The new localism (Lib Dem coalition approved)

If there is one thing on which our new coalition is surely agreed it is that it will not be a bossy centralising force. Local government will be given its head. Local voters should be able to decide on things that are best left to local decision-making. After all, the Coalition Bible says so in plain terms:

We have a shared ambition to clean up Westminster and a determination to oversee a radical redistribution of power away from Westminster and Whitehall to councils, communities and homes across the nation.

So, just how radical will this redistribution be? First, Michael Gove has published legislation which effectively transfers all planning decisions on schools to his department. Then, Eric Pickles stops councils from deciding for themselves (and facing the electoral consequences) how to improve recycling quotas. And the coalition is barely a month old.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against either decision: councils too often rode roughshod over parents when it came to schools, and I've no wish to pay bin taxes. But then I've never come out with guff like this when trying to woo council leaders:

So today I want to look at what decentralisation should really be about. What it can achieve. And how we can make it more than a rhetorical fad. I am drawn to the philosophy of decentralisation and local empowerment for many reasons. There’s the basic principle of subsidiarity – the liberal belief that decisions just ought to be taken as close to the people they affect as possible.

Another Lib Dem triumph in coalition then.

Senior Tory attacks Cameron's localism: shock?

A rising star in the Conservative Party today launched a scathing attack on his leader's policy of localism. Shadow health minister Grant Shapps denounced David Cameron's plans to extend a postcode lottery in IVF treatment.

"Prioritisations must be made equitably," the rising Tory star declared. But this runs counter to the rousing declarations of support for decentralisation made by Cameron. "Decentralisation isn't just some theory - it really matters," the Tory leader has declared. "We're not control freaks, we're enablers."

That's not quite how the news that some health authorities have chosen not to offer three IVF cycles to infertile couples was reported (though Jim Naughtie did ask some searching questions even if he got some disingenuous answers).

But if Tory would-be ministers insist on getting cheap headlines by criticising the government for not imposing more central control over local institutions, shouldn't they have to spell out exactly what they would do themselves to rectify the situation. Or stop talking rot.

Devolution can require a push from the centre

I have a column in this week's Public Finance, where I argue that the development of devolved institutions like academies often requires a degree of central pressure - and will need strong accountability. You can read it here. Here's an extract:

Recent trends have been contradictory when it comes to local government. Both Labour and the Conservatives want to give councils the chance to build more social housing, for example. ‘I think it’s localism,’ declared shadow housing minister Grant Shapps at the weekend.

But with schools it is different. Both parties want more independent academies, though Schools Secretary Ed Balls wants them to work more with local authorities while his Tory shadow Michael Gove believes that parents might want to help run his new academies.

In truth, most such schools are likely to come through ‘chains’ of like-minded schools, such as Ark or the Harris Trust, which already run several academies each. Instead of through councils or parent power, many schools are likely to develop as part of national brands.

But this reduction in local council power is coinciding with less national accountability. The government’s flagship literacy and numeracy strategies are to be abandoned (though Ofsted will still inspect for daily lessons in the 3Rs). Labour has ditched national tests for 14-year-olds, while the Tories would get secondary teachers to test and mark primary pupils in place of the national tests at age 11. And while both parties stress the need for more published information, there is a growing hostility to national targets.

In health, an incoming Conservative government would leave decisions on minimum waiting times to individual hospitals. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has recently announced plans for entitlements setting out treatment times for cancer patients and guaranteeing personal tuition to school children.

There were certainly too many targets, and some were clearly counter-productive: although quickly abandoned, targets to reduce school exclusions came to be seen as a cause of poor discipline, and skills targets focused on qualifications rather than what employers really wanted.

But centrally driven programmes, such as the literacy and numeracy strategies, did a lot to counter past failings. They reintroduced spelling, grammar and punctuation to writing lessons; they put times tables back into primary maths; and they used phonics to teach reading. And despite the decision to scrap the national programmes, both the national curriculum and Ofsted inspections mean that such traditional approaches are likely to remain whoever is in power.