People are getting more and more disenchanted and disenfranchised with the political process, so they are voting with their feet and increasingly not turning up at polling day.
But why is this? There has been much research and analysis in this area but there does not appear to be any conclusive evidence in one direction or another. It is generally felt that people feel that politics does not try to make any connections with them and they feel so distant from the key decisions of those in power.
So is localism the answer, especially in the way that promotes ideas of people and communities being part of the decision-making process on local public services that are delivered in their area? But will the dark forces of centralism and the state allow this?
Participation is about bringing local communities closer to decision-making about key services that affect their daily lives. It is the embodiment of direct, deliberative democracy.Participation allows the citizens of an area (neighbourhood, regeneration or local authority area) to take part in the allocation of part of the local council’s or other statutory agency's (health services, police) key decisions. The aims of participation are to increase transparency, accountability, understanding and social inclusion in local government affairs.
However, local people need to be empowered with information to enable them to engage in a meaningful way when prioritising the needs of their neighbourhoods, proposing and debating new services and projects, and setting budgets in a democratic and transparent way.
For instance, the Conservative Party’s policy planning green paper, Open Space, proposes major changes in our beloved planning system, including giving local (parish and town) council more status and virtually a right of veto over any nearby developments. But how are the choices and the planning detail going to be disseminated to local councils? These councils are not necessarily hard wired with an in-depth knowledge of planning. Luckily, they do have good support networks via the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) and local planning authorities. But it is going to be a challenge for them.
But how does this all square with the party’s commitments for the need to build new houses and incentivise businesses leading to alleged economic growth? The points we should be raising is that what local communities want quite often is not that far removed from what central government wants. Surely people want a sustainable developing community with the right infrastructure and transports links, for example. And is this not the aim of central government. More on this can be seen at (http://www.conservatives.com) or a feature story in LCR Online (http://www.lcronline.org.uk).
Recently, NALC, the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC), Action for Rural Communities in England (ACRE) and the Participatory Budgeting Unit (PBU) worked together on a series of pilots where local councils collaborated with their citizens over what should be the councils’ budget priorities. The pilots were so successful that the organisations are recommending that all local councils should use participatory budgeting.
Participatory budgeting offers rural people their own say in local community investments. We now have practical examples of people deciding local priorities and allocating resources across a wide range of services, including community safety schemes, health awareness campaigns, parish footpaths and much more. This approach can bring communities together, help people understand the complexities of public budget setting and deliver public services, which better meet local needs. For more information on this project visit: http://www.nalc.gov.uk or http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk.
So what do you think? Do you think the examples of communities having more say in planning matters or budget setting of local councils is a step in the right direction of localism? Or is it all just window dressing?
