All one has to do is look at the result of local planning here in Hastings, the crumbling physical infrastructure downtown, the multitude of empty shops, the lack of employment, the numerous unattended fly-tipping sites, the crime (as symbolised by the ever present CCTV van parked on Robertson Street), to see the effect of so-called "planning." Certainly, chaos could not be worse than what we have become used to; true, we might have arrived at the same debacle without planning, but it would not have cost tax payers 50 million quid.
"Planning" or rather the failure of planning as we have experienced in Hastings has been going on for a long time. Certainly, it was around long before the current economic crisis, so there is no point in trying to blame the banks or America (or China or both or all three) or even New Labour. To be fair, the Conservatives played their own part in this local mess by providing a rudderless interim council that accepted the pre-existing status quo of municipal failure they inherited. And make no mistake about it, planning in Hastings has failed. Official documents show a catalogue of failure across almost every key economic and social indicator.
To be sure, failure has not occurred from a lack of money to throw at various problems. There has been lots of that. Rather, failure has been due to narrow mindedness on the part of the salaried borough officers concerning how improvements to life in the borough can be achieved. This problem is coupled with an apparent inability (or unwillingness) by councillors to exert political control over the bureaucracy. It has failed, also, due to an abiding suspicion amongst key councillors and civil servants of ordinary people in ordinary neighbourhoods and of community groups operating outside official sponsorship, both of which could contribute great ideas (and manpower) to the process of improving Hastings. (This culture of control is deeply entrenched in borough institutions to the point that one can argue credibly that the existing public consultation process is so flawed it is not intended to work.)
Logically, this failure of local policy planning will probably continue if such 'planning' is done in the same old way. It is a difficult cycle to break, however, because a lot of people in local government benefit from doing things the same old way. In other words, planning and policy making can get pretty self-serving. Let me give one example. When I returned from America, besides the Sunday Observer, I got a copy of the Hastings Observer. That paper recounted how the Council had rubbished the idea of electing a strong mayor to run the bureaucracy as being somehow subversive of democracy. Councillor Birch, the leader, is quoted as saying: “The council will in essence continue with the system we have now. We all agree that it is better for openness, democracy and involvement that councillors are responsible for running the authority.” Reportedly, the Conservative opposition agreed. " (I'm not sure just where the Lib-Dems stand on this.) What an odd conclusion to come to in the face of objective evidence of policy failure in so many areas!
So, now, a relevant lesson in how "Chaos theory" could break the cycle of failure in policy planning (and reality-denial) by the Council. Mr. Boles' Theory of Chaos is the opposing idea to this Council's institutional obsession with trying to control everything (and thus controlling nothing optimally.) Instead of Councillor Birch and his cohorts in New Labour and the Conservative Party deciding what system of government is best for us, we would simply decide for ourselves. The laws of England give us that chaotic freedom that Mr. Boles recommends: in Hastings, we require the signature of just 3500 registered borough voters on a petition to force a referendum on the issue of whether or not we should have a directly elected mayor. In other words, the issue of which system of government we should have would be discussed by the public and decided by them through a vote. This, it seems to me, would be better than the issue being decided in private by a self-serving local political class.
Personally, I would feel more comfortable with a mayor elected by us all running the local services, rather than the current system which has representatives of certain wards (and not others) running the show in partnership with an unelected chief executive many people have never heard of. Indeed, I would consider a strong mayor system, more, not less, democratic. But that's just my opinion, so, unlike many of our representatives on the Council, I would like to see it put up for a vote. I would trust the people to make the decision for themselves and why not? Bring on the so-called chaos, I say. As for any fears Cllr. Birch and others may have for the future of democracy, I can only console them that voting on any issue is about as far from being undemocratic as you can get.
