What impact have they had in the past, and are things changing?
Ploughing through this collection of books that I’m somehow intending to distribute at future citizenship & democracy / how Cambridge functions & malfunctions workshops is that many reports come up against the same barriers time and again..
In Cambridge, the debate on how to tax the tourism industry is one such example – the newspaper archives tell us that the lack of legal powers granted by Parliament & ministers is the policy brick wall both in the 1970s and in the 1990s. The early 2020s is no different.
Michael Gove and The Blob
I’m not sure who wants to take credit for coining the phrase The Blob yet I can’t help but notice that various politicians and political talking heads on current affairs TV have a habit of accusing people/groups in politics they don’t like of specific negative actions which happen to reflect the behaviour of the very accusers. One institute in particular has come in for criticism on this. This reminds me of a phrase Geoff Mulgan used at an event in Cambridge that I went to.
“In the distant past, if you wanted to influence policy you would publish a pamphlet or a book. Today you set up an institution”
How do think tanks access the media? ADBF
The big block – ‘the blob’ that is stopping local councils from taking the actions they need and/or want for their areas, is central government. In principle it should be fairly straight forward for a local council to impose a levy on hotel room bookings because the local councils are responsible for a host of local licensing legal requirements – for example the sale of alcohol.
What are the options available to ministers? Either to have a piecemeal approach where councils have to seek permission for each and every additional requested power, or you overhaul the structures to one that significantly increased both the powers and lines of accountability of councils – and significantly reducing the workload and input of central government that no longer has the capacity to deal with the level of micromanagement the system expects.
Another example of the over-complicated system is with public transport. The hoops that combined authorities have to jump through means that by the time the multiple consultations on bus franchising are complete, the electoral cycle is also complete. That means elected mayors end up spending most of their time and resources doing consultations instead of doing the things that were supposed to be in their manifesto. But because the funding and powers are so limited, and because no one really knows what next competitive funding pot will be made available, there’s no point in writing a manifesto if you don’t know what significant powers or funding you’ll be granted by ministers. Hence this statement by Nik Johnson, preparing the way for the formal franchising consultation – which really should have come in at the start. But then bus service improvement plans and the still-not-signed-off Local Transport & Connectivity Strategy (Tories in Peterborough are holding it up with their veto) have to come first.
“What’s all of the above got to do with academic reports?”
Everything. Because there are all of these reports and books coming out about how cities can be retrofitted and install low-carbon technologies. The problem is that UK cities do not have the same constitutional powers and protections that the local councils/municipal authorities for cities in other countries have. Again ‘the blob’ is central government. They’ve been told by parliamentary committees that council funding us unsustainable, and that the system of governance is broken and needs a radical overhaul. Yet nothing doing because in part of an over-powerful Treasury.
Part of that problem comes from a system and culture of high-fliers not getting the substantive experience of working in local government – in particular where they have. to face the general public and local politicians on a regular basis. It was only after I left Whitehall that I began to comprehend both how and why Whitehall was such a barrier to improvement in towns and cities. Which is saying something – mindful that 15 years ago I was (on paper at least as a Civil Service Fast Streamer) one of those ‘high fliers’. Therefore I’ve seen, felt, and even lived the culture of people in their roaring twenties working hard, playing hard, and burning the candle at both ends. A rollercoaster ride it definitely is (only the wheels came off my one big time!) but is it a good way to make public policy? There must be better ways – especially in these technologically-advanced times and the analytical tools we have at our disposal.
“Don’t academics get frustrated at writing the same things using different words every time?”
Probably.
Furthermore there is a massive tension between the rhetoric around bringing in more academic researchers into policy-making processes / educating academics on policy-making processes vs the complete breakdown of conventions regarding telling the truth to Parliament by ministers. How can you have evidence-based policy-making in a system where the lead policy makers – i.e. Cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister are so at odds with what the evidence in front of them is telling them? If there’s no agreement on the facts,, let alone what the problems are and what’s causing them, there can be no progress on trying to solve them. This also explains the reluctance of people to get involved in politics. If you’re working in a field where the integrity of the information you are working with is core to your work, and also to your personal values, why would you want to get involved in politics where so much seems to be in conflict with them?
What does changing all of this look like?
For a start, the general election. This is where non-political institutions have to take some responsibility and ask everyone around them to get involved in the debates in their constituencies – and even host some themselves. Everything doesn’t always have to be in Cambridge! With the city how having *three* constituencies surrounding it, there should be ample opportunity for various industry, academic, and civic groups to host debates involving the candidates for the surrounding constituencies rather than assuming the seat of Cambridge is somehow this magically-influential seat. (It isn’t – it just means the workload is much larger and more complex than many other seats where either the social challenges are not as great and/or there isn’t such a concentration of educated, affluent, and connected individuals residing in them!)
Prior to all of that – and this is one of the reasons why I’m looking into all things citizenship studies now, is having events and workshops. (Reminder – Parliament Week is 06-12 Nov 2023 so send off for your free packs!)
Above – Parliament Week 2023
Maybe we could have a session on how to get all of those academic reports into the public policy world?
After all, we can’t leave it to the teenagers and young adults to sort things out. Especially not after what they’ve been through
Food for thought?
If you are interested in the longer term future of Cambridge, and on what happens at the local democracy meetings where decisions are made, feel free to:
- Follow me on Twitter
- Like my Facebook page
- Consider a small donation to help fund my continued research and reporting on local democracy in and around Cambridge.
The Cambridge Town Owl 