10:45am Thursday 25th September 2008
By Mike Foster
AN interesting question was thrown at me when I spoke to the Rotary Club two weeks ago.
It concerned the debate between local decision making versus centrally driven targets from Whitehall.
And behind the scenes at our party conference, this is a keen debate between Labour Party members too.
The arguments go along these lines. “Yes to more local decisions, made by locally accountable figures such as councillors.
No to top-down decisions from Whitehall.”
But the drawback of this approach is that local decisionmaking will inevitably mean some parts of the country will get what is seen as a better level of service compared with others. Is this local choice or a postcode lottery?
If Whitehall or some other body determines a uniform level of service, yes, it overcomes the arguments about postcode lottery but where is the local choice?
If we agree that a minimum level of service should be agreed centrally, with add-ons where local people want it, who determines what the minimum level is and who pays for the add-ons?
I don’t claim to have the answer, but if readers think this does not concern them, they are wrong.
Each day I see different levels of service across our city and in all honesty, I can’t say they are fairly delivered. For example, if you want to play tennis at Gheluvelt Park it is free, but at Cripplegate Park you have to pay.
In three of the wealthiest wards in our city, they raise extra money to pay for cleaner streets and tidier parks, but elsewhere the local council stops them doing so.
These are just a couple of simple examples to demonstrate how public service provision varies.
Is the variation fair?
No, not always. Should we have varying levels of public service?
Yes, if you support local decisionmaking.
How do we ensure fairness?
By getting as many people engaged in the decision-making as possible.
Only then will varying service levels be tolerated and understood.
Until that happens, the majority of people will complain about the unfairness of so-called “postcode lotteries” and yet at the same time argue for more local decisionmaking that creates them.
But I hope readers at least can understand a little more of the debate that will go on for years to come.
© Copyright 2001-2012 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/trade_directory/