By Elizabeth Hughes, strategy and policy delivery expert.
‘The time has come,’ the Walrus said,
‘To talk of many things;
Of shoes – and ships – and sealing-wax –
Of cabbages – and kings –
This well-known poem is an example of ‘nonsense literature’, a literary genre which combines elements that make sense with those that do not. By skewing the logic and natural expectation of the reader, one is left not knowing what to expect from the work.
And this particular nonsense poem is ultimately about the difference between being invited into a conversation and having genuine influence over the outcome.
The Walrus talks. The oysters listen. Everyone appears to be participating. Yet only one party knows where the journey is headed.
Which brings us neatly to simplifying local government. Like all good nonsense literature, it combines ideas that make perfect sense with ideas that are either safely generic (like a nursery rhyme) or make no sense at all – presenting both with unquestionable confidence and authority.
After two decades of legislative tinkering, regulatory layering and periodic ministerial interventions, councils have become increasingly complex institutions operating in increasingly constrained environments.
So, when the Government says the system is broken, we can generally all agree. The first bit of nonsense starts when we leap from this consensus to the apparent certainty that bigger must be better; specifically, to achieve ‘greater efficiencies’.
Larger entities. Fewer councils. Greater scale. Improved efficiency. The words are presented almost as articles of faith – in total contradiction to evidence that in fact “improved efficiency” has nothing to do with size.
Maybe the Government believes that by removing the ‘local’ from local government, it will be more efficient. So fewer local voices and community participation in decision-making, makes for faster and more efficient decision-making. Maybe they have a point.
This brings me to the second bit of nonsense – currently being touted with considerable chest beating – the “loss of local voice”.
This one is a conundrum. As someone who has built a career supporting local democracy and on bringing local voices to bear on council decision-making, the evidence that local government represents local voice already, makes me wonder…
What if the real issue is not that people are about to lose their voice, but in fact, the entire reason we are in this place is that most people stopped believing they had one some time ago?
If that sounds harsh, look at the numbers. Most council consultations attract participation from only a tiny fraction of the population. Elections struggle to achieve turnout levels that would be considered healthy in almost any other democratic setting.
For many years, councils have undertaken consultation processes that are technically robust but completely disconnected from how normal humans communicate. You seek submissions on matters that have often already been decided or have been substantially shaped by legislative requirements. You invite communities into processes that are performative rather than influential. You say the words “we need to engage the community on this” and then pretty much ignore the input they give you.
Then you wonder why participation rates continue to steadily decline and the only visible involvement in local government decision-making is driven by a passionate and dedicated few – plus the people who want something from you and the obsessive, dismissive or abusive keyboard warriors.
You talk a great deal about local voice yet fewer people are actually using it. Which creates an awkward question for those of us concerned about preserving local democracy. If communities already feel disconnected from local decision-making, will changing organisational boundaries make that better or worse? I genuinely don’t know.
But I do know that local voice is not preserved simply because a council chamber remains geographically close to the people it serves. Voice only exists when people believe they can influence decisions that matter.
And evidently, while councils are running around at the behest of Government to come up with bigger structures (and ironically not able to focus efficiently on core business) the voices of the people they represent will only be on the very margins of these discussions.
Because most people stopped participating in and caring about local government a long time ago. The Walrus wanted to talk of many things – including asking a riddling question – to itself. And then replying with its own solution – bigger structures.
The question for local government now, is whether communities are going to genuinely be invited into that conversation – or whether they are merely being taken for a walk along the beach with the destination already decided.
‘And why the sea is boiling hot –
And whether pigs have wings.’
The Walrus & the Carpenter by Lewis Caroll.