Edward Davey argues that decentralisation requires the re-shaping of Britain’s constitution.

Local government needs constitutional protection not just to limit the interference of central government, but also to force local politicians to take more responsibility.

Such ideas ought to be central to the debate on so-called "new localism". Not least because "isms" – whether they be "localism", "Thatcherism" or "socialism" – ought to be reserved for the big ideas of politics – the radical shifts in power and values that politicians advocate.

A Liberal Democrat approach to "localism" would indeed involve huge shifts of power within a real shake-up of the British political culture. We want to get away from the Whitehall dependency culture, and the politics of centralism. We want people to look to their local politicians first, as the people who can provide many if not most of the answers to the daily issues in their lives. We want a democracy based on the huge dynamic benefits of pluralist politics, where different ideas compete continually and policy experimentation can take place freely at all levels of government.

Such a vision of local government would be immensely challenging for many working in today’s local authorities – both as members and officers.

Many would relish such political freedom. Others would find the culture shock simply too much – and not what they had gone into local government for. Tough. In a world of greater power for local government, working for the council – whether directly or by contract - should inevitably be more competitive and demanding.

Labour’s "new localism", however, is designed to continue the existing system of central-local relations.

New localism is a typical New Labour compromise. Rather than a guiding principle to government and public service reform, new localism can mean anything to anyone at anytime. A classic example has been local education authorities and council funding. Unable to choose between a centralised approach as their preferred way to ensure cash gets to schools, or a council finance system that reduces ring-fencing and avoids talk of capping, Labour has produced a total mess of local government’s financial arrangements.

So instead of constitutional protection, it’s about "earned autonomy" that can be withdrawn, if it’s ever granted. Instead of power shifts, we have Whitehall targets and inspections. An agenda of "freedoms and flexibilities" instead becomes another method of central control.

As Nick Raynsford admitted recently: "Some people would argue that central government should give local government much more discretion to get on with the job. And, more crudely, to get off it’s back. In my view, that’s not the right way forward."

So, while there have been some good policy initiatives – the Improvement and Development Agency spreading best practice, for example – Labour’s overall record on local government can hardly be described as decentralist. New localism is untouched by a radical thought.

Yet we are now promised a new white paper on local government. The white paper will be the culmination of the debates on new localism, as well as being informed by this summer’s report from the Balance of Funding Working Group.

There are hints that the white paper will be the big step change that produces a radical shift away from centralism. Just as John Prescott gave us his ten-year vision for transport several years ago, and his ten year plan for housing last year, the deputy prime minister will set out his ten year vision for local government. Few are therefore reassured.

The problem for ODPM ministers is that, even if they wanted more radicalism, they haven’t got the rest of Whitehall signed up. Even though the chancellor makes sympathetic noises, Number 10 is a million miles from trusting local councils – with backing from education, health and transport. When rumours emerge of plans to centralise school funding it’s hard for local government to have any confidence in Whitehall’s policy direction.

Regional devolution is a classic example of what happens when New Labour compromises on the radical agenda. Despite Prescott’s enthusiasm, the government’s plans can be politely described as minimalist. Yet they manage to hurt local authorities, despite such caution.

Instead of using the regional agenda to reform Whitehall, Labour’s regionalism takes too many powers from local government. Worse still for democrats, Labour is happy to replace local accountability with regional quangocracy. So planning powers may go up from county councils to unelected regional planning boards. Local fire authorities that don’t bend to Whitehall’s diktats will be forced into less accountable mergers.

The alternative radical agenda of strong regional democracy to tame unelected regional government is forgotten. Instead of producing regional assemblies to link transport, skills and economic development, Labour leaves the Highways Agency in the hands of Whitehall. It leaves the Learning and Skills Councils unaccountable to the communities they serve. Few powers down, too many powers up - risking "no" votes in the devolution referendums this autumn.

So whether it’s localism or regionalism, Labour is failing to deliver. Liberal Democrats must be the party of decentralisers, committed to the radical re-shaping of Britain’s constitution.

Edward Davey is Liberal Democrat MP for Kingston and Surbiton, and party spokesman on local government.