Centralised localism

“I am a strong localist, for one simple reason. I know that the small, the personal and the local work with the grain of human nature and not against it. But
this is not some romantic attachment to the patterns of our past. Localism holds the key to economic, social and political success in the future.”
David Cameron, Localism Policy Paper
The attempt to deselect Conservative Parliamentary candidate Liz Truss has received a disproportionate amount of media coverage compared to its political significance. In part this is because of our insatiable desire to gossip about people, rather than process, or policy. Scandal, power struggles and personal attacks all characterised an unfortunate episode in the Conservative’s preparations for the next national poll.
Yet the most interesting aspect of the events surrounding the attempt to deslect Liz Truss was not her affair, or Sir Jeremy Bagge’s vitirol. Rather, it was the way the Conservative party entrusts internal decision making to its local parties and how this fits with their commitment to localism.
Cameron rightly believes the candidates representing his party at the next general election should be reflective of the electorate. In practice, this means more women and ethnic minority candidates. Yet it is clear he doesn’t trust his party to deliver that outcome – A-lists and primaries, a novel way of controlling candidate selection from the centre, demonstrate this.
So Cameron is committed to localism. Except when local decision makers cannot be trusted to make the right decisions.
While it is difficult for voters to evaluate opposition proposals in the absence of a clear track record of action, they should look to how Cameron’s team implement localism within their own party as a foretaste of what localism might mean in practice under a Conservative government. Being committed to localism only insofar as it delivers central aims isn’t really localism at all.

“I am a strong localist, for one simple reason. I know that the small, the personal and the local work with the grain of human nature and not against it. But this is not some romantic attachment to the patterns of our past. Localism holds the key to economic, social and political success in the future.”

David Cameron, Conservative Localism Policy Paper

The attempt to deselect Conservative Parliamentary candidate Liz Truss has received a disproportionate amount of media coverage compared to its political significance. In part this is because of our insatiable desire to gossip about people, rather than process, or policy. Scandal, power struggles and personal attacks all characterised an unfortunate episode in the Conservative’s preparations for the next national poll.

Yet the most interesting aspect of the events surrounding the attempt to deslect Liz Truss was not her affair, or Sir Jeremy Bagge’s vitriol. Rather, it was the way the Conservative party entrusts internal decision making to its local parties and how this fits with their commitment to localism.

Cameron rightly believes the candidates representing his party at the next general election should be reflective of the electorate. In practice, this means more women and ethnic minority candidates. Yet it is clear he doesn’t trust his party to deliver that outcome – A-lists and primaries, a novel way of controlling candidate selection from the centre, demonstrate this.

So Cameron is committed to localism. Except when local decision makers cannot be trusted to make the right decisions.

While it is difficult for voters to evaluate opposition proposals in the absence of a clear track record of action, they should look to how Cameron’s team implement localism within their own party as a foretaste of what localism might mean in practice under a Conservative government.

Being committed to localism only insofar as it delivers central aims isn’t really localism at all.