It would be churlish not to welcome some of the White Paper’s recommendations. The important proposal to give local authorities powers to make bye-laws without the necessity for approval by the secretary of state expresses the role of local authorities as local government with quasi-legislative powers rather than as mere agents of central government. The powers to make bye-laws should belong to the council and not to the mayor and or leader alone, since they are not executive but legislative powers. The reduction in the number of indicators and targets is welcome, but 200 indicators and 35-plus targets remain a considerable burden, still reflecting a view of local authorities as agents of central government rather than as local government. The language used in the White Paper marks a significant change for the better. The Government will encourage and enable but not prescribe, despite significant exceptions. Although the Government favours all-out elections every four years, it will not prescribe them for all authorities. To prescribe all-out elections ‘would be contrary to the devolutionary thrust of this White Paper’ (para 3.43). The secretary of state writes in her preface that local government will be given ‘more freedom and powers’. This welcome change of approach is because, as a result of ‘strong direction nationally’, there have been ‘radical improvements’ – and because of ‘the hard work and commitment of local government’. Many of the freedoms and powers have still to be worked out, and on one critical point, the Government has failed the test. Capping is to be retained. That decision has been made without waiting for the Lyons report. Why? Apparently because the Government ‘will not allow excessive council tax increases’ (para 7.54). Yet the ‘devolutionary thrust’ should mean that whether tax increases were excessive was a matter for local people rather than for central government to decide. One wonders how many proposed freedoms and powers will pass the Government’s criteria on what it should decide, rather than local people. One wonders how many constraints removed will, over time, be replaced by new constraints as the departments of central government develop new proposals to meet the perceived requirements of central government. The White Paper still reflects an ingrained view of the superiority of central government. It states the Government will encourage local government to pursue specified approaches and activities, presumably on the basis that central government knows what local authorities should do. Central government’s own policies and procedures have much to learn from local authorities which confront directly the diverse problems of both urban and rural communities. A real partnership between central and local government should be based on recognition that each has much to learn from the other, and not that one has all the answers. How much more convincing the White Paper would have been had it indicated that central government had much to learn from local government. It would have been better, too, if the Government had indicated it had made serious mistakes in its conduct of central-local relations. The proliferation of targets, indicators, inspections and inspectors, and of specific grants, has been counter-productive, taking councils’ attention from local issues and the management of performance. It would have been refreshing had the Government acknowledged the mistakes it had made. Good management learns from mistakes, but they have to be acknowledged. Unless that is done, and the reasons explored, there is nothing to prevent the same mistakes being made again. Ministers and civil servants who think they know how local authorities should carry out their work will reinvent new constraints and requirements. The greatest weakness of the White Paper is that it does not recognise how much central government has to change if local authorities and their partners are to meet the challenges they face with the ‘freedom and powers’ to choose the best way to act. There is no chapter in the White Paper on the changes that must be made in central government’s approach to local government and other local agencies. Real change will not take place without change at the centre. One proposal indicates the problem. The Government believes that local authorities need strong leadership. Few would argue in favour of weak leadership. But strong leadership means different things in different places and in different circumstances. To the Government, or perhaps to the prime minister, strong leadership means a single, powerful individual with a commanding vision, given all executive powers and guaranteed four years in office. This leader is to be secured by legislation, showing a remarkable belief in the power of national legislation rather than in the power of ‘the devolutionary thrust’ and of local choice. Yet there are other models of leadership. It is easy to legislate for structural change. Ministers, by legislation, can change structures but rarely do the results match intentions. The lessons of when to legislate, and when not to legislate, have not been learned at the centre. Where central government thinks it knows how an authority should be run, it legislates, even though local people may have a clearer picture of what local leadership is required. Another example of unnecessary legislation in the White Paper is that the Government believes participation in local government will be increased by a legislative change adding new requirements. Yet, as the Select Committee on Public Administration said in its report on public participation, ‘The worst reason for consulting would be just because it is required’. Central government still has much to learn if the ‘devolutionary thrust’ is to become a reality. The Department of Communities and Local Government may want to promote local government, but there is no evidence in the White Paper that the other spending departments and the Treasury are signed up to strong local government. n George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the LSE, and ~John Stewart~ is emeritus professor of local government at the University of Birmingham