http://www.economist.com/node/21563333?zid=310&ah=4326ea44f22236ea534e2010ccce1932
Britain experiments with local council government--are they abandoning their commitment to unitary state? Or not? Please comment...
8 Comments
Julia Souza
24/10/2012 12:00:09 pm
As a unitary state, Great Britain has never had a political culture of any kind of local institution. As a matter of fact, only London has an elected mayor and it was not long ago, during Blair’s term that a few first devolutionary acts occurred in the state. This idea of a local power is still an innovative experiment in the UK, but it has certainly taught the federal government some important lessons. Cameron’s idea of top-down localism has proved to be a big failure. People don’t seem to want elected mayors, the police commissioners can’t organize themselves, and the central government has a difficulty in letting go of their power. It seems as though these local institutions would only generate unnecessary bureaucracy in the state. On the other hand, local councils have shown a high approval rating among the British. Instead of damaging, the spending cuts have actually allowed these councils to come up with new ideas on how to handle their limited budget. The local legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have also aided the federal government in containing some independence movements around the country. These local institutions may still not be completely welcomed by the British, but it is certainly altering the country’s governing style. “Long may it continue.”
Gabriella Goldenstein
24/10/2012 10:08:38 pm
Britain has been known to be an unitary state, with a strong, centralized government. However, Mr. Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party has decided to have local elections for mayors and police commissioners. This plan was in fact a complete disaster, since after asking the inhabitants of ten different cities if they wanted to elect their own mayors, nine of them answered no. Because of the strong disapproval, the central state is striving to grow again, and started to intervene in planning rules (something that must be decided locally). This means, the central state will always have an influence and will never let Britain become a complete federalist state. However, while top-down localism is failing, bottom-up localism is a true success. Local authorities are rethinking about how they should serve their people, after their budget has been cut significantly. Councils with mainly conservative representatives are "outsourcing services at a terrific clip". The councils led by the Labour are, on the other hand, following an egalitarian agenda. The USA is the opposite of the UK, since it is a federalist nation. After Britain has experimented being similar to the US, their local governments have maintained their approval rating at the same time they are dealing with cuts in central funding. This makes the UK a model for central government, “which has struggled to make much shallower cuts to the services it provides”
Alana Cavalcanti
25/10/2012 03:28:09 am
Davis Cameron stated that he would diminish the power central government of Great Britain since it is a unitary state, however with time we are being able to see how the plan is failing. The Conservative Party, which Davis Cameron is the current leader, insisted for this policy to be approved. The policy basically consists in creation of local institutions, which will minimalize the responsibility that the central government carries. A new group of elected majors and police commissioners are also part of the plan. Unfortunately, as mentioned previously, this solution was failing and having an opposite impact, since the central government is actually growing. In other words, due to the fact that a clear majority of the population disapproved the proposed measurement the central government is intervening in rules that must be decided locally, for example the planning rules. After the drastic cut on the budget of the local leaders, authorities started to analyze how does the state serve the population. Where the councils the Conservative Party is the majority, think that there should me a huge cut of services. Where the Labour Party is the majority they continue to think that they should continue believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. This idea of unitary government is often banning the United Kingdom to make changes to become a federalist nation, giving more autonomy to the cities and states.
Leonardo
25/10/2012 06:40:32 am
Local elections itself, is something very new and limited in the UK. London is the only city where a mayor is elected and it is a very recent achievement. Of course it is on the interest of the people to choose their ruler, but I believe that spreading local governments might not be the best decision for now. Britain is a very “peculiar” country, and is set on a huge set of traditional values that just go better with a central government. The fact that there is still a great influence of nobility and “political ties” in the British government would only make it more difficult for local governments to happen. This could arise a series of discussions, which would certainly concern some issues of personal power. Even though the UK tend to be more pragmatic, I think this will be an inevitable process for every country, as people in the world demand more influence on decision making. However, giving out some of the central power does not imply that the government will not have the control locally. The local government could actually soften the administrative demand of the central office. The critical point is defining the government autonomy over the local powers.
Liz Costa
25/10/2012 06:43:09 am
Britain has a culture of not having local institutions, cities in Britain do not have local mayors, only London does. London’s first mayor was voted when Blair was a prime minister. When they tried to put local governments in 10 cities, nine of them voted no to have a local government. The top-down localism is falling down and has never worked in Britain, people don’t want to elect mayors, and police commissioners cannot do their jobs. This experience shows that Britain is a federalist state where the central government dominates. However this can have a slight change because, in the other hand, bottom up localism, local councils have been growing in cities and in approval. The article mentions the American system that has different laws federally, stately and even per city. The British are a role of a central government.
Tiago Fonseca
25/10/2012 09:33:25 am
UK is, and always was an unitary state for a reason, the people want it that way. The government went from traditional legitimacy to a rational-legal legitimacy, the people do not want to change from an unitary government, but David Cameron wants to start changing that. He wants to implement mayors, and police commissioners, while the central government opposes his new implementations showing refusal to let go of its current power. This implementation known as top-down localism was obviously a failure since the people do not approve a more federalist government. Although top-down localism is failing, bottom-localism, has proven to be effective. Budget cuts led to more effective results, such as, the police has found more effective ways to do their duty with less. Unfortuntely, while the cuts led to more efficiency, things cannot remain like the way they are. Budgets need to be restored, but the government needs to emphasize responsability.
Marina Oliveira
25/10/2012 04:31:24 pm
It was David Cameron in 2010 that proposed the “top-down localism” as a form to “trim” UK’s central power through the implementation of local institutions. After a rejection in 9 out of 10 cities when asked if they wanted to elect mayors, it became clear that the british were not open to the idea of police commissioners. It seems to me that there is a lot of doubt and discredit on how the elected mayors would actually work, since people have questions that have remained unanswered such as how much power would these mayors have. I also wouldn’t be say that by creating local institutions Britain would be abandoning their commitment to a unitary state, because despite if they elect mayors to spread out the power, the central state would still remain powerful and in control of the government due to Britain’s strong unity. I believe that’s why the people haven’t accept the proposal, because they haven’t seen a way that local institutions could function properly under a unitary state. Cameron’s proposal actually created a reverse result, with the government seeking more power by taking over local jobs such as meddling the planning rules. In the other hand, while top-down localism does not work, bottom-up localism has been growing since local authorities have been finding new innovative ways of dealing with their budget cut. I was impressed with the fact that they were capable of keeping their approval rating at the same 28% after having their budget decreased by the nation’s austerity measures.
Daniel
26/10/2012 12:54:28 am
I don't believe that Britons are leaving their tradition of unitary state just by this innovation of "experimenting local councils". What is happening, however, is a natural adaptation to modern tendencies: a more popularized democracy and - consequently - interest in politics. This is proven by what the article says, "But while top-down localism is failing, bottom-up localism is flourishing. Councils, Leviathan’s least glamorous and often unloved bits, are furiously innovating", meaning that people are now more enthusiastic in the matter of organizing themselves to "raise the volume of their voices". Leave a Reply. | Ms. Garrett“I'm not a teacher: only a fellow traveler of whom you asked the way. I pointed ahead - ahead of myself as well as you.” ArchivesApril 2013 CategoriesAll |
RSS Feed