Local Accountability
by Paul Hazelden

Introduction

One standard good idea these days is to have lots of local consultation. I've encountered quite a lot of this, and I'm not convinced by much of what I've seen. - There is a serious question about who gets involved with local consultations. Some of the folk are hard working and socially responsible people, but some of them are odd characters who can't hold down a job and can't find anything better to do with their time than sit on boring committees. Either way, they are rarely representative of the area, or democratically selected by more than 1&perc; of the local population. - Much of the setting local priorities is a waste of time: we already know what the issues are - drugs, young people with 'nothing to do', inadequate housing, etc. I have been in so many meetings, in different parts of the city, and heard the same views expressed. All the serious issues are city-wide, and there is really no need for a local setting of priorities. - Most of the local priority setting is also pointless, as the groups debating the issues have no power to do anything about the issues anyway. They have no budget to allocate, and cannot change what the housing department or police or NHS choose to do. What they can do is to campaign and pressurise the authorities to make some small changes. But this is not priority setting - it is more often a response to the instinct about what a campaign is likely to achieve. Time and time again a local group will decide to press ahead with something that is a low priority for them because they feel they have a chance of making it happen. (Of course, most of the statutory groups do very little meaningful priority setting either, as central government tells you what you have to spend your money on, and what your targets have to be. Organisations consult so much these day because undertaking a consultation is one of the targets you have to achieve, not because it changes anything.) - Strategically, giving local people a voice is more often a case of 'divide and rule' than it is of local empowerment. If all the local groups got together and were allowed to influence the real decisions, something might change - but that would involve a massive commitment to consultation on the part of the local volunteers. And anyway, isn't that what the Council is supposed to be doing? - Practically, giving local people 'a voice' can be a recipe for empowered nimbyism. Some things need to be imposed on local communities, because nobody wants a refuse tip or homeless hostel in their community. The people of St Pauls don't want any more services for homeless people in their area, but the nice people of Clifton or Stoke Bishop don't want them either, and are much more capable of campaigning. The city needs many more hostels, improved transport routes, mass transport systems, etc. If your main aim is to empower local communities, then none of this can happen.