So, we now have the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 laid upon us. This heralds a new future for local government, building on and quickening the pace of much that was already happening in various forward-thinking quarters of the local government world. And while the ‘devil is in the detail' of the secondary instruments, statutory guidance, etc, etc, the accountabilty for whether it will be considered a success, perhaps a watershed even, lies squarely with local government – members, officers and partners – to implement the spirit of the legislation, even if the letter of the law is occasionally lacking or obscure. However, I was disappointed to see one issue which had been included in the White Paper but did not make it into the final cut – the possibility of having a directly-elected executive. This seems to me to have been an ideal opportunity to bring some fresh thinking to the new politics of local government. Personally, I like the cabinet model, and we, here in Merton, have worked hard to make this successful, despite the challenges of being in No Overall Control. We even have a highly-performing scrutiny function, that most ugly duckling of the new political arrangements, recently chosen as team of the year. But think about what a directly-elected executive could have achieved in clarifying roles. First, under the current system, those residents who are served by members who sit on the cabinet clearly have less opportunity for member representation than those in wards who's members are not in the cabinet – being on the executive is a full-time role, even for those who work, and time for representing your constituents is squeezed. And it is certainly not at all yet clear what will happen in areas which move to one member, one ward. Second, from the directly-elected cabinet member's perspective, it would produce a real clarity of role – enabling cabinet to take ‘place-making' decisions in the best interests of the whole geographic area. Not representing one geographical constituency would ensure that decision-making was not compromised, either in reality or, worse for local democracy, by implication. And third, from the non-cabinet member ‘frontline councillor' perspective, their role as representatives of their constituents, holding the executive to account through scrutiny and other means, would be brought front and centre. Would such a scenario not have played to the heart of the new Act and all that it is trying to achieve?
