Adrian Sanders

Liberal Democrats | Torbay

“All politics is local”

It was the former US Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, who coined the phrase: “All politics is local”. Its truth is backed up by polls that show voters consider what happens to them personally or in their locality is far more likely to influence how they vote than events hundreds or thousands of miles away.

Yet, much of what happens to us personally, or in our area, is a direct consequence of events far away. Globalisation, climate change, organised crime, illegal immigration, terrorism, pollution, etc, all impact on our lives indirectly, and for some very directly.

Just take globalisation. Major corporations exert greater power than ever before over national governments and policy outcomes. Although their activities have helped to give consumers more power in the marketplace, through increasing the range of products and services, they have also reduced the extent to which democratic institutions are able to act in the public interest.

The degree to which local communities through their elected representatives can influence what happens in their area continues to lessen year on year.

A decision in a boardroom in Brampton, Ontario, to hire and then fire 4,000 workers in Paignton, was a real wake up call to those who thought we controlled our own destiny. The transfer of a further 1,000 jobs to a manufacturing plant in China reinforced the point.

In general – loss of a sense of control – over institutions and the services they deliver, over the food people eat and the environment they live in – is a key element of a declining quality of life. In many ways this is made worse by the current government’s determination to deliver targets agreed at the centre, which has further eroded local autonomy, experimentation and accountability.

The last Parliament was dominated by the build up, decision and participation in the war in Iraq. The overriding political issue for the current Parliament will be striking the right balance between security and freedom.

Most obviously this will cover the measures taken to protect the country and its citizens from terrorism; some of the Government’s policies, such as the use of detention without trial, the widening of stop-and-search policing, or the monitoring of personal emails, have already given rise to concerns over the infringement of basic human rights.

The biggest challenge facing this Parliament is to what extent is it justified to restrict liberties in order to fight threats to those liberties. It is reactive challenge to events and it will leave little time to stop and consider where power is best exercised and how citizens could be more involved in the decisions that affect their lives.

As well as protection from terrorism, people also regard freedom from crime and the fear of crime as a basic objective of Government. Yet, as with terrorism, policies designed to tackle criminal and anti-social behaviour – the spread of CCTV cameras, behaviour orders, and curfews – frequently challenge basic civil liberties. Other policies which have extended freedom for some – such as longer pub opening hours – may simultaneously restrict freedom for others.

Over 600 new offences have been added to the statute book in the past eight years, I voted for some of them, but have they added to peoples’ sense of well-being?

While our Parliament needs to address these challenges there are other developments that impact on the lives of everyone that Government needs to address to ensure the UK is in the best position to meet them.

The world is now witnessing the most rapid and extensive period of change that the global economy has ever known. The balance of production is shifting rapidly towards developing countries; China is already the world’s largest user of cement, steel, copper, iron ore and tin. In the services sector, India dominates the world’s IT services sector. These two countries are on course to join the US and EU as the world’s leading economies during the first half of this century.

Britain remains one of the wealthiest countries in the world. But it is no longer one of the most powerful states in the world. British banks and companies are still major global investors and operators and Britain, in turn, has attracted large-scale investment from abroad. But British autonomy in managing its economy has become limited, by its openness to global markets, by its interdependence with other economies, and by the framework of international regulation that governs global commerce and communications.

If governance is necessarily becoming more international – even global – politics remains rooted in local concerns and loyalties. Popular resistance to remote multinational institutions in the United States has targeted the UN; in France it takes the form of resistance to globalisation as such. In Britain it has focussed on the EU. The image of unaccountable officials trading compromises behind closed doors which sweep away local traditions is deeply entrenched, among people who nevertheless take it for granted that their supermarket stocks fresh food from Africa and cheap clothes from China, and they can choose to travel anywhere on the globe for their holidays.

These are the inconsistencies of the modern world but they can be addressed when Governments first explain, consult and engage with their people, and when they decentralise power so that government is closer to people affected by decisions.

All politics is indeed local, but too few political decisions are decided locally.