Power to the people - but how much and to whom?

The problem with the public is that they are like politicians: they don’t agree. After last week’s excitement over whether the United Kingdom was going to split apart, we now have an argument about what sort of federalism is going to keep it together – and working most fairly for the four different countries.

Ipsos’s recent survey for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust shows 62% feel that government power in Britain is too centralised, with 13% in disagreement. Most of us, 85%, believe that local communities should have more of a say in the decisions that affect them. Some 65% are in favour of reducing the power of parliament and giving more power to local, municipal or regional government in England. But how much power? Here lies the problem.

In June, before the Referendum in Scotland got exciting, we found the majority of people in Britain OPPOSED to giving London, Birmingham or Manchester any more tax and spend powers (55%). In contrast they did agree Scotland and Wales should have those powers (55%). So it seems to depend on whether or not you are a nation – and possibly, given local government’s history, the legitimacy of governance structures? People always profess more trust and respect in local government than the centre, but don’t seem too happy about giving it Treasury-like powers in reality. The public still say that they want services to be the same everywhere – crucial ones like the NHS – but also even things like recycling. So they want more local control, but also someone to make sure it doesn’t lead to major differences in services. As my friend Tony Travers points out, they cannot have both. 

Exactly what spending controls should be localised will keep politicians busy for some time.