners – that of Localism.

The recent media furore surrounding the draft NPPF and the DCLG’s response to this border-line crisis will have caused real concern.

David Cameron entertained the National Trust and CPRE this week and will have had a difficult time dispelling some of the misinformation identified in the DCLG’s recent “Myth-buster” document.

Defining the term “sustainable development” (for which the draft NPPF proposes a presumption in favour) is a key step in giving campaign groups and communities the confidence that Neighbourhood Plans and other key elements of the Localism Bill will carry real weight, and that the process of consultation on the NPPF is not simply a cosmetic exercise.

A difficult tight-rope to walk for the coalition in providing any detailed reassurance on the issue whilst continuing to promote development and growth – let’s see if Ed Miliband can do better and provide a coherent alternative through ‘Mutualism’ next week.

Ally Kennedy,
Liberal Democrat Consultant

The NPPF a missed opportunity

The draft NPPF has received a bit of a kicking in the national press over the past couple of months. What started out as a little talked of policy paper, quietly ushered out in July of this year, has led to all out conflict, between the Department of Communities and Local Government, and just about everyone else. The participation of prominent groups in the debate, including the National Trust, has propelled the issue to the forefront of public attention.

In the face of a sudden tide of opposition the Government leapt to the NPPF's defence, by producing a three paged ‘Myth Busting’ fact sheet on the DCLG website, which was supposed to answer all questions and allay any concerns people might have about it. This exercise amounted to little more than a poor PR stunt, which has unsurprisingly done nothing to change public opinion.

After all, by that stage, people had already come to their own conclusions about the NPPF, namely, that it represents a developers charter, with presumption in favour of development meaning that local people will not get to have a say in the future of their neighbourhoods.

This is largely a problem of the Government’s own making. At the time the document was produced they focused their attention on the ‘cutting of red tape’ angle, trumpeting the fact that they were shortening the planning policy from 1000 pages to 50 pages. The details of the policy were largely irrelevant at the time, and this has contributed to the problems the Government is currently facing.

This follows a familiar pattern of policies set out by this Government. The so-called cutting of red tape and the abolition of bureaucracy is all too often used as the reason for a policy, rather than as a by-product of good policy.

No one thinks that there should be unnecessary rules and red tape holding back the building of new affordable homes, and no one could seriously argue against the need to stimulate the economy through the construction industry.

These arguments are now likely to fall on deaf ears, as the Government did not come out all guns blazing in the first place promoting the policy in these terms.

What is a pity is that there is now so much public opposition to the NPPF, that there is a good chance it will disappear altogether, or be substantially watered down. If this does happen, it will be entirely the fault of the Government for the way it handled this issue. They will then have to think long and hard about how they intend to solve the pressing need for affordable housing in this country.

David Scane

David Scane is an experienced Labour Party Campaigner having worked for the Party in the run up to the 2010 General Election at their Central Office. He has previously worked in Parliament for a Shadow Minister , and in the constituency office of former Labour MP for Battersea Martin Linton.

City Hall Renaissance?

The Government’s Localism Bill is being amended in the Lords to allow England’s major cities to have more powers devolved to them to promote economic growth.

Appreciating the desperate need for economic growth on a day that it was announced unemployment has increased by 80,000 people to 2.51million over the last quarter, these changes offer the possibility something quite special and absolutely critical.

In the ‘heyday’ of local government town halls were the driving force for economic growth. It was Manchester, Newcastle and Birmingham that where the powerhouses of entrepreneurial endeavour and these cities generated the economic boom of the industrial revolution. Look at their glorious town hall buildings to see the history of their power and grandeur built on the back of economic success.

The amendments proposed by peers would enable ministers to devolve powers to cities on a case-by-case basis, without the need for further legislation. It would open the door for cities to gain greater control over policy areas such as economic growth, housing & planning and regeneration.

Cities would also be free to cooperate and work together, pooling resources across functioning economic areas. How this will all work alongside LEP and Enterprise Zones is detail which will need working out.

The devolution deal was first proposed by the Core Cities Group, which represents England’s eight largest cities outside London – Bristol, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield – which deliver 27 per cent of the national economy.

Could this be a rebirth of big city town hall local government, I guess the answer will depend largely on the quality of the leadership in these councils, one thing is certain though, if the devolution of these powers goes ahead we will see more local accountability which cannot be a bad thing, and it may result in a change to the makeup of the councils. This just might be the beginning of a City Hall Renaissance.

Paul Harvey

Paul is a Curtin&Co Consultant and former Leader of Basinstoke & Deane Borough Council. He is also a current councillor in Basingstoke's Norden ward, and Leader of the Basingstoke Labour Group

Lost in Interpretation

In yesterday’s Telegraph, John Rhodes suggests that the Coalition’s planning agenda is supposed to promote more development and not give communities the power to block new homes, infrastructure or employment sites. It’s no secret that the economy needs more homes to be built so that sounds like a good thing. The problem is that it is not just a matter of how the Localism Bill and NPPF were intended to work; it is also a matter of how they are interpreted locally.

In many Conservative-controlled rural councils, even before the Coalition was in power, there was a view that all talk of development, RSS numbers and planning applications should stop until they were given the ultimate authority to decide by the Localism Bill. In some areas (particularly cities and new towns), the decision was to continue to promote more house-building and development; but in many it was assumed that Localism meant no more housing could be “forced” on their local communities.

Whilst the limitations of this view are now visibly settling and councils do appear to be taking more of a pragmatic approach, the rhetoric of Localism – local decisions made by local people; neighbourhood planning; local choice in development – has taken hold and councillors and residents’ groups are already using it to support their arguments.

If the Government really wants to increase the amount of development across the country and it wants local people to support it then it is first going to have to find a way of communicating the genuine need and tangible benefits which it brings; in the rural areas and the south-east as well as the cities.

Catherine Worboys, Managing Director, Curtin&Co

Government "all in" on housing

"George Osborne’s foray into the planning row concerning the draft NPPF now engulfing the coalition government will only serve to heighten tensions and provoke angry responses. But why is he wading in?

The economic meltdown now facing the US and Europe is causing the government to react, and the NPPF is a part of that. It is certainly a Treasury driven document.

The economic realities of a possible double dip recession, the reported growth in youth unemployment and the reported slow down in the construction industry have all led to calls from leading economists for the government to change tack. The Manager of PIMCO, one of the largest investment funds, Bill Gross, has warned George Osborne that his austerity measures risk pushing the UK into recession. In an interview with The Times, Gross called on Osborne to rethink the strategy, arguing UK economic conditions had proved it was not working. “'The UK economy in the UK is worse off than it was when the plan was developed”.

So the drive for growth and the presumption in favour of development enshrined within the draft NPPF becomes ever more critical and ever more needed in the eyes of government. Of course politically George Osborne cannot be seen to be changing tack, but as Harold Macmillan said, “events dear boy, events”, have a habit of knocking politicians off course.

There is real fear that the economy is about to take a nose dive, there are red lights all over the economic data and with the US and European Banks taking money out of the European Banking system the bad news just keeps on coming.

Now take the fact the construction industry and housing has been such a driver for economic growth in the UK and the Treasury’s need for the NPPF to open the door to greater house building, and to unlock the door to development over the protests of communities becomes the central driver for policy making.

The row over the NPPF has been heated between the CPRE, National Trust and the Tory led government. It is surreal to see Tory ministers in stand up rows with those who they courted the support of for years, but now they see the economic reality staring them in the face the choices could not be starker.

The row over the NPPF prompted 23 former Royal Town Planning Institute presidents to call for "reasoned debate and clear thinking" in a letter to the Telegraph last week.

So when Osborne weighs into the debate on the NPPF and planning reforms saying they are 'key to our economic recovery', and writing that "no one should underestimate our determination to win this battle". The stakes keep on being raised. The government is at an important crossroads and Localism looks like it may be mortally wounded by the harsh economic reality of austerity and the fact the Treasury has no plan B."

Paul Harvey

Paul is a Curtin&Co Consultant and former Leader of Basinstoke & Deane Borough Council. He is also a current councillor in Basingstoke's Norden ward, and Leader of the Basingstoke Labour Group

Cooperativism and Mutualism

Localism is the word of the moment. Column inches have been devoted to interpreting it, claiming to understand it, and predicting what it will mean. It looks likely that by November the Localism Bill, which is one of the largest and most far reaching pieces of legislation in recent years, will become Law, and then…..well, the floodgates will open. Local Councils will rush to pick up the powers and run with new and quite different interpretations of what it will mean.

The simple point to always hold in your mind is that the Government does not have a grand design, and that the purpose of Localism is to create such a patchwork quilt of interpretation.

I think it is fair to say Labour has struggled to find a meaningful response to the Localism Bill and more so the full Localism agenda. The Parliamentary Labour Party has rightly sniped away at some of the more ludicrous elements of the Bill which centralises power within the DCLG when the Bill professes to be about de-centralisation. However, Labour needs a coherent answer to this fundamental theme of the coalition Government.

Localism’s Achilles heel is that it is meaningless. What the Bill unleashes is a series of changes in housing policy and planning policy which will radically alter the world around us. But the meaning of Localism is lost in these far deeper and more disturbing changes.

The Bill will have huge impacts on social housing, it will redraw the scope of housing benefit and the delivery of affordable housing and it will lead to a tragedy in housing in general. If you remember ‘Cathy come home’ I think you can safely say that the impact of the changes to affordable housing will be that catastrophic. In essence the Tories have signalled the death of social housing.

Labour needs a repost to this and the answer for the party is in-fact not coming from the top but from the Labour controlled authorities in London and major metropolitan councils.

The unwritten story of the general election in 2010 was the huge success that Labour had in London in the local elections held on the same day. Winning control of 9 Councils it was a good night for the Labour Party in London.

These new Labour Councils have a had a year to begin to address the job of running a Council in the era of austerity and facing the huge cuts imposed by Central Government on Local Government.

Lambeth is setting the standard by championing the idea of a Cooperative Council. The idea of mutualism and cooperativism runs deep in the Labour Party, and these themes have been asserted in a lot of discussion about ‘Blue Labour’. The difference between the theorising of ‘Blue Labour’ and the reality of Labour politics in action is that Lambeth is actually delivering a model of a Co-operative Council.

The Co-operative Council draws inspiration from the values of fairness, accountability and responsibility. A Co-operative Council is about finding new ways in which people can participate in the decisions that affect their lives. The Co-operative Council is also not just about changing the council, it is about building more co-operative communities and realising that, for too long, councils have stood in the way rather than supported this development. A Co-operative Council seeks to do things with its community rather than do things to the community.

“This new approach to public service delivery aims to reshape the settlement between citizens and the state by handing more power to local people so that a real partnership of equals can emerge. I believe the huge level of interest in our ideas both locally and nationally is driven by a genuine desire to find new and better ways to deliver public services in the 21st century. Although we publish this report at a time of unprecedented Government cuts in funding for local services, ours is not a cuts-driven agenda. I believe that if we do not make this change then the future of public services will be much more uncertain.”

Cllr Steve Reed, Leader of Lambeth Council

Labour has a far more radical and far more meaningful repost to the Tory idea of Localism. The interesting point for local authorities up and down the rest of the country is that they will need to better understand what they are about, what they are there for. Localism will unwittingly create an accountability that will painfully expose those councils that suffer from weak leadership.

The planning process is then a part of this transformation and as Labour takes control of more authorities over the next few years of local elections, the change in the way Localism is actually implemented will hold greater meaning. The idea of a Co-operative Council is quite exciting because Localism will let this Labour idea grow and mature.

The national planning framework will set out the new principles of planning; but let’s not forget not a lot will actually change, LDF’s remain and so too the national targets for housing.

Lambeth, like other local authorities looking to deliver a Cooperative Council model, offer a solid direction of travel that grasps the opportunity Localism presents, but puts a Labour perspective on it.

The Treasury know that in most Tory authorities the idea of development and planning is dominated by a NIMBY agenda, and in a complete contradiction to the Localism Bill their proposals, now adopted by the DCLG and out for consultation, will allow developers to purchase employment land, change its use to residential without the need for planning permission and then submit an application in which the change of use is no longer a material reason for rejection. This will likely create a significant amount of windfall development that falls outside of local plans and therefore the Tory Councils can claim to have stuck to their local housing targets, and the Treasury can claim to be driving growth through greater house building. The irony of Localism will not see local people in greater control of development in their neighbourhoods; that will not be a reality of Localism.

So within that vacuum and sense of disappointment that will grow under the Localism Act the Labour Party can and should fill it with a better and far more meaningful answer based on Cooperativism and mutualism. The next few years will be some of the most interesting and uncertain as this whole new political landscape becomes a reality in practice.

Dr Paul Harvey, Curtin&Co, Labour Consultant

A Consevative election review

So what’s the verdict on the first set of nationwide elections since the General election?

Most Conservatives would admit to being in a bit of a daze, we were anticipating a battering and the loss of up to one thousand seats we were defending. Quite incredibly we actually increased our councillor base, admittedly just by 81 at the time of writing but this was the last thing we anticipated.

The Liberal Democrats, as expected, fared badly but even worse than was imagined. Of the 1800 seats they were defending, they lost over 700; almost 40%. Whilst the Lib Dem High Command swung quickly into defensive mode about Nick Clegg’s position, there will be a large section of the voluntary party that will be very uneasy about the combined loss of so many councillors, key flagship councils and the AV vote.

So what about Labour? On paper they look to be the main beneficiaries but this is deceptive. Whilst they did well in some areas, they failed to make significant breakthroughs in much of the country, which explains why the Conservatives did so much better than expected. Ed Miliband had a golden opportunity to cement his slightly precarious leadership with a solid set of results and he failed to deliver. As a result he will continue to suffer from mutterings about his leadership.

So what are the implications of these results?

The high tide of conservative fortunes in the local government world, which I had predicted as having started to turn last year, is still in and looks to stay for a little longer. Cameron will feel obliged to try and help protect Clegg’s flank with a raft of legislative sweetners and other bolsters. The Conservative Parliamentary party which tolerates rather than enthuses over the coalition will get increasingly belligerent over what they see as being too many compromises. Whilst there is widespread relief over the AV result in much of the Conservative Party, this will only deliver a certain amount of political credit for Cameron at a time when it was running dangerously low.

The Lib Dems could go through one of their frenzied internecine periods with a leadership election. Huhne who was widely seen as lining himself for such a tilt may be damaged beneath the waterline by imminent reveleations from his former wife. That leaves Cable and Fallon as the only obvious alternatives. Both are left to the current leadership but more in tune with the party grassroots, but the key question is if there is a change of leadership what else is going to change. The Lib Dems have very limited room for manoeuvre as coalition partners, they are already getting significant manifesto commitments delivered. The only significant change left is a looser coalition arrangement or a complete splitting altogether. Both could be suicide for the parliamentary party but it does have form on this.

And finally, what of the Labour party? It will be pleased with the direction of travel its 800 plus seats gives but disappointed not to have done better. Scotland will be a major disappointment and, as I said earlier, speculation over its leader will continue.

Frank Browne, Conservative Consultant, Curtin&Co

May 5th predictions

We now have less than a week to go before the first major elections after the 2010 General Election. You can feel the tension in the air as politicians of all parties up and down the length and breadth of the country are anticipating the results.

YouGov published a poll on April 24^th for the Sun that showed the Liberals had slipped to a 20 year low of just 7%. Labour were on 43%, and the Tories 39%. Predictions based on national polls are pretty inaccurate because local factors in a local election can, and often do, make a difference.

One thing is clear from the doorstep, the Liberals are in uncharted waters. They have never campaigned as the Government before, and their usual position as the protest party has gone. In this election they have become the party a lot of people are protesting about. The Liberal vote in this scenario is vulnerable and the response from voters is clear they are leaving the sinking ship.

Nick Clegg is one of the most unpopular leaders of any party in recent history, and his personal journey from the anointed success of the General Election to almost pariah status today is unprecedented. The Liberals cannot escape what they have done in Government, and for the first time they will be held accountable at the ballot box and it doesn’t look good for them.

The Tories are playing things carefully, they know they will lose seats to Labour, and that the national picture will look very different on May 6^th, but they may feel emboldened by their relative survival in the face of a Liberal collapse. Watch out for expectation management of all the parties. Labour will talk of slow progress, the Liberals of losing to a national mood, and the Tories will talk of the high watermark they achieved last time, and this is purely a natural readjustment of that. Truth is the Liberals and Tories will lose badly and Labour will gain.

The bigger question that begs to be answered is at what point do the Tories pull the plug on the coalition and go for a General Election in the hope of an overall majority?

Labour meanwhile will begin its rehabilitation in the eyes of voters, gaining seats on a scale it hasn’t seen for over 15 years. Major cities, including key councils like Trafford, Reading, Newcastle and Sheffield will all swing back to Labour. Even in the leafy shires Labour will begin to regain previously lost ground. This is will improve Labour’s activist base and demoralise the opposition. It is fair to argue that at the moment Labour is the only opposition party to the Tories, and in many cases the real choice instead of the Liberals.

May 5^th will be a watershed for many reasons, not least for those poor foot-soldiers of each party who will win and lose. We forget sometimes how much personal effort and commitment councillors give in getting elected or trying to stay elected. May 5^th will shape the political narrative, we’ll just have wait and see what the voters actually serve up.

Dr Paul Harvey, Labour Consultant, Curtin&Co

Time for a Quickie Divorce ?

Last month I wrote how the AV referendum had the potential of sowing the seeds of destruction for the coalition government.

The latest turf war suggests the break up might be more imminent.

It is almost unprecedented that cabinet ministers criticise each other in public and the tone of the recent carping by Huhne and Cable suggest a deliberate fracturing could be about to take place.

It is increasingly difficult to see how the growing divisions can be smoothed over that is if the protagonists even want them to be.

So what is going on?

Huhne’s behaviour could be interpreted as a softening up exercise ahead of a leadership challenge to Clegg.

Remember this man would have won the Lib Dem leadership had it not been for delays caused by the Christmas post.

Not a member of the Orange Book clique that is more comfortable in the coalition, he is more in tune with the majority of the Lib Dem party membership and could well harness the significant unease that is likely to erupt after the inevitable bloody nose the party will receive on May 5th.

Meanwhile, stage left, Cable is almost daring Cameron to sack him. His manoeuvring is more difficult to interpret, if it is a thought out ploy but could be seen as a possible precursor to a splintering of the party or a jump to the Labour party.

If the referendum is lost, informed insiders believe Cable’s behaviour might be an attempt to negotiate another referendum with the Labour Party. Quite how realistic this is has to be questioned.

Behind these scenes of internecine manoeuvring, the mutterings are growing in the Conservative ranks. Talk of more compromises to prop up an embattled Clegg is met with an increasing belligerence. Cameron is busy using up his political capital and there will come a time when the predominantly right wing parliamentary party is going to put its foot down. Whilst there is no talk of a leadership challenge, Cameron will find his room for manoeuvre increasingly restricted.

Hang onto your seats for an interesting six months.

Frank Browne, Conservative Consultant, Curtin&Co