For those of us who would like local politics to be more highly valued, two slightly conflicting observations were made by prominent political bloggers last weekend.

It is possible that the Tories are regretting using pics of David Cameron to front their 2010 launch?

The first was by the ever-perceptive Potlatch writing about James Purnell, and digging into the question of ‘professionalisation’ of politics:

“Purnell – like Ruth Kelly and Ed Balls – ticks both journalism and policy advice. This is a slightly different issue from the long-standing, Weberian concern with professionalisation of politics. A professional politician is one who is expert at campaigning and winning elections, but has no experience or life outside of this. New Labour was more about the scientisation of politics (sorry if that’s not a word), in which expertise in economics and public affairs became a precondition of political authority.” (emphasis mine)

Potlatch (Will Davies) seemed to see a deepening of the trend towards a more professional political elite – one in which a rare combination of skills was a pre-condition to success. It does have echoes of the almost caste-based Enarque phenomonon in France in which a professional supporting bureaucracy grows up around political parties, consisting of the children of other Enarques.

The second was on Political Betting – a site that convenes genuinely valuable political data* (most political blogs attract opinion – what we would like to happen. PB is specifically about identifying what is actually going to happen) in which Councillors were offered as an underestimated political force.

Political centralisation is widely seen as a consequence of the way that carefully managed branding around charismatic individuals has supplanted the more earthy questions of local representatives, lively public debate and a more engaged electorate. My own Labour Party experience features countless examples of MPs being warned – in a roundabout way – that the only reason they are in Parliament is because of the party logo – and that any individualism on their part is unwarranted arrogance.

If you ask most political pundits, they may be keen to tell you that the election will be decided by a battle of the brands. That Lord Ashcroft is in a position to finance a Tory victory and that local issues are largely irrelevant.

I think that this is becoming contestable. I don’t think that anyone expects Labour to fight a ‘presidential campaign’ with Gordon Brown as the sole focus for the voters. But even the Tories are concious of the way that social media activists are capable of damaging the brand value of a leader – and they are stepping back from hanging the campaign on David Cameron. As Guido Fawkes reported recently, they have also dropped the tag of ‘David Cameron’s Conservatives’ (and I hope its not seen as a partisan point when I say ‘thank god for that!’)

If it’s true that – in a more peer-to-peer polity – one of the deciding issues is the number of local councillors that you have, perhaps this presents those councillors with an opportunity to reverse the trend that has continued as long as the mass media has dominated the political space?

Is it time for Councillors to demand powers that are commensurate with their ability to win elections?

* Let me just add this: Political betting is a really great political blog. Really good. Subscribe to it if you can?

So it seems that a government advertising campaign is to target climate change sceptics. Certainly, policymakers appear to be hitting problems in bringing the public along with measures to address this issue, and it’s not very likely that ‘business as usual’ within the democratic process will deliver sustainable development.

So there are great hopes pinned on the English and Welsh Sustainable Communities Act 2007, which entered into force in October 2007.

The Sustainable Communities Act began life as a Private Members Bill which received cross-party support.

The Act is designed to promote the sustainability of local communities. The basic idea is that local authorities who have opted into the Act make proposals which they consider could contribute to promoting the sustainability of local communities.

The radical part is that proposals may include a request for a transfer of existing functions from one person (or entity) to another. In this way, the Act provides a vehicle for community groups, via local authorities, to lobby central government for reallocation of powers.

Before making proposals, local authorities are required to establish or recognise a panel of representatives of local persons and consult and try to reach agreement with panel members about proposals to be selected.

Selected proposals are then put forward to a ‘Selector’, whose job is to decide on which shortlisted proposals from local authorities will make it onto the Secretary of State’s action list. The Secretary of State is the ultimate decision-maker under the Act, but is obliged to try to reach agreement with the Selector on proposals to take forward.

The deadline for a first set of proposals to be submitted to the Selector was 31^st July 2009.

The LGA has been designated as the Selector for purposes of the legislation. It has already indicated where some of its interests lie, publishing “a selection of some of the changes we are currently pressing for and which we believe will benefit local government and sustainability” in advance of the selection process”.

In some respects, the legislation is deeply radical, as well as enormously broad in scope. But the approach that it takes to ‘sustainable development’ is conservative. As the Act explains (in Section 1), “references to promoting the sustainability of local communities, in relation to a local authority, are references to encouraging the improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of the authority’s area, or part of its area”.

This is hardly an integrated approach to decision-making across the economic, environmental and social spheres. Hardly sustainable development in fact. And this is skewed vision of sustainability is reflected in some of the proposals that have been put foward to the Selector.

For example, one proposal from Birmingham is to introduce Accelerated Development Zones (ADZs) whereby local authorities borrow money to invest in infrastructure so that the area becomes more attractive to investors and businesses. No doubt perfectly acceptable under the Act. But it is hard to equate this proposal, taken at face value, with anything more than straightforward economic development.

One essential characteristic of sustainable development is its integrated approach to decision-making across environmental, social and economic spheres.

For example, Agenda 21, the blueprint for sustainable development which emerged from the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (the UN Conference for Environment and Development) adopts this text  as one of its objectives: “to improve or restructure the decision-making process so that consideration of socio-economic and environmental issues is fully integrated and a broader range of public participation assured”.

In contrast, the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 consummately fails to promote integrated decision-making.

Not every ‘pro sustainable development’ decision needs to address all three ‘bottom lines’ of environment, economy and social justice. But decisions that claim ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable development’ as their goal should at least be based on conscious consideration of the three and their relationship.

So the Sustainable Communities Act misappropriates the language of sustainability for actions that may not have much connection to sustainable development.

For the time being, the Act fails to provide room for ‘big ideas’ that come directly from local citizens without the backing of local authorities. This seems surprising given that there is no need for proposals to be inherently linked to a particular geographical area; but perhaps it is as far as was achievable in setting formal structures of ‘direct democracy’ for sustainable development at the time of the Act’s adoption. Still, it is unlikely to be the last word as proposed amendments (highlighted further below) show.

The range of proposals that have been put forward from local authorities or the Selector is extraordinarily broad. And there are certainly some radical proposals on local authorities’ lists – including one from Ryedale, to require all shops and supermarkets to clearly label where food has come from to promote more buying of local produce, or another from York that only air compressed cars should be allowed in the City Centre.

The next real test of the Act lies with the Local Government Association’s selection of shortlisted proposals through its Selector Panel. That is due to take place at Selector Panel meetings in October and November.

The LGA’s choices as Selector, and ultimately those of the Secretary of State, could support or undermine the development of integrated approaches to sustainable development at local level. Their decisions could inspire greater community engagement in the future, or cut off an experiment in progress.

Proposals to have already been tabled in the form of a Sustainable Communities Act Amendment Bill, which is due to receive its second reading on 16th October.

The amendments would, if adopted, expand the ‘direct democracy’ potential of the Act, since they incorporate a clause prompting a referendum if the local authority does not want to participate in the act and 5% of electors sign a petition to use the Act. The proposed amendments also envisage a rolling programme of proposals from the Selector to the Secretary of State and provide for Parish Councils to be included within the scope of the Act.

Sadly, the problematic approach to ‘sustainability’ is not addressed.

[NB: this post also appears on http://www.fdsd.org/category/blog/]

Continuing Brendan O’Neill’s theme about the reduction of politics to the question of how efficiently politicians can tick the ‘democracy’ box, Simon Jenkins picks up on the calls for fewer MPs and councillors:

“The difference is that most democracies have many tiers of ­representation on which voters can vent their rage. The Germans run almost constant election campaigns for someone to something. The French ratio of voters to elected officials is 120:1. In Britain it is more like 2,600:1. The overwhelming majority of Europeans can name their local mayor or another official whom they can hold to account for most of their public services. In Britain the only representative people can begin to name is their MP, and barely half can do that. Britain is democracy-lite.

As a result, MPs carry a hopeless burden of responsibility. They must be national, regional and local representatives, chairmen of planning, social services and education, local health ombudsmen and elected mayors in all but name.”

He continues…

“We might think that the best response to the present crisis is to have more tribunes, unleashed to operate at every tier of government from parliament to parish. Yet both Brown and Cameron want fewer, both fewer MPs and fewer councillors in the form of unitary authorities. They want to take Britain from being the least democratically answerable nation in Europe to being even less so.”

The Long Tail: See the yellow bit? That's you and me, that is...

The other day, I posted on how the ‘level playing field’ demanded (partly) by marketeers was a significant contributor to the centralising tendencies of the previous half-century. As a short follow-up, Seth Godin picks up on the widespread and increasing distrust in big marketing. I don’t know if you would reach the same conclusion that he has though?

“…even if you have a really good reason, no, you can’t call me on the phone. Which means that even if it’s really important, no, I’m not going to read the instructions. Which means that god forbid you try to email me something I didn’t ask for… you’re trashed. It’s so fashionable to be skeptical now that no one believes you if you attempt to do something for the right reasons.

Selfish short-sighted marketers ruined it for all of us. The only way out, I think, is for a few marketers to so overwhelm the market with long-term, generous marketing that we have no choice but to start paying attention again.”

Is it really the case that marketeers need to come up with an even longer con based on ever more leveraged offers that are too good to be true?

Surely Godin’s observations should be a cause of some consolation to those of us that would like to promote a more decentralised economy? Reputation management may be a concept that has been mined most effectively by e-bay, but it’s a need that is increasingly met by the long tail – and not just the online long tail, but the offline one of personal networks.

Irish elections: generally more posters than in the UK

So much is changing so quickly. Newspapers and broadcasters are changing. Governments now communicate using radically different means to the ones that were practiced a decade ago. Here’s Exhibit A.

We now have free interactive tools that enable us to hold huge multilateral conversations based upon collaborative filtering and reputation management. We can find useful strangers easily – and I don’t just mean with dating websites.

Of course, these changes throw up hazards. New doors have opened for budding demagogues, busy-bodies, lobbyists, snoopers and quacks. But it also throws up huge opportunities.

For me, the glittering prize – from a democratic point of view – is the potential to promote decentralisation of power. Putting the levers of power in a place that is geographically closer. Breaking down the rigidities that made participation impossible.

In the same way that the DIY ethic of blogging and social media has helped millions to somehow dilute the alienation of modern living, it has allowed many of us the chance to test our voice, contribute and to take some responsibility for public discourse – often for the first time.

But if we are to realise the potential for decentralisation, we need to do more than just build and use the new tools. We need to understand what the tools need to be used against – and what they need to be used for.

Take political parties, for example? This blog has bored you in recent weeks with a relentless defence of these entities. And as I’ve not used it yet, I’ll point you at this old post that offers a fantastic quote that explains why parties are important:

“….a remedy to poor governance in large inherently decentralized countries is building strong national political parties whenever possible. Strong parties help to provide elected local officials with efficient political incentives, because their chances of  election depend both on national party support and the satisfaction of the local constituency. This allows the striking of a balance between national objectives and local accountability.”

So, if if the multilateral conversational spaces that are emerging will dispense with political parties, we need to realise that this has consequences – and we need to address those problems.

Over the next few days, I’d like to flesh out a few of the causes of political centralisation and suggest possible goals for the users of interactive media – things that we can do, and temptations we could resist. But my first one is this: If you wish political parties away …. well…

… be careful what you wish for.

These couple of sentences leaped out of an article by Polly Toynbee recently:

It was pollster Ben Page who first used the phrase “cognitive polyphasia” to describe what pollsters find all the time: most people hold several entirely contradictory beliefs at once. They want local decision-making but are adamantly opposed to a postcode lottery….

Another example of this can be found in the demands for political consistency. Here, for example, a political party allows it’s need to advocate a consistent policy everywhere to trump it’s demands for localised policymaking. It’s a very good post that raises a number of variations on this question.

I was planning to draft a series of posts on ‘the causes of centralisation’ saying that in a much longer way, but I don’t think I need to now, do I? So…..

The causes of political centralisation:

No 1 – cognitive polyphasia. Where the public or political parties say that they want local decision-making, but then also want local decisions to always have the same outcomes – wherever they are taken.

One of the founding questions behind this blog is this:

Is the decline in local journalism damaging local democracy?

Well, the consistently good Polis blog managed by Charlie Beckett is addressing it with some energy here. Charlie worked at ITN, C4 News, LWT and the BBC. The post linked to here is a guest post by George Brock.

It’s a good general answer. For me, the big question is the local one. If democracy’s salvation is only viable at a nation-state level, will this make work on local democratic renewal all-but pointless?