One of the frequent criticisms of the Government, in particular, this one, is a reluctance to take controversial decisions, at least in domestic policy. At the recent Lyons inquiry conference, London mayor Ken Livingstone said as much when he accused ministers of bottling-out of grasping the nettle in the case of revaluation and council tax bands. He argued that governments spent too much time trying to find consensus before taking the plunge. In his own case, the mayor said that had he attempted to find consensus on congestion charging, it would simply have never happened. Yet, there is also another factor which inhibits governments, namely, the intervention of m'learned friends. Interest groups are prone to using lawyers in a bid to stop legislation or policies to which they object which can create paralysis in the decision-making process. And, after all, the purpose of governments is to govern, and make a difference, not ‘to be in office but not in power' to use former chancellor Norman Lamont's description of his former boss, ex-prime minister John Major. Take the case of plans for unitary government. The DCLG has made every effort – one presumes – to avoid the possibility of litigation by aggrieved parties. Indeed, rumours are that some of the district bids were included on last month's shortlist precisely to avoid accusations of county bias. Now a shire district, Shrewsbury and Atcham BC, has upset the applecart by attempting to use the legal system to block the entire process by seeking a judicial review. Although Shropshire CC is generally regarded as one of the most likely candidates for unitary status and has been working on its bid for at least 12 months, relations with some of the districts have become bitter, to say the least. Nonetheless, there have already been months of discussion between the tiers, plus a further period of consultation until July, so it is certainly not the case that opportunity for debate has been lacking. Furthermore, the one thing the Government has been accused of over the unitary issue is dithering. Rightly or wrongly, it has made its decision on the shortlist and now we can all move on. This is, regretfully, a case of a district throwing its toys out of the pram because it has been unable to get its way rather than arguing its case coherently. Michael Burton Editor, The MJ
