Real Localism in a Federal England 03/30/2011
We have heard a great deal about David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ and the Con-Dem coalition’s localism bill. However the truth is, with the ‘Big Society’, we are only two steps away from actually having to store tarmac at home and repairing the potholes in the roads ourselves. Believe it or not this could actually happen! The truth is Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ has nothing to do with real localism and transferring power and decision making to communities. This is because localism will never work in the present centralised British state. Currently when income tax is paid, it is basically handed over to central government. This is what funds our contribution to the European Union, finances our armed forces in foreign military ventures that do not concern us, gives money to foreign despots and countries that can afford to fund a space programme, and last but not least funds those expensive luxuries our M.P’s desire most. What’s left, after several other bureaucratic baskets have been filled is then handed to local authorities. The whole system is top managed, which is why those at the top use money on the items mentioned and the local care home closes down. The big bad Sheriff of Nottingham lives, but has moved to Westminster! Therefore, whichever way you look at it real localism in such a top managed system is doomed. It is less Big Society and more Big Con! As English Radicals we have a very different approach to this top managed system which rips off the people of England. We believe in a system which transfers the funding and decision making process of government from the top to local communities. Our system would be based on the highly successful federal Lander system, as operated in Germany. Here the main roles of government are decentralised to a number of regional and city states. Proof of the beneficial aspects of introducing a federal system for governing England can be found by comparing the English city of Liverpool with the German city of Hamburg. Liverpool City Region has roughly the same population as the Hamburg City State. Yet the comparison ends there. Hamburg is wealthy and attracts industry, media etc. Liverpool, despite the gallant efforts of its communities and its proud history, sadly lags behind. This is the fault of the centralised British governmental system and not the people of Liverpool. Similar comparisons could be drawn with Bremen and Cornwall. Here in England ERA believes in federal decentralisation to a level that is acceptable to local people. This would mean the people deciding whether to be governed by a County or City State/Province or possibly one based on a historic region, such as Mercia or Wessex. Each state/province would have its own directly-elected Governor, aided by a cabinet and a council of local representatives to supervise and amend legislation. The local representatives would be elected by neighbourhoods with community councils which are either elected periodically or are a Directorate of local voluntary groups. These neighbourhoods would be given a budget according to population and needs. Ideally, party politics would be removed from local neighbourhoods with representatives elected as the best individual to represent the specific area, and not towing any party line. This would give power to the communities and less to political parties with one eye on their national fortunes and aspirations. For those that believe Government is not possible without political parties, look to Guernsey, an island where no political parties sit in Government. By promoting this system we would witness a bonfire of bureaucrats across the country, thus releasing further funding for local communities. This is what real localism is all about and it has nothing to do with any ‘Big Con Society’. Finally let’s return to the subject of funding and how the new City, County or Regional Sates/Provinces would be financed. As English Radicals, we believe in reversing the present system of handing tax to central government and then begging them for money to fund local services and projects. Instead we would allow the new states/provinces to retain sufficient money for services and projects, and then make a donation to central government for national concerns, foreign representation and defence. A re-organisation of lottery funding could assist this process. Perhaps this way, Westminster would be far more careful with our taxes and not allow them to be thrown away fighting pointless wars, funding the EU gravy train or giving it to foreign regimes whose leaders live in luxury and whose people remain starving. 1 Comment | ArchivesApril 2012 CategoriesAll |
RSS Feed