Opinion: Heseltine is calling for return to cap in hand culture

I take my hat off to Michael Heseltine for producing a report on growth that has passion, commitment and vision. It is far cry from the usual dry as dust, Treasury reports that obsessively tinker at the economic margins. Alas, despite its punchy prose the Heseltine report is flawed.

There is a lot to celebrate in this report. Heseltine condemns a dysfunctional Whitehall for neutering local leadership: “As Whitehall has taken more powers so its distrust of local decision makers has increased. At the first sign of trouble, further powers are wrested back to the centre.” But like Eric Pickles, he does not trust council planners. He wants the Planning Inspectorate to call in slow moving proposals. He wants to beef up local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) with teams of private sector planners to plan economic development. Soon elected councils will be left dealing with just minor developments.
Heseltine calls for a single funding pot for growth in local areas, and for the initiative and delivery to rest with local leaders. It’s a good idea that he immediately undermines by insisting that localities will have to bid for their share of the funding pot. Who will they bid to? Whitehall of course.

Heseltine is not keen on local councils having this money. He wants it to go to the LEPs. They will only get the money when their bid chimes with national growth priorities. Not local priorities that might be achievable, but priorities dreamed up in Whitehall.

Whitehall likes matters to be tidy, so Heseltine insists that LEPs cannot overlap. He also insists that they are reshaped to “have a good match with their functional economic market area.” The reality is that market areas overlap, often substantially and that is the main reason why 12% of councils are members of more than one LEP.

Heseltine’s proposal just leads us back to the same cap in hand culture that the local authorities have had for too long in relation to central government. If Whitehall could solve economic problems, surely it would have done so by now?

The underlying problem, as Heseltine acknowledges, is that Whitehall does not trust local government. It believes that local leaders will mishandle the money. It believes that only people in London know best. His proposals will perpetuate that culture.

Heseltine’s vision for the economy will not work until there is a new bond of trust between central and local government. In the short term, that needs a concordat that sets out what national and local government will deliver and how they will interact. In the long term, local government must be responsible for its own finances rather than having to beg Whitehall for cash.

What we do not need is yet another version of the cap in hand relationship between Whitehall and localities that has failed this country for so long.

* Andy Boddington is a Lib Dem living in Shropshire, and a former editor for Lib Dem Voice

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/31234 for Twitter and emails.

6 Comments

  • Simon Beard 1st Nov '12 - 3:50pm

    Thanks Andy. I really liked what I have heard about the report so far, but your criticisms sound very fair, Heseltine is undermining his own best intentions. Its a shame the way Conservatives never really ‘get’ localism, its only ever a means for them, never an end. One suspects they are also just too scared about giving money to councils in-case the Conservative ones are outperformed in spending it.

  • Not surprised he wants to “speed up the planning process”. This is the same Michael Heseltine who came to Stockton in the 1990’s to open a new Samsung plant that did not have planning permission. It was called the biggest retrospective planning application in the country at the time. Having taken the land that was not in the right place, and Samsung having taken whatever grants were going, the factory closed. And just how has that benefited our local economy ?

  • Helen Dudden 3rd Nov '12 - 9:53am

    The problems with local government we often lack fresh approach, with the elected councillors. I agree with this report. It could cut cost, there could be other ways that there is input from the local community.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarPaul Holmes 1st Oct - 9:03pm
    Marion, When I was an MP my children walked to the local Junior School and then to the local Comprehensive School. My wife used the...
  • User AvatarMatthew Huntbach 1st Oct - 8:40pm
    Jack This is another reason the Coalition’s rhetoric about it being unfair for benefits to be higher than the median income is utter rubbish. Why...
  • User AvatarGwynfor Tyley 1st Oct - 8:40pm
    What with Labour and the mansion tax and the Tories raising the personal allowance it seems like it is "I agree with Nick" all over...
  • User AvatarMatthew Huntbach 1st Oct - 8:37pm
    Peter It looks as though Ms Lindsay’s plan is to have average wage earners (and of course the 50% who earn less than average) ,...
  • User AvatarLittle Jackie Paper 1st Oct - 8:27pm
    The Guardian is quoting a figure of £5.6bn as the cost of raising the threshold and the cost overall of the tax cuts as £7.2bn-...
  • User AvatarMatthew Huntbach 1st Oct - 8:27pm
    The problem is that while people say they want all these things and much else, they don't want to pay the taxes it would cost...