At IPPR Charles Kennedy said:-
"So Libearl Democrat localism is about crafting a new contract between the public and politicians. We Liberal Democrats believe in active citizenship. This means making patients, parents and pupils full partners in their health care or in their education."

Russell

Once again we must return to the revenue/spending equation. This is central to any deliberation of the processes involved in engaging ordinary citizens with their respective communities. It is the relative lack of control exercised by local authorities over their revenue raising potential, e.g. central block grants, business council tax rates, centrally pre-determined spending commitments, which leads directly to apathy and disinterest amongst local authority electorates – i.e. they don’t matter because they don’t control the purse strings, so why bother voting.

Healthcare, Education and Crime (Law & Order) are the three policy areas perennially appearing of the radarscope of everyday concerns expressed by ordinary citizens.

If (and it’s a big if) these core portfolios of competence were transferred to more local, accountable (i.e. elected) institutions (what form these bodies take is open to debate) we might begin to see a fundamental reversal of the insidious trend of increasing public apathy.

Why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer such a powerful figure? Simply because he controls the purse strings – that’s why. Visit the following URL: http://www.devolution.ac.uk/pdfdata/Briefing%2017%20-%20Jeffery.pdf
See pages 4 & 5 of the document, which give substance to the claim that it is the three policy areas referred to above that figure most prominently in the mindset of ordinary citizens.

When I talk about transfer of competence I mean the ability, not only to determine policy priorities in these fields but also to raise revenues commensurate with the funding of said priorities.

I am an active member of both Charter88 and Makes Votes Count. I know, from contact made during street campaigning, the issues affecting ordinary people and why they are so mistrustful of the democratic political process in general.

Talk of a contract between the public and politicians is just pie in the sky, until individual parties actually begin to develop policies that will differentiate them from their rivals and attract a core of ideologically compatible voters. Then, the parties might not “all sound the same”. This leads us straight back to electoral reform. For example, consider the issue of local income tax replacing council tax. Here was a policy closely aligned with Lib Dem (across the whole of the UK) voters thinking but because it did not play well with the “holy grail” of target audiences; floating voters in marginal constituencies, it was ditched post election.

Charles Kennedy is putting the cart before the horse.

PR for Westminster will lead to a more consensus, less adversarial style of politics. This in itself will begin to dissipate the poisonous levels of hostility now manifestly apparent between the general public and political élites. Achieving that first base will in turn allow a future administration to develop an inclusive and honest engagement between public and politicians, leading (one hopes) to a coherent strategy aimed at devolving real power away from an increasingly centralised clique of decision makers located in Whitehall/Westminster.

Then, without even having to force the pace of change, we will begin to witness precisely the kind of active citizenship referred to by Mr Kennedy.


Peter Davidson
Alderley Edge
NW England