In a CentreForum debate on localism Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury and leadership candidate Chris Huhne and the Guardian’s David Walker debated whether local or central government is best placed to deliver social justice.

Walker insisted that public services must be provided by central government as the UK’s character is one of national, not of local power. He explained that it is wrong to talk about local authorities “taking back power” from central Government as Britain has always been a centralised state, for historical reasons.  He also saw the golden age of local government of Joseph Chamberlin et al as fundamentally oligarchic and undemocratic. 

He argued that there are presently too many levels of local governance and the public find it difficult to identify themselves within specific political units, such as the ward they live in.  He was also sceptical of the public’s involvement in civic life, saying that the middle class “don’t do community” and suggested that this was evidenced by low levels of engagement with formal consultation procedures. Furthermore, contentious issues, such as where to house immigrants and asylum seekers, can not be left to local bodies to decide, as this can lead to a local veto being used for illiberal ends. In many issues the national interest needs to prevail over nimbyism.

Chris Huhne believes that “the future is local” and called for a radical decentralisation of the state. Although public spending since Labour came to power has increased by a third, we have failed to see a proportional improvement in services. He argued that this is not due to the need for more choice as marketisers would have it, but due to a lack of accountability in the system with insufficient input at a local level.

The UK is by far the most centralised state in Western Europe. With 94% of tax revenue being collected by central government, control of public services lies in Whitehall. The “giantism” of central government, however, has failed to provide an effective service.  He pointed out that the police authority with the best detection and clean-up rates for crime was the smallest (Dyfed-Powys) and the worst was the largest (The London Met).  Moving to a more localised entrepreneurial local government structure with standards set nationally would allow public services standards to rise.  He also countered the claim that localism would lead to a postcode lottery, suggesting that the current structures were too big to meet local demands and more accountable local structures would be better able to overcome such difficulties.

Contesting claims that decentralisation automatically leads to a reduction in social equality he claimed there was no evidence for such a correlation and if there was any trend it would be that the more centralised states were more iniquitous. The market is not a suitable model for the public sector since it cannot be relied upon to adequately provide public goods to the most disadvantaged in society. Local control of public services would leave more room for diversity and creativity allowing local authorities to experiment and learn from best practice, with the option of withdrawing unsuccessful policies.

Huhne, however, was sceptical of quick fixes such as David Milliband’s marketised approach. Instead he said that reform of local government was predicated on a reform of the electoral system, and if twinned with greater responsibility would be more likely to encourage greater participation.