Richard Baum

The Policy Exchange published its “Cities Unlimited” report today. It was met with news headlines screeched at such a pitch that only certain dog breeds could hear them, because it suggested that citizens of struggling northern towns might be better moving to the south to further their prospects after the failure of current regeneration projects in the north.

This suggestion grabbed the headlines, but in fact the report contained several interesting ideas on devolving powers to local authorities and doing away with the types of centralised regeneration funding arrangements which haven’t worked in the past.

The report makes me think in a new way about what local councils could do with regeneration money if given the powers to do so. The report recommends that funding be allocated simply related to income levels, so as a reasonably affluent borough Bury mightn’t get that much. But what it did get would be up to us to spend, and we’d be accountable to local people properly if it was spent rightly or wrongly. If we wanted to spend it on a business park or a bypass or an urban forest, we could. We could give nurses a pay rise to attract the best ones, or pay for more police officers in response to local concerns. Or we could use the money to cut taxes locally, rather than respond to centrally imposed rules that give us no leeway for local innovation.

Bury could have its own identity, we could learn from others as to what worked and what didn’t, and as the report says, we wouldn’t just be one of 1,000 identical towns across the country.

The report points out that more power for local authorities makes them a more attractive place to work, will create diversity in terms of policy development, and will allow for local politicians to be held more reasonably accountable for local successes and failures. As a local councillor myself, a massive bug-bear is that my influence on policy is so tiny when set against the Whitehall machine, that I am reduced to the level of just a glorified answering machine for small-time problems like broken street lights. This is an important job, but it should be one of many jobs councillors have. Government moves to concentrate what little powers councillors have in the hands of an Executive of just a few of them makes the situation worse. The entire system needs overhauling, and these recommendations are a step in the right direction.

I don’t think that the report is spot on in everything it suggests. I think there is a lack of consideration of the ramifications of the suggested movement south-eastwards on other local services. And whilst the suggested seismic shift in local/central government relations is welcome in my view, it won’t work to give communities the power they should have without similarly locally-led police, health and other services. I also don’t  like the suggestion, however coyly made, that success for people from northern towns can be best achieved in the south simply because that’s the centre of much of our economy. Success is about more than just the opportunity to work for a financial services firm. It’s about family networks and geographical stability as well, and bringing up families in familiar places which appeal beyond having a tube station at the end of the road.

But this report strikes a chord with me in many ways as a guide to the potential of local government, and what we can achieve for communities if given the chance to. If we were trusted to do so, Councils could innovate and make a real difference to people’s lives - transforming failing areas into successful ones free of central red-tape and accountable as a result. That would be a major step forward.

Rick