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.
Advert

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.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

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

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User Avatarnigel hunter 3rd May - 12:27am
    Goldsmith might be a nice person as an individual but as a Tory Party member he is only interested in power for himself and his...
  • User Avatarmalc 2nd May - 11:38pm
    Stuart I couldn't agree with you more. I've voted Labour or Lib Dem all my life, but these days both seem obsessed with minority causes,...
  • User AvatarRobert Wootton 2nd May - 11:13pm
    A change in the law is necessary to end this housing scandal. Make it illegal for landlords to charge rent for sub standard housing and...
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 2nd May - 10:18pm
    @ Stevan Rose "Aggression is a fact of life and if you are not prepared to defend yourself you will be eliminated." Sorry, that is...
  • User AvatarJonathan Ferguson 2nd May - 9:18pm
    Thanks again for the comments everyone, and I hope I have not omitted referring to too many important points that came up. I also hope...
  • User AvatarJonathan Ferguson 2nd May - 9:15pm
    To Lorenzo: Thank you for raising the point about the character of the Liberal Democrats. There is some truth in what you are saying in...