BRITISH LIBRARY 
OF POLITICAL AND 
ECONOMIC SCIENCE 


LONDON SCHOOL OF 
ECONOMICS AND 
POLITICAL SCIENCE 


IO,PORTUGAL STREET, 
LONDON WC2A 2HD 


Tel. 01-405 7686 


fabian tract 468 
socialism at the grass roots 

chapter 1 
2 
3 
the need for new thinking 
the diffus'ion of political powerthe role of non-official 
1 
6 
4 
5 
organisationssocialism at the workplaceconclusion : micro-socialism and 
13 
16 
macro-socialism 19 

the author 
Evan Luard was MP for Oxford and a minister in the Foreign 
and Commonwealth Office. He has worked in the diplomaticservi'ce and was delegate to the UN 'General Assembly. The 
author of numerous books and articles, particularly on international 
affairs, Evan Luard has also been a councillor in Oxford. 
In his recent book, "Socialism Without the 'State", he set out 
argumentts in favour of a more decentralised form of socialism. 
In the present pamphlet he seeks to show how this might be 
implemented in current Labour party programmes. 

this pamphlet, like all publications of the Fabian Society, 
represents not the collective view of the Society but only the 
views of the individual who prepared it. The responsibility of 
the Society is limited to approving publications it issues 
as worthy of consideration within the Labour movement. 
Fabian Society, 11 Dartmouth Street, london SW1H 98N. 
April 1980 ISSN 0307 7535 ISIBN 7163 0468 6 


1. the need for new thinl<ing 
With at least four years of oppos1t10n 
ahea'd, there has never been a better 
opportunity far a fundamental examination 
iby the Labour party of its purposes 
and policies. Defeat in the last general 
election provides the opportunity for a 
reassessment not only of the constitutional 
issues which have so dominated 
discussion in the last few months, not 
only of immediate poLicy dilemmas, but 
also of the whole character of the party's 
phiiosophy and its approach to the problems 
of a rapidly changing society. 

Both within the party and amongst the 
public, such a reassessment is now felt 
to be badly needed. Within the partythere is beginning to he an awareness 
that neither the simple reiteration of 
our traditional appeal of the last 50 
years nor the attractive simplicity of the 
so called " alternative economic strategy " 
may !be sufficient '(even with the swing 
of the pendulum that can be confidently 
expected over !the rnext year or tr\vo) to 
regain lasting public support. Within 
the publ-ic there i•s a feeling that many 
traditional policies of the Labour party, 
for all its noble aspirations, belong in 
some way to the past and are irrelevant 
to .current needs. Our policies appear to 
involve the continuing proliferation of 
bureaucracy, a continuing deference to 
the pressures from powerful trade 
unions, a continuing necessity for hightaxation, a contirnuing enhancement of 
the power of the state. These are not 
universally ~ppeabng. There is ampleevidence that the attractions of a policy 
based mainly on caHs .for more public 
01\Vnership and more public spending are 
limited by the willingness of the public 
to vote for the former and to pay for 
the latter. 

Among both public and party there is 
a feeling that the party has run out of 
new ideas, that the programme it is 
offering today is not different, in its 
essentials, from that proposed 30 or 40 
years ago, and is increasingly remote 
from the concerns and aspirations of 
ordinary people. l'f the party is to have 
«ny chance of reg~ining power, therefore, 
it is essential that the re-examination 
which takes place of the party's objec


tives should take account of the fellings 
of the man in the street as well as those 
in the party committee room. 

the party's dilemma 

In common with socia:list parties elsewhere, 
the Labour party today 'is faced 
with a major contradiction. We are concerned 
~bove aH to create a more equal 
society, in which both wealth and power 
are more evenly distdbuted. We have 
tr~ditionally sought to brirng this about 
by two main means: by the extension 
of state ownership, so that majorindustries are no longer run for private 
profit but in the ·interests of the people 
as a whole; and by the creation and 
develropment of a welfare state designed 
to redistribute resources, through a progressive 
taxation system, especial.Jy to 
benefit the less well off. These have 
become the basic pui<pose of the Labour 
party and the aims with which it is mainlyassociated in the eyes of the rpublic. 

Yet the sad 'fact is that Labour policies 
in office, though explicitly devoted to 
these two aims, have succeeded in bringing 
a'bout no significant equalisation,
even in the distribution of income in our 
society over the last 35 years, let alone 
in weal'th or power. Successive studies 
have shown that inequality in income is 
almost unchanged since the early postwar 
period. The only periods in which 
there has in practice been some reduction 
in it have been those when an 'income~ 
policy has rbeen in effect: between 197' 
and 1976, for example, the combinel 
effect of the £8,500 ceiling and the flat 
rate £6 .increase for the rest was to 
reduce inequalities •in income significantly 
for a time. But as soon as such 
a policy has been abandoned and " free 
collective bargaining" restored, the situation 
has !been reversed and traditional 
differentials ·re-established. This suggests 
that, if the Labour party is genuinely 
committed to the creation of a more 
equal society (rather than the preservation 
of the traditi-onal role of trade union 
leaders), 'it must also ·be committed to 
the institution of a permanent incomes 
po!i·cy. This is as necessary for !bringing 


about the "irreversible shift of wealth 
and power " to working people to which 
the party is committed as it is to the 
containment of inflation. It would be 
sensible -if the need for an incomes policy 
was proclaimed and justified more ex· 
plicitly on these grounds. It is as the 
party which stands for equality as well 
as the party of the planned economythat Labour must inevitably also be the 
party of incomes policy. 

The traditional Labour policies of exten'cl· 
,ing public ownership and the welfare 
state have not only not significanbly re· 
duced inequality in income. They have 
prdbably increased inequality in powerand influence. For both ~he extensions 
of publ'ic ownership and of the welfare 
state have involved the creation of vast 
organisations in which power is veryheavily concentrated at the top and 
which those affected by them have few 
opportunities to influence. This has increased 
the sense of helplessness of 
people in the face of the powers that be. 
Decision making is less democratic than 
ever. Paradoxica:lly, the more successful 
we are in achiev,ing lboth aims by these 
traditional means, the greater the role 
that will be played within society bythese vast organisations which so mono· 
polise authority and by those who control 
them, and the more helpless individual 
citizens will seem to be in the face of 
them. 

Further progress in each direction is any· 
way heavily conditioned by attitudes 
within contemporary society. Though 
many members of the Labour partywould wish to see a greater proportion 
of British industry in public hands, it 
is undeniable that this is not a prospect 
which appeals much to most Briti h 
voter . This limits the extent to which 
propo als to that end can be included 
in Labour manifesto . Similarly, though 
most people, both within the Labour 
party and without, would like to see a 
more effective and comprehensive welfare 
state, they are often not enthusia tic 
about the increase of taxation which may 
be necessary to finance thi . What thi 
ha meant i that the exten ions in both 
area which the Labour party in power 

is able to introduce become more and 
more marginal!. The essential advance~ 
that have been made in this country in 
both respects, the extension of publ ic 
ownership and the establishment of the 
welfare state, were made thirty yearago during the first Laibour government 
of 1945-1950. Though there have been 
two subsequent periods of Labour government, 
each lasting for more than a 
single term, the additions that have been 
made to the essent1al structure have been 
on each 'OCCasion fairly marginal. 

It may be therefore that if we are going 
to be able to offer the electorate an 
appeal that is not simply a rehash oi 
former programmes whose attractiveness 
is clearuy already in decline (more support 
far declining industries, more import 
controls, more 'industrial strategy and 
bigger and better state agencies of all 
kinds) but which is genuinely new and 
radical, then we may need to look in 
a new direction. It is not the ends that 

are in question-the !Creation of a more 
equal society and of greater public con· 
trol over economic affairs-but the means 
of attaining them. The main contention 
of this pamplrlet is that throughout its 
history, lbut e&pecially in recent years,
the Labour party has been over con· 
cerned with the questions of organisation 
at the top (the transfer of economic 
power from one oligarchy in private 
industry to another in state concerns, 
the proliferation of councils and committees 
within the Whitehall jungle, the 
mechanisms of ministerial control) and 
not enough with how all this impinges 
on the everyday life of people, whether 
the worker in the nationali ed corpora· 
tion, the council house tenant or the 
applicant for supplementary benefit. 
Albove all, we have neglected what to 
many early socialists wa the es entia! 
and fundamental core of socialist thinking 
and concern: the creation of a en e 
of community within society, which mu t 
mean the trengthening and enrichingof communities at the lowe t level , the 
level that matters most. 

The fact i that mo t of the policies 
which the Labour party ha introduced 
over the Ia t thirty year have had , except 


in the ·crudest fina:ncial sen\Se, very little 
impact on the lives of ordinary people. 
The transfer of authority within the rail, 
coal .or steel in:dustry from private directors 
to public directors appointed 'by a 
Labour government, the creation of 
the Land Commission and the establishment 
of BNOC 'have brought certain 
benefits 1but they are nat visible to 
most men and women. Control over 
British industry has not lbeen democratised 
; •it has been shifted from one elite 
to another. The ·extension of publicownership by Lalbour governments has 
not been accompanied by any diffusion 
of power within state industry, still less 
within industry as a whole. It has certainly 
not done anything to transform 
the lives of those who ·worik within such 
industries. We have .increased welfare 
benefits, and even .created new ·ones, but 
we have done little to impr.ove the wayin which benefits are distributed .and to 
reduce the inhumanities and hardships to 
which this often ·gives rise. A1bove al1l 
we have .given people no greater ·Capacity 

to influence the events and decisions 
which are of most concern to them. In 
other words we ha¥e totally failed to 
bring about the diffusion of power which 
is ·one of our fundamental aims. 

Many people will conclude that this reflects 
the !balance .of priorities of our 
party. They will have noted for examp·le 
that, while the last La:bour government 
successfully put through all its pro-
grammes concerned with extending the 
power .of .the government and changing 
industrial structures at the top, those 
parts of .our programme ·Concerned with 
giving 'the public a greater opportunity 
to influence the way the country was 
run-the proposals for ·industrial democracy, 
the freedom .of information act, 
parliamentary reform, the proposedcharter for council house tenants a:nd so 
on-aH feH !by the /Wayside. The result 
is that the actual distribution ·Of powerand influence, like that in income and 
wealth, was very li'ttle different when 
we left office from when we came to 
power. This can leave the public with 
the impiression tha:t our primary, ·even 
exclusive, concern is with the .organisation 
of power at the 'top rather than 

with making it possible .for people to 
acquire a greater control over their own 
lives, still less with oprO¥iding the opportunilies 
for a satisfying community .Jife, 
in which the sharing and comradeshipof socialism may truly be experienced. 

O'f course ,we can easily make up for 
some of these deficiencies. We mayeventually introduce the industrial democracy 
measures that we promised and 
failed to provide last time. We may be 
a:ble to humanise 'the welfa:re services. 
And ·so on. But it is not sure that we 
can entirely .over.come the difficulties 'in 
this way. • For ,the prdblem results partly 
from the entire manner in Whi·oh our 
aims are conceived. The achievemen't of 
social -ownership and ·Of redistribution 
through public ~Services will continue to 
be our objectives. What we mus't now 
do is to re-examine the means that have 
traditionally been .worked out for achieving 
them. At present, it is still taken 
for granted that social ownership must 
'be achieved 'through state ow·ership, that 
welfare servioces must :be provided bythe welfare state. In fact, our ultimate 
aims may be attainable tby other means. 

Social ownership may take ·other forms 
than state ownership; and ·welfare services 
may 'be provide'CI. ·by o'ther means 
than state handouts. 'f.hinking in the 
La;bour party has (at •l-east since the decline 
o:f the syndi·calist strand represented 
by the Coles-e¥en then .a minority view) 
always !been mesmerised by the traditional 
concept 01f socialism at the state 
level. 

socialism for people 

It is towards alterna·tive approaches and 
al'ternative systems ·Of organisation, corresponding 
better to the rea•! community 
feeling of men a:nd •women today, that we 
should ndW be directing our thinking.
Of ·course some measure of state power 
will need to 'be retained. There will-at 
leas't for the foreseeable future-need to 
be national mm1stries implementingnational policies, state industries with 
at least a framework ·of national 
organisation, some system of nanonaol 


planning and a stale 'Wide system of 
social services. 

But there are huge variations possible 
in the .way ,these are organised and in 
the degree of decentralisation in decision 
making which the syst·em can permit.
Even many of our -immedia,te neighbours 
in Europe operate far more decentralised 
socie'ties than we ·do in Britain-as in 
the federal structure ·of West Germanyfor example. But an even greater degree 
of decentralisation than is practised anywhere 
.today is 'feasibloe if the will to 
achieve ~t 'is there. This reqU'ires determination 
and commitment. The centralising 
pressures-the demand for 
"efficiency", for 'coordination, for 
organisarion-from ciVil servaru~s, politicians 
and many others are mch that, 
without adequate countervailing power, 
they will always prevail. Perhaps the 
most sinister '(because most persuasive)
of these pressures is ·the ~Suggestion that 
centralisation is required to secure 
equality. This is a simple fallacy: though 
central funding will ll!lways be requiredfor ·this purpose-to create equality between 
regions as much as between individuals-
this can very ell!sily be reconciled 
with a high degree of decentralisation 
in the way servi·ces all"e organisedand run. 

It has always heen difficult lfor the Labour 
party to reconcile its ,genuine concern 
with increasing persona-l freedom and 
its concern for democracy, pa·rt'icipation 
and 'grass roots sentiment with its simultaneous 
'desire to see an in1crease in the 
power of the state. Socialism, we have 
always said, is not something desired for 
its own sake but for ,the sake of individual 
men and women, as a means 
towards a more satisfying social existence 
and a 'deeper human fulfilment. But so 
long as the achievement of socialism is 
seen as always demanding an increased 
role and power for the national state, 
those la,tter ends become more difficult 
of attainment. State entenprises and state 
agencies presuppose organisation o n the 
largest possible scale, with a very large 
degree of concentr<iltion of 1po'W·er at the 
top. This is seen in its ·extreme form in 
communist countries, but it is also visible 

on a lesser scale in democrati'C socialist 
countries. The result is that .the worker 
in socialist industry, even in •democratic 
states, far from being liberated and dignified 
by the change in ownership, sometimes 
:becomes an ·even smaller cog ·in 
an even larger machine, with no greatercontrol over his own destiny or the 
decisi'ons that shape his working life. 

For decades, British socialists have been 
concerned with this problem. They have 
talked about "·indus trial democracy ", 
"workers control ", ".participa,tion" and 
so on. Consumer ·cvuncils, communityhealth councils and similar !bodies have 
been established, or proposed, to represent 
a form of countervailing power 
to that of .the elite at ,the t!op. But we 
should not delude ourselves that these 
create for the vast mass of the public 
(or o'f the workers, consumers or patients)
any genuine sense of "participa-tion " in 
decisions that are reached. Few in practice 
·can pal'tkipate in this way and it is a 
handful of (mainly middle class) people 
who man such ·committees. It is thus 
merely a shift in power, not a genuinediffusion, which results. (This is also the 
case with maJny of the proposed changes 
in the structure of the LaJbour partythat ha'Ve :been recently discussed: a 
reduction in the power of ,the Prime 
Minister may :give .greater power to the 
ministers in the ,cabinet, but not to the 
publ·ic as a .whole; the writing •of .the 
party manifesto by the NEe wiH increase 
the power of the members of that body 
but not that of party members generally; 
the .compulsory re-selection of MPS will 
increase 'the power of .party activists 
within the general committees hut not 
that of •ordinary party mernbers, still l·ess 
of Labour voters.) The only way to increase 
the power and influence of 
ordinary people is to ensure tha't more 
decisions are reached at a lower level, in 
&maller scale organisations wh1ch can be 
influenced and directed by their own 
members. 

At ·the state level, power is i'nevitablyconcentrated because decisions affecting 
many millions of people must be taken 
by a few in 'POsitions of authority. 
Sim'ilarly, social ownership imposed at 


the level of the state will inevitably be 
in a form that is remote from the mass 
of the .people 'that will be affected by it. 
55 million people cannot 'be in anymeaningful way the " owners " df British 
Steel, BR or Briti-sh Electricity; stiH less 
can they be the controllers of •them, 
which is what really coun'ts. So they are 
bound to delegate authority to tinycliques in board rooms, as remote and 
impervious to influence as the boards 
of capitalist societies which they so 
exactly resemble. 

If power is to be genuinely diffused, 
therefore, it is not enough t!o create new 
channels for participation, new " councils 
" and " committees " aUeged to br 
"representative " of workers, consumers. 
council tenants or whatever. Such coun· 
cils are jus't as much an .oligarchy of a 
favoured few as those which they replace. 
The root of the .problem is the scale and 
system of organisation of the modern 
state. 

Seeking to regulate every detail of the 
.Jives of its popula't'ions, this state machine 
spa;wns an ever •growing bureaucracywhich continually expands with the increasing 
responsibilities placed on 
national ministries and with the infinite 
series of rules and regulations that ·central 
government manufactures. This process 
cannot fail to .threaten some of the traditional 
values .for whi·ch socialist .parties 
have always stood. Democracy becomes 
more difficult because •governments !become 
more remote, decisions more tech· 
ni,cal, rules mare de'tailed and bureaucrats 
more powerful. Participation becomes 
more difficu1t because, w.ith the complexity 
of ,government, few will take the 
trouble to take part in the bewildering 
array of ·committees which are needed 
to influence those at .the top. Equality 
becomes more difficult because large scale 
organisations need a concentration of 
.power at the 'top with diverse incomes 
to match. 

Freedom becomes more diffi·cuit 'because 
the ·smooth running of the maJchine requires 
that every cog ·within it must be 
adjusted to conform to the decisions 
which those at the top believe to be 

required ;by "public interes't ". And ·the 
sens·e 10f community, ·perha;ps the most 
fundaJmental of aH the aims of s-ocialisUIS 
in previous ages, becomes impossible:
because a national state with a population 
of miHions or tens of millions, whatever 
else it may achieve, can never in 
i:tsellf represent a meaningful community. 


2. the diffusion of political 
power 


It is sometimes implied that it is impossible 
to diffuse power or to •decentralise 
government in Britain ·effectively because 
we are a small country and the efficient 
running of the machine requires a strong 
centralised govennrnent. Socialists, because 
of their 10oncern with maximising 
state power, have been particularlyinclined to dismiss the idea of decentralisation 
of pOIWer, especiaHy jf it means 
-transferring significant powers down from 
Whitehall and Westminster. 

HOIW important is it that polit~cal, economic 
and -other tYJPes of <Control should 
be so concentrated in our cap~tal -ci•ties 
as they are today? Is this essential for 
the efficient management of our affairs, 
and for a!Oil'ieving the task of planningand redistribution jn which all socialists 
believe? Or is there room for a degree 
·of decentralisation •which !Would provide 
more scope for local decision making, 
local economic management and local 
control Cff essential s·ervices? 

The fust point to be made in -rep·ly to 
those !Who claim that 'the running of a 
modern state demands strong central 
control, especially in a socialist state, 
is that there are a good many other 
coun'tries wruoh prov-e tbe reverse. Power 
is already far more decentralised t~an 
in Britain in WeSt Germany, Yugoslavia, 
the us, Switzerland and India, to name 
only a few. Such countries are not 
demonstrably worse run or more inefficient 
than Britain. Nor is their scale 
always different: YugoslaV'ia, Switzerland 
and Ca·nada are far smaller in 
population than Brita:in but they practise 
a federal system effectively. They ·remain 
alble to implement effecti-ve economic 
policies for the country as a whole. And, 

a.s the case of Yugoslavia shows, such 
a syStem is by no means incompatibl-e 
with the running of a fuHy socialist 
s'tate. 
Over the last decade or ~wo, there has 
been a fair amount of discussion of 
regional 1go'Vernment in Britain. It was 
considered at some length by bolth the 
Redcliffe-Maud Commision -on l•ocal 
government and by the Kilbranden Commission 
on the com;'titution. The majority 

of the Redchffe-Maude Commission, 
while they did not recommend a majortier af regional government .for Britain, 
preferr1ng sixlty or so all-purpose counties, 
did propose the creation of five 
indirectly elected provincial councils for 
England IWhi·oh would undertake •strategi-c 
planning on the basis of structure plans 
from the <counties. kgainst this, the 
memorandum of dissent presented •by 
Derek Senior strongly recommended the 
creation of around 30 or so "cityregions " corresponding to the social 
geography, especially the work and 
leisure pa-tterns, of :~he population. Fai-ling 
that, he favoured a dozen or so 
regions created by putting together two 
of these "city regions". 

The majority ·Of the Kilbranden Commission 
were also unenthusiastic about 
regional ·government in England, even 
of a purely executive kind, suggestingonly the establishment of regional coordinating 
and a:dvisory councils, partlyindirectly elected and partly nominated, 
with feJw responsilbilities -ex•cep:t for formulating 
stra:tegic plans. But again the 
memorandum of dissent of Lord 
Crowther Hunt and Professor Pea<cock, 
which many felt presented a far more 
p·owerful 'Case, favoured the creation of 
a regional tier throughout the UK, ~ncluding 
five in Engla~nd, with each havingits own assembly enjoyin·g quasi-<Iegislative 
power, that js tbe pOIWer of making" ordinances " or byelaws. A minority 
within tbe majoruty ~~Lord Foot and Sir 
James Steel) proposed executive devolution 
to elected regional ·governments fe-r 
the whole of the UK. Many peop~e would 
regard the two brilliantly arguedminority reports as presenting a better 
prescription for local government .in 
this coun'try today than the ideas of the 
two majori·ties. 

On tbe whole the views of the majonities 
have prevailed nonetheless. Regions were 
given no powers in the local government 
reforms introdu~ed by the Conservative 
government in 1972. While there bas 
been considera:ble sUJppor:t for the notion 
of a regional -tier 'Within the Lrubour party(including on the NEC), .the last Lrubour 
government concluded that it would be 


wrong to disrupt local ,government once 
more so ·soon after .the previous reorganisation; 
thus nothing was done. 
Detractors of regional .government, in-
eluding m'any within the Labour party, 
have used a nU!m.ber of arguments to 
criticise the idea. Reg·ional governments 
exer.cising significant power have been 
held to :be the divisive; to be administratively 
unnecessary or inconvenient ; 
to lack any roots .in local loyaHies ; 
above all, to make it more difficult for 
a national government, ·especially a 
Labour government, to imp1ement its 
plans for economic development for the 
country as a whole. Such arguments have 
been used WJith a specill'l force by centralisers 
(including central governmentofficials) who righNy see that regionaladministration would come to representa challenge and counterweight to Whitehal1 
power that was far more signi'ficantthan that of existing local government. 

Yet none of these a·!'guments carries 
much wei1ght. National loyaltJies are so 
powerful, and the habit of thinking in 
national terms so deeply ingrained, that 
there seems Bttle serious risk that the 
regjons, whatever powers are given to 
them, could <become a serious threat to 
national unity. A regional tier •would not 
be administratively inconvenient if it is 
accompanied (as will he argued laJter)
by a .reorganisation of •local •government 
at other levels. On the contrary, it could 
reduce the excessjve burden at presentplaced on the government machine at 
Wh!itehll'll. So .far as regiona}l loyallty is 
concerned, despite the ambiguous evidence 
quoted by the Killbranden Commission, 
it is argualble that there is today 
at least as •grea:t a sense of regionalidentilty and loyll'lty as there is to the 
county, es.pecially to the new, largelyartificial .counties now created. In the 
case of some of the regions-the South 
West, East Angbia, the Norfth West and 
the North, for examp'le-that sense of 

identity is undoubtedly greater. 

Indeed the arguments used a•gainst the 
creation of regions in England coul.d as 
well have <been used against devolution 
for Scotland and Wales, which the last 
Labour government was perfectly pre


pared Ito contemplate. The danger of 
·creating disunity and the difficulty of 
maintaining coordinated e c on o m i c 
policies were even .greater in those cases. 
Converse'ly, the argument in favour of 
devolution .in lthose .cases-the apparent 
remoteness of WhitehaH and Westminster, 
the need for adaptation to local 
conditions and tra:dition, the delays and 
difficulties in implementing effeotive 
regiona•l polrcies at present-are equallycogent in the case of the English regions. 

Moreover there is an obvious case for 
unirformi.ty. It woul'd ll'lways have been 
far better if the question of devolution 
for Scotland and Wales, and even the 
future government of Northern Irela·nd, 
ha:d been considered, not as the short 
term res.pon:se •to immediate challenges, 
but as part and parcel of a deliberatf 
progra!mme ·of decentralisation for the 
whole of the UK. A.s it was, the feeling 
was given that the Labour government'sproposals stemmed not so much from any 
carefu1 consideration of the ll'dministrative 
and political needs of the two countries 
but as .a purely .political response 
to the electoral successes o'f the naltionalists, 
as a 'bending to the wind of Scottish 
and Welsh nationalism. H a form of 
devolution-of regional government-
were to be .introduced for the whole of 
the UK, on .the other hand, many of the 
prOblems encountered over devo'lutionthe 
accusation tha:t we were making a 
special case for Scotland, the "West 
Lothian" question ~concerning the imbalance 
between the rights of Scott•ish 
and English MPs at Westminster), the 
charge lthat we were paving .the way for 
the ·break up of the UK and creating a 
perfect platform for Scottish Nationalists 
-would aU carry far less weight. There 
would .in the eyes of the pUJb!.ic he much 
more logic in a sy.stem that was ru!)p<lieduniformly for the UK as a whole. 

the need for devolution 

The fact 'is that there is a good case 
for a •general devolution of powerthroughout 1B11itain at this time, nOit justin Scotland and Wales, especially if the 
general case suggested here js accepted 


(that what is needed most to allow 
our people a greater sense of control 
over their own existences is a wider 
decentra•lisation of power), lthen there is 
much sense in thinking of the creation 
of a tier of regiona'i government throughout 
the UK. 

There has never been a better time for 
a move towards a system .of regionalgovernment tha:n the present. There will 
anyway .be a need for another majorreform o'f local government in the UK 
(as well as, probably, for a new assault 
on the problem of devolution f.or Scotland 
and Wa'les) ,in the next few years. 
There may wehl be a reorganisation of 
the Health Service in the light of the 
Royal Commission's ·recen1t report. There 
is a fairly universal a:gr·eement, even 
among Conservatives, ~hat the last local 
government reorganisation was a fai-lure 
and that the system it introduced is un· 
wie~dy, costly and inefficient. That systemhas concentrated far too much authority 
at the county .Jevel and, oultside the 
metropolitan areas, reduced the pO'Werof major cities, relegated to the status 
of distr.icts, to absurd insignificance. Peter 
Shore's proposals for transferring some 
power, especially education and social 
services, to the larger districts recognised 
some of these difficulties. But those proposals 
were essentially orrly tinkeringwith the system and were only proposed 
because of the difficulties of introducing 
more sweeping reforms at that time. Now 
there is an opportunity for a more satisfactory 
and comprehens'ive reorganisa·
tion. 'lit is very much to he hoped that 
the La:bour party wihl come down firmly 
in .favour of the creation of a regionaltier. 

Even if this is accepted, there will no 
doubt be much discussion of the size 
and type of region required. What is 
necessary is the crealtion of ten or twelve 
regions (including Scot'land and Wales) 
with boundaries which correspond as far 
a~ possible to existing traditional ,loyalties 
or administrative practice. It 1is important 
to sltress that this js not to create something 
totally new, since there a'lreadyexists a tier of regional government in 
the purely administrative sense. Most of 

the major government departmen'ts 
already have regional offi,ces, though at 
present they operate within different 
boundaries {there are said to be 20 
different regional structures curren'tlyoperating, only three ·Or four of which 
use the same boundaries). Traditionally, 
the most important of these '(until their 
recent abolition) have been the regional 
econCJ!mic planning councils. Much discussion 
in the past has assumed that these 
would be the regions adopted f.or regional 
government in England (North, North 
Ea·st, North West, East Midlands, West 
Midlands, East Anglia, South East and 
South ·West). There is no necessary 
reason, however, Why the new regionsshould correspond exactly with this 
framework. There is a g.ood case, if the 
South East is not to be totally out of 
proportion to the rest, for the creat·ion 
of a .separate region .for Greater London 
(though in this case some joint !bodywould be needed for strategic planning 
purposes) ; there js something to be said 
for dividing the South West between an 
Avon region, based ·On Bristol, and a 
genuine 'South West, based on Exeter. 

A stmcture of 12 regions of this sort, 
with an averruge popula!tion of <~!bout 
4 million, is probably about right. But 
consideration should at least be given to 
the alternative of the " city regions " 
favoured not only 1by Derek Senior but 
by the Ministry of Housing and Local 
Government 'in their ·own evidence to 
the Redcliffe-Maude Commission at that 
time. These would lbe very much smaller 
(with 35 regi-ons in England alone) and 
very ·varied in size, with populationsranging from 300,000 to 4 million, though 
mainly between 500,000 and 1,500,000. 
They would be based on a single major 
city and would correspond to the way 
most people conceive of their own 
loca•lity. The system would also have the 
advantage of making even the -regional 
tier of government seem somewhat Jess 
remote from the citizens than the type 
of region normally discussed, and for 
this reason is at !first sight a more attractive 
pattern for a decentralised system. 

In practice, however, the eXiperience of 
recent l-ocal government reforms shows 


that even ·counties of the present size, 
far s.maller than the proposed " city 
regions", nonetheless still appear infinitely 
remote to mos·t people, so that 
the "city regions " would ha,ve no real 
advantage in this last respect. On the 
other hand, they would be administratively 
inconvenient, and the .wide variation 
.between their sizes would cause 
considera,ble problems. A'bove all, theywould be far too small ever to become 
an effective counter weight to Whitehall : 
the smaller the size of the regions the 
less likely it is that effectiv·e power would 
be transferred to them from Whitehall 
(which should rperharps 1be the main purpose 
of decentralisation) and the more 
likely it is that the grandmothering from 
Whitehall would continue as today. This 
is a decisive argument a•gainst the small 
"city region " though it would still be 
possilble to adopt the "large city region", 
or sub-i>rovince, proposed by Derek 
Senior, of rw'hich there would be 12 to 
15 in England (usually joining a sbrong" city region " with a weaker one). Whatever 
the size of the regions adopted, it 
is to he hoped that they would be givenrea:! names (Tyne, Mersey, York, Wessex) 
rather than the grim and forbidding 
geographical titles normally used today. 

the distribution of powers 

The major difficulty is the exact distribution 
of powers. The main danger in 
moving to regional government is that 
it could be used as the opportunity to 
transfer powers upwards .from the present 
counties '(so making local g·overnment 
even more remote than today) rather 
than down from Whitehall. It is essential 
to avoid this danger. The major pu11pose 
must be a genuine diffusion of effective 
power !from the centre to the regions. 

Ideally the new regions should be given 
powers as extensive as those previously 
proposed for Scotland under the Scotland 
A:ct. What this means is that they 
should be more than purely executive 
bodies carrying out within their own 
region policies .formed in London. The 
attempt during the devolution debate to 
make a strict distin'ction ·between legis


lative and executive devolution was 
always misconceived, since no precisedividing line ·can be drawn. As the Kilbrandon 
Report pointed out, the policymaking 'function is the important one ; 
once it has been agreed that the regions 
have a role in determining policy in their 
own areas, they begin to exercise a quasi 
legislative power, even if it is exerci.sed 
by the passing of regulations, byelaws 
or ordinances, rather than " laws". Even 
in a fully federall state, such as West 
Germany, the distinction is blurred: 
though formally the Lander have legislative 
.power, this is only in three carefully 
specified fields-on most other subjectsthey aot as executive a•gents on behalf 
of the federal government. In our own 
system, Ultimate sovereignty would 
always remain at Westminster, lbut considerable 
rpower in particular areas w.ould 
be delegated to the regional authorities. 
In practice, whether the system is caHed 
federal, " legislative devolution " or 
"executive devolution", what a!lwaysresults is a delilberate sharing of powers.
What is important is not the precisedefinition of the division .of powers, but 
the spirit in which the system is operated;
and this will be equally the case however 
the system is labelled. 

There is thus no reason Why, with 
sufficient goodwill, a fully federal system 
should not be practicable in Britain : the 
outraged horror which is sometimes 
e~pressed about the idea within the 
La!bour party seems often to reflect an 
imperfect understanding of what that 
term rupplies. But for the same reason·
because it is the spirit rather than the 
letter whi·ch is important-it is doubtful 
also whether there is much to be gained 
by establishing such a system in the UK. 
In practice there could be a greaterdegree of effective decentra>lisation without 
a precisely defined sharing of sovereignty 
such as a federall system presupposes 
; and the experience of federal 
states in recent years, nota!bly in Australia, 
Canada and the us, has indicated 
that a rigid division of authority 'laid 
down in statutory form can lead to manypwblems when a changed situation indicates 
the need for adjustment. In practice 
a division of powers whi·ch is estab



lished only through the normal legislative 
process and can be amended in the same 
way-rather than through the specialprocedures normaUy provided for " constitutiona'l 
" amendment-provides the 
greater flexibility that is required. 

What are the powers that the regionshould exercise? At the minimum the 
region should have 'control of regionaldevelopment, strategic planning '(including 
the location of industry), police, fire 
services, water and sewerage, major roads 
(except motorways), public <transport,
airports and possibly ports, further (nothigher) education and specialised education 
(for the mental!ly and physicallyhandicrupped). The regions ·should also 
exercise certain overall powers in the 
field of health a·nd hospitals. But it is 
doubtful whether the reg.ional authority 
should take ,over direct responsibility for 
health service planning: more [ikelythere should continue to be a separateregional .health authority (in i·denti'cal 
regions) which would be responsi•ble for 
planning, with some prov·ision for mutal 
representation. The regions would take 
over, or at lea:st coordinate, the work of 
the regional arts and sports •counci.Js. The 
existing regiona'l offices of central government 
departments (,for example environment, 
induS'try, trade, employment and 
DHSS) would be taken over. There would 
be a number of other areas in which 
some power should be transferred from 
Whitehall to the regions: these would 
include police and the pr.obation service 

(where Home Office interference at 
present often causes strong •local resentment), 
part of the administration of 
environmental heaJlth, agriculture, education 
and employment. 

In .other words, the regional authorities 
would not only be exercising functions 
now undertaken by local author.ities, they 
would take over some at present undertaken 
by central government and others 
undertaken by ad hoc bodies, often not 
accountable, created £or the purpose. It 
is often forgotten that it is only since 
1945 that local authorities lost control 
of hospitals, gas, electricity, trunk roads, 
water, sewerage and environmental 
health, with their responsilbilities being 

given to national ,or ad hoc bodies. This 
is one of 1the many ways central government 
has proliferated (since 1900, the 
number ·of civH servants ha·s increased 
twelvefold). Yet two thirds of civil servants 
already work at regional or local 
level. What is needed is a tier of elected 
regional ·government to take responsibility 
for them. 

If there is to be any genuine decentralisation 
of power, it is essential that 
the regions should enjoy indl!lpendent 
revenue raising powers. Without these, 
they would Iack the independence which 
is the essential purpose -of decentralisation 
and which locrul .g.overnment at 
present so ·COnspicuously la,cks. Thus the 
regions ·should have the authority to raise 
money through a local income tax, a 
sales tax and I or possibly taxes -on motor 
vehicles and petrol. At the very least, 
there should be a system by which a 
particular pr.oportion of •central revenues 
was automatica1ly allocated to the regions 
·(not granted through discretion as at 
present). The total revenues of the regionswould then be made up of an assessed 
share of national taxes, locally levied 
taxes, equalisation .grant and perhapsloans. It might be necessary f.or central 
government to retain some power to 
limit the total level of expenditure or 
at ~east of loans, as part of its general 
powers of economic management. But 
such powers should be used only with 
great discretion. Decentralisation has 
'little meaning unless it includes a ·con· 
siderable independence of local bodies 
from central 'Control. (The Conservatives 
who once preached the virtues of local 
'government autonomy are now busily 
trying to destroy it lby abolishing financial 
independence.) 

There would be a directly elected regional 
assembly or council; a regional government 
or administration (just as the 
regions in West Germany or Yugos<laviahave their own " g.overnments "), and a 
regional leader of the assembly or " chief 
minister" (as in West Germany) with 
his own cabinet. 

One of the main pur-poses of this typeof decentralisation is to encourage a far 


greater diversity in government. Regions 
with effective powers and adequatefinanciltl resources •could oreate their .own 
type of society within their own regions 
in their own ·way. A fa.r greater variation 
in the character of different regions 
might emerge than exists today. Labour 
·regions might be in a position to introduce 
a significant meltSure .of socialism 
within th~i·r own area, whatever type of 
government was in power in London. 
" Reg-ionalisation " in 'Some cases could 
be a substitute for "nationalisation ". 
Regional activities 'Of many kinds could 
be .promoted: -industrial, commercial , 
artistic. Such diversity between regions 
need not ·involve inequality: central 
government action would still be required 
on a considerable scale to ensure 
(through regional policy, rate supportgrants •or other measures) that inequalities 
.in wealth between regions were 

counteracted. 

community councils 

Benea-th the regions the ·counties would 
'be abolished. There would be 150 to 200 
districts in Engla,nd, with populations of 
about 150,000-250,000 (though there 
would be no need for uniJ:ormity, and 
boundaries should be based -on local 
realities). The dist>ricts would be responsible 
for education, social services, housing, 
all local planning, envi·ronmental 
health, community heatlth a,nd GIP services, 
consumer protection, roads apartfrom major ·r-oads, libraries, refuse disposal 
and lighting. 

The only ·controversial question here concerns 
education. The DES, in its eV'idence 
to the Radcliffe-Maud Commission, 
claimed that there was some ev-idence that 
efficiency of educational administration 
was less in the smaller authorities. But 
the DES admitted that there were goodeducation authorities throughout the 
size range. One of the research paperscommissioned by ·the Commission concluded 
that size was not a fa!Ctor determining 
effectiveness and that educationa'l 
policy was the only .fa·ctor that could be 
regarded as decis,ive in determining the 
performance of different autho-rities. 

Many who have lived in the former 
county boroughs can attest that the standard 
.of educattonal administration and 
provision has often ·serious'ly declined 
since responsi-bility was taken over by a 
county council with a much largerpopulati-on. -Moreover, even if there was 
some sacr.ifice in "efficiency " (which can 
only ibe judged on highly sUJbjectivecriteria), that price may be worth payingfor more genuinely local control, with 
greater a•ccessibi.Jity of the authority to 
parents and public 0Which itself represents 
a ,form of efficiency). 

The system should be a two level and 
not a two tier system : that is, districts 
wou1ld lbe autonom-ous in their own 
spheres and not subject to control by the 
regions, thoUJgh in the field of education 
a possible variation would be to givegeneral education poli·cy (as well as 
:.pecialised education) to the regions, and 
educational administration to the districts. 

But to most people today districts themselves, 
though the IOiWest tier in the existing 
system, 3!ppea-r remote and inaccessible. 
They do not ·represent "local " 
government in any meaningful sense. 
And they certainly do not reflect anyreal sense of commun'ity. This was shown 
by research ·carried out by the Redcliffe-
Maude Commi·ssion, which revealed that 
more than 50 per cent of .people in towns 
(ex·cept small towns) regard a •group of 
streets, and not the town, as representing 
the 'home area o-r thei•r community, 
whilst in the countryside al'most everylbody 
regarded either the parish or partof the parish as their community. It 
was .f.or this -rea·son that almost the .on1lything on which all members of the Commission 
ltgreed was for the •establishment 
of " local •councils " which would be 
closer to the community and more 
di·rectly representative of local lfeelings. 
Yet though this was one of the onlyunanimous recommendations, it W3JS also 
almost the .only one total!ly ignored in 

the subsequent local 'government reorganisation. 


There is a strong ·case for creating a new, 
~oiWer tier of " ·community counci'ls" 
which would correspond with people's 


sense of community, serving populations 
of only a thousand or two, the vil!C!!gein the countryside, the urban parish or 
similar districts in the city. These would 
act primarily as the voice of their com· 
munity on all matters which affected it. 
On any question concerning amenities or 
rights, proposals of higher authorities 
concerning schools, ·roads, street lighting, 
sewera~ge, traffic, development and so on, 
their duty would lbe to .cal•l public meetings 
for 1ocal discussion of the matter 
and subsequently to transmit the opinion 
of the community to the a~ppropriate 
au·thority '(•wlrich would have the corresponding 
duty to consult such community 
bodies) and represent it in discussions at 
the hi.gher level. These are the matters 
on which most people have the greatest 
concern and are most anxious to have 
their say, and ~bout which they find 
the remoteness of present day authorities 
most frustrating. The community councils 
might also nominate members to 
serve on local institutions, such as 
schools mana·gement boards, amenitysocieties and so on. They would attend 
meetings of the district council·s to present 
loca'l ·views where necessary. Finally, 
they would have the power to spend 

money, locally oraised, for local community 
purposes: on parks, ga·rdens, 
lighting, museums and theatres (perhaps 
shared with other communities), benches, 
footpaths and community festivals. 

It is to be hoped that a local .government 
structure of this .sort-with regions wielding 
significant powers and financi~lly 
independent, districts performing manyof the tasks of the present counties but 
faor closer to the people and communitycouncils at the I·owest level corresponding 
to the real living community-coU'ld 
make possible a genuine diffusion of 
power and influence of the kind the 
current centralised system makes impossible. 
At present, the un·iversal power of 
central government, the continued contrdl 
by the various Whitehall ministries 
of nearly all the activities of councils, 
the b<rge size of the existing counties 
and above all the strict financial control 
by the Trea:sury mean that there scarcely 
exists any true local government. The 
type of structure proposed here might 

do something to break this stranglehold 
of ·centnl!lised authority. In LC!!bour controlled 
•regions, it might even make possible 
the introduction of some partial 
measures of socia•lism, whatever the 
government in power in Westminster. It 
would certainly bring government in 
many important fields closer to ordinary 
people. 


3. the role of non-official 
organisations 


Most people have little contact, for most 
of their lives, with official organisations. 
The reorganisation of the structure of 
government, even a significant decenbralisation 
of government, would make 1ittle 
difference to the day to day existence 
of most of the population. The interests 
and aspirations of many, probably the 
majority of people, are directed towards 
activities and organisation's that do not 
fa'll within any •governmental structure. 

Neither decentralisation nor increasingthe opportunities f.or people to :influence 
government will therefore mudh affect 
ordinary people. All are today in favour 
of !Wider "partic~pation " of the public 
in decision making. However, the number 
of people anxious to participate in officia•l 
bodies, or in the formal structure of local 
government, is limited. More opportunity 
to share in decisions could be given by 
a wider resort to referenda or other forms 
of consultation at nationa1l and local 
level. There is a g•reat deal to be said 
for carrying out referenda, especially on 
local matters, such as the system of 
education, traffic control or the social 
services. But such consultation can at 
·best be only sporadic and occasional. It 
can scarcely be said to represent the type 
of particilpation to which many attach 
most importance. 

What is, however, far more significantis the rubi'lity to take part in a range of 
activities that do not fall under official 
auspices at al!l: to have a share in the 
local residents' association, women'•s 
institute, consumer group, amenityassociation, the local sports club, the 
pigeon .fanciers association, the darts 
league, the chess club and any number 
of other activities at the gras'S roots. And 
it is partly because they are unofficial 
that participation in such activities is so 
much va'lued and enjoyed. 

These are the activities which most determine 
the quality of life df most people. 
Yet they p'lay no part, or very little part, 
in rparty !POlitical rprog·rammes. However 
the ability to take part effectively in such 
activities can be affected lby official 
policies. In part this is a purely financial 
question. Some of these groups cou'ld 

not [unction without assistance from local 
authorities and central government, and 
would function far better if they had 
more help. A Labour government of the 
future must recognise that expendituredevoted to assisting such activities maybe more relevant to people'·s needs, and 
therefore money better spent, than much 
presently spent by local government, for 
example on bigger and 'better town halls, 
on larger road burlding pr·ogrammes or 
some official junketing. It would be 
seen by people as better spent, not 
only because its benefits would be 
more immediately visi!ble but because 
the encouragement of local •groups corresponds 
more closely to their own 
aspirations. 

Secondly, and more important, such 
activities often require or !benefit .from 
premises which it is difficult or impossi·ble 
for local •groups to provide for themselves. 
It is here that public action is most 
requi•red. 'No programme in a local or 
central government manifesto would 
arouse greater enthusiasm than a commitment 
to establish new or improved facilities, 
in community centres or purposebui-lt clubs, .for activities of thi·s kind. 
In some cases there may be a need for 
paid ol'ganisers or .for other assistance 
to enable such a·ctivities to flourish ; here 
too it would be wise for Labour groups 
to cater for such needs. It is, for example, 
less costly and in some ways more beneficia1 
for a council to provide facilities 
for playgroups run by parents, with an 
organiser to assist them, ·than to .provide 
full sca·le nur·sery provision for preschool 
children (a ~esson ·which some areas are 
now :being obliged to learn in the wake 
of Tory cuts). 

Finally, what some of these organisations 
most require is simply recognition. 
A loca'l amenity ·group may lbe able to 
achieve something merely by publicityfor their case in the local press, or bylobbying local councillors. But they can 
achieve much more (and the concern 
and dedication of their members can 
secure a rfar better rewa•rd) if thev receive 
some official actmowledgement from the 
local authority concerned, if they are 
regularly rec-eived by the planning com



mittee, if they are consulted by the chief 
planning officer .whenever a matter about 
which they are concerned comes up. The 
parent-teacher association may achieve 
something by meeting once a term at 
the local school ; it can achieve much 
more if it has regular -official access to 
the chief education officer, or i.f the 
local education committee consutJts with 
such associations as a routine matter. 
So it is not only a commitment to provide 
financial resources which a partyconcerned with such activities should 
make. 11t is, tfar more, a commitment to 
take seriously the nYle such organisations 
can play within society and to -give them 
a recognised pl<i'ce : to acknowledge,
in other words, that the official structure 
cannot always do everything, and that 
there is a need to 'give greater support 
and recognition to this vast unofficia11 
network df activities which provides so 
much satisfaction to those involved in 
them. 

community organisations 

The organisations which have the most 
va'lua:ble part of all to P'iay are those 
which most fully represent the local community. 
In the count•ryside, there is 
already a focus for this in the villagehaH and in the activities that take place 
there (the women's institute, the chora'l 
society, the flower show and so on)
though there does not always exist even 
here a genuine community body to which 
all in the vi'lla'ge automatically lbelong. 
But it is in the towns that there is the 
greatest lack of community focus and 
activities, and the most need for public 
support to make them possible. IdeaJI!ythere should be everywhere, in the cities 
as in the countryside, a communityassociation with its own purpose built 
premises, serving a population of not 
more than a thousand, for, as we saw, 
it is a population of this size that most 
people regard as representing their own 
community. For the moment, probalbly, 
financial constra·ints may have the effect 
that such centres will cover wider areas 
and serve 1ar-ger populations. But whatever 
the size of the population concerned, 
there should be community centres every


where accessible to every individual 
who feels the need to play a part in 
them. They should provide the base for 
youth clubs, adu1t organisat-ions, amenity 
groups, good neighbour schemes, community 
service organisations and all the 
hobbies 'and interest ,groUJps which maywish to use the facilit-ies. Communityservice groups, lba·sed in such centres, 
cou'ld, at little greater cost than unemployment 
benefit, channel the ener·giesotf young !People into activities servingthe community as a whole. 

Other informal organisations that mayrequire encouragement or help are those 
that serve the school. Parent-te<l'chers 
organisations, with sufficient assistance, 
could play a much bigger role than they 
are usually aHowed to do. If parents wish 
to arrange ex'tra-curricular activities 
under the auspices of the association, 
this should be encouraged. Fund raisingactivities could be organised. Given a 
larger role, the associations can represent 
a more signific<l'nt lbase of support for 
the school within the communi•ty. Preschool 
playgrm11ps, using the accommodation 
that a declining school populationleaves empty, can be given more equipment 
and other help, for the benefit of 
mothers and their children. There are 
often a number of parents ready and even 
anxious to. help run such activities. 
It is the organisation and facilities that 
are needed and it 'is these that publicassistance can provide. 

There are compar<i'ble groups needinghe!Jp in the field of housing: tenants' 
associations for council estates to enable 
them '(as the Lalbour government'slapsed Housing Bill wouild have provided) 
to have a more effective share in runni
·ng their own estates; housing associations, 
which should be made genuinely 
self-governing and democratic; housingcooperatives which may need financial 
or other assistance. 

More self-help in running sporting actiV'ities 
should be encouraged. Public action 
may be essential in providing the necessary 
.facilities and major equipment -but 
even here some otf the money -requiredcou'ld be raised lby iocally organised 


fund :ai~ing activities and appeals. The 
orgamsatwn of teams and training can 
noi'mally 1be left to the devoted efforts 
of individual trainers and dubs so long 
as a minimum of financial assistance is 
provided. 

There is even a case for some official 
stimulation of pressure ·groups of various 
ki·nds. Local consumer ·groups can do 
an invaluable job in surveying [oca·J 
facilities, shops, .restaurants, schools, 
garages, servicing fa:oilities and much 
else. However, they may badly require 
some assistance in cash or kind (suchas secretaria!l help or office space) to get 
them off the ground, and a helping hand 
from the local council may be more 
effective as wel!l as 'cheaper than the 
creation of official consumer advice 
!bureaux. 

A future Labour ·goverll!lllent is likely to 
be faced with serious financial restraints 
that will inhibit its ability to undertake 
too many costly commimnents. But the 
kind of policy here advocated is not 
expensive: it may cost less in the long 
run to foster ·self-help and local •initiative, 
which are self-financing, than to try to 
provide every service on taxes or rates. 
Moreover, this will also 1cut out some 
of the frustration and delays of an 
elaborate !bureaucratic structure. The 
elimination, or the reduction, of unnecessary 
bureaucracy -should be one of the 
main objectives of any future Labour 
administration and developments of the 
kind described may be one way of 
achieving it. 

Socialism was once supposed to lbe all 

•about community and comradeship.
Much of that spirit has now been 'lost, 
but it is towa·rds the recreation of this 
ideal that the Labour .party should now 
try to move. The encouragement of community 
organisations which use to the 
full the community feelings which 
happily remain still so powerful mayhe the best way of bringing this about. 

4. socialism at the worl<place 
In the eyes of many members .of the 
Labour party, probaJbly the most important 
single element in any attempt to 
create a system of socialism at the grass 

•roots is sooia!lism at the place of work. 
There is nothi[)lg new in the concept of 
socialising the individual entei1prise.
Many early socialists, such as Robert 
Owen, SliiW their ambition not in the 
creation of a socialist state but in the 
establishment of the socialist enterprise. 
Their concern was to ensure, by establishing 
sel.f-managed cooperatives, that 
the worker was given the sense tha't he 
was working not ,for o.thers but for himself, 
that he was a partner in an undertaking 
run as a joint effort in the interests 
of all its members and not therefore the 
instrument of the 1Clllpitalist, running the 
company for his own priva:te profit or 
that of albsentee shareholders. 

Many people would accept that this is 
the ultimate objective in creating a 
socialist society. Yet in Britain, though 
the Labour party has had 17 years of 
rule since 1945, and though large numbers 
of industries have come under state 
ownership during that time, it is doubtful 
if a single worker in any one of them 
has been ,given any more sense of working 
in a shared cooperative endeavour, 
or feells any less a cog in a vast machine 
run lby a small elite beyond his own 
.control, than do workers in private industry. 
In other words, we have fai,led 
in what is perhaps the main objeot in 
establishing a socialist society and a 
socialist or-ganisation o'f -industry. To use 
Marxist terminology, the workers' sense 
of alienation is no less in the enterprises 
brought under pU:blic ownership in 
Britain than in the bad old days before 
socialism was born or thought of. 

iln recent times there has been much discussion 
·within the Labour party of 
measures to bring about some degreeof workers contrdl, industria:! democracy 
of ":p<l'rticipation ". (A number of Fabian 
pamphlets have discussed aspects of this 
subject as has the present author in his 
book, Socialism Without the State, 1979.) 

Everybody has always agreed in principle 

that some form of industrial democracy 
is desirable, even if they have disagreed 
about how it shouild be implemented. The 
'last Labour 'government commissi-oned a 
Royal Commission report and published 
a sUJbsequent white pruper on the question. 
But at the end of the day, more than 
fifty years after the La·bour party first 
came to power and a:fter three recent 
periods of Labour government, still 
nothing has been done. 

Many -of the changes and undoubted reforms 
which have been introduced :byLabour governments have been far more 
peripheral to the heart of socialist 
thinking and endeavour. Yet this, the 
most crucial ·of all measures for changing 
the lives of the working .population 
and transforming or at least modifying 
the control ·of industry, has not been putinto effect. This faillure colllld deave the 
industrial worker with the impressionthat the Labour party is more •concerned 
with the mechanics of government and 
staJte control at national level that he is 
with the welfare and work satisfaction 
of the rworker on the shop floor. Here 
too there ·is a need for a change in the 
emphasis of labour thinking and policies ; 
towards the areas of most concern to 
ordinary people, their style of •living and 
working, and away from the broad 
nati·onal issues by which Whitehal'l and 
Westminster are sti:U so transfixed. 

The way to achieve this ·is for Jthe La~bour 
party to become fully committed to the 
expansion of the system of industrial 
cooperatives. While the party has always 
in theory approved of oooperailives, while 
it has always had a close link with the 
cooperative movement and party, and 
while it has -given incidental and temporary 
(but a!llways insufficient) support 
to individual cooperatives (usuallly established 
in failing firms), the promotion of 
the cooperative system in industry has 
never played a major part in Labour 
thinking or policy. Traditionally, the 
party has thought always in terms of 
"nationaoJisation ", the taking into public 
ownership of entire industries, or occasionaJily 
entire enterprises such as BL, and 
then running them in practice ll'lmost the 
same way as bef·ore: that is, they have 


'been .pilaced under the control of boards 
every bit as remote, inaccessible and 
immune to influence by the !workers, or 
by the public outside (even sometimes 
by the •government), as those ·of privatecompanies. No steps have been taken in 
any of these industries to establish any 
effective system ·of industrial democracy. 
Still less have the ·workers in individual 
worker directors to existing boards, 
particularly coal mines, shipyards or 
power stations-:been given any significant 
degree of industria~! democracy. Nor, 
a~pa:rt f.rom short term financia~l assistance, 
have any great efforts been made to assist 
the cooperative principle to succeed, and 
be seen to succeed (as the Monddrag·on 
cooperatives have in Spain), even where 
cooperatives do already exist. 

This may seem a strange record for a 
socialist party which has enjoyed several 
periods in office. For many, the cooperative 
enterprise, genuinely self-mana•ged 
by all its workers, represents the peakof socialist or.ganisation and one which 
more genuinely fulfHs the ideals and 
aspirations of early socialists than the 
mammoth nationaJlised corporationswhich Labour governments have created. 
IJt is a concept that goes far beyond the 
"rpa:rticipation ", the election of a few 
worker directors to existing boards, 
which has so much .preoccupied and 
divided the party in recent years. Yet 
the record of other countries-Yugoslaviaand Spain for exa:miple-show that cooperatives 
are not necessarily condemned 
to economic failure, nor need they be 
confined to small sca•le undertakirrgs. 
Even the record of such oPganisations as 
the Glacier Meta<! Co and the John Lewis 
Partnership in Brittain (sta:rted without 
any assistance .from the government and 
run effectively on cooperative principles) 
should be enough to show that such 
undertakings are quite capable of beingcommerciallly viable once established. It 
is ·getting them off the ground that is 
difficult. It is here that a future Labour 
government wiH have a vital r·ole to play. 

A revival of proposals .for "participation" 
on the lines suggested by -Bullock would 
be no substitute f.or a commitment on 
coopera:~tives. The publi'c deJbate thaJt took 

pllace on the BuHock proposals revealed 
the contradiction within them. Manyunions were dubious about the weakening 
of their own bargaining role that might 
occur if they were given a sllaky seat 
on the other side of the bargaining table. 
The concessions that were therefore 
given (making the unions the wle channel 
for representation of shop floor workers) 
appeared .to most of the public to represent 
a negation of genuine industrial 
democracy, or indeed of any kind of 
democracy~that is, of the right of those 
being represented to choose for themselves 
who should be the candidates and 
to ele'ct them directly. Ironically, mo·reover, 
these concessions onty accentuated 
the difficulty expressed by many trade 
unions about the likely blurring of their 
own role since they ensured that it was 
they themselves that would be bargaining 
on 'bot'h sides of the ta~ble. 

Participation is in any case a poor substitute 
for the principle of the cooperative. 
Any meanirrgful a1tempt to create 
a socialist entePprise must begin with the 
system of ownership. A future Llllbour 
government should therefore ensure that 
the fiction tha<t the entel'prise is owned 
by the sharehoLders ·~who in most cases 
have never been near •it, let alone understand 
its working -or management) byvirtue of purchasing a piece of pruperis abandoned. Shareholders should be 
seen as wha1 they a:re : 'lenders of caJpita'l 
to 1he enterprise. Whether they receive 
a fixed interest return on their investment, 
or a variable dividend according 
to the enterprise's fortunes, should not 
affect their staJtus in this respect. In practice, 
they already only function as suppliers 
·of capital since very few shareholders 
exercise any of the prerogatives 
of ownership, turn up at shareholders' 
meetings for example, to influence the 
way the enterprise is run. Even when 
they do, they are usuaUy outvoted and 
out argued by the •representa<tives of existing 
management. The most illogical! effect 
·Of the present situation is that the profits, 
which a:re the rewards of successful effort, 
go not to those who have contributed 
effort to that success, in other words to 
the workers and management •Who 
brought i<t aJbout, but to those who have 


done nothing whatever to achieve it, the 
shareholders who have merely sat on 
their backsides and waited for the dividends 
to roll in. 

Those who have a genuine " share " in 
the enterprise are those who work within 
i·t h is these who should be, in fact and 
in name, the "shareholders "-This Qould 
obe achieved through a procedure under 

•which a transfer of ordinary shares 
occurred, either immediately or g·rad-
uaL!y, .from those who are only passively 
involved in the company to those who are 
actively involved. In time, the shareholders 
would become synonymouswith the workers r(which would include 
.the management). The shareholders' 
meeting would bring together, as it does 
not today, those who have a direct stake 
in the company and a knowledge of i•ts 
operations. Such a meeting could then 
'genuinely become the sovereign body 
~~which the rpresent shareholders' meeting, 
•which few sharehollders attend and is 
dominated 1by a ferw ifinanciat! in•stitutions, 
•Can never be) tha:t decides the destiny of 
the enterprise. No douibt such a meeting 
would usuaLly, as today, content itself 
with a general discussion of the company's 
affairs and •the election, ·or occasionally 
•the ·replacement, of direotors or 
managers who .would in practice run the 
firm lbebween whiles. The essence of 
control (as ·the 'financial institutions, 
which <tt present exercise power, know 
onlly too well) is not to be able to interfere 
with each management decision 
reached but to determine who it is that 
reaches them. And si•nce the long term 
interest of the workers •wiH be the sa:me 
as thaJt of the shareholders today (that 
is the overall success of the enterprise) 
there is no reason to suppose that theywill interfere damagingly in the running 
of the firm any more than they do in 
the many successful cooperatives that 
already exist aJll over the world. 
There may be cases-the trans•nation all 
corporation, the very large firm generaHy, 
parts of the service sector-where there 
<tre difficulties about applying the cooperative 
system in the fullest sense. 
But here at least the basic principle-
that the rewards for success hould go to 

those who ha:ve achieved •it, those who 
work within the enterprise, rather than 
to those who have merely lent capitat!should 
be impllemented. Thus a future 
Labour government should at the veryleast he committed ·to the introducti0n 
of a scheme of universal profit sharing, 
throughout the economy, including the 
nationalised industries. 

There is also a case, if industrial poweris to ·be genera~lly diffused, for decentra:
lis<ttion wi•thin the enterprise, to the 
shop floor and to groups of workers 
within the shop floor. Sweden has ted 
the way in experiments in giving smaN 
groups of workers an autonomous existence 
even within larger enterprises,
having their ·own tasks to perform in 
their own way and rwi-th the incentive of 
a .group bonus. There are differences of 
view <tbout how successful these have 
been in the rpurely economic sense 
Qthough it is difficult to believe that 
Volvo'•s recent difficulties have resulted 
from the use of this system). But from a 
social and industriaJl re:lati·ons point of 
view they have undoubtectl.y been outstandingly 
successful in enriching the 
work of the individual employee and 
giving him a sense of ·control over his 
own activities. Nothing would do more 
rt:o break down the oppressive character 
of large scale o·rganisations a·nd to recreate 
a sense of initiative within highly 
automated operaJtion's than to establish 
sma·J,l self-sufficient units of this so11t. If 
each such ·group of six to ten rworkers 
cou'ld send representatives to a workers' 
committee of the shop floor as a whole 
and if this in turn were represented i·n 
the faotory works councii, a fa·r more 
genuinely demooratic system within the 
factory would he created than throughdirect representation at the hi·ghest level 
alone 'through a trade union. It is building 
from the bottom to the top, rather 
than vice versa, which would provide the 
basis ifor a genuine diffusion of power 
to the grass roots level. lf the La,bour 
pa·rty is to appear to factory workers 
to .be genuinely concerned about the 
betterment of their working conditions, 
it is to this, rather than to some of the 
forms of participation main'ly discussed, 
that it shoulld be devoting its attention. 


5. conclusion: 
micro-socialism and 
macro-socialism 
The gist of the argument so far putf orward in t'his pamphlet can be expressed 
as follows_ 

1-The Labour pa·rty in the past has 
been excessively preoccupied 'by macro-
socialism (the orgarr.isation of state power, 
especially its economic power) and not 
enough with micro-socialism (the rooting 
of socialism in the living community 
within which ordinary people live and 
work)_ What matters to people is not 
whether one or two more industries are 
nationalised, the precise structure of the 
health servi·ce, the organisation of government 
departments and parliamentary 
activities but rather what happens at the 
lowest level of all-the degree of satisfaction 
they can acquire at their work, 
how weH the locaq school is run and 
haw they can influence this, the organisation 
of affairs on their counci-l esta•te, the 
preservation of local amenities within the 
village or street and so on. It is these, 
not the system of organisation a•t the top, 
which most determines the quality of 
life for most people. 

2. Concentration on this level o£ activitywould give a chance to •the Labour party 
to re-<focus attention on the question 
which was once the centrall concem of 
aH socialists: the establishment of a 
sense of community. It is •this which large 
scale ·ol.'ganisations of all kinds, including 
the bureaucratic structure of the modern 
state, has threatened and sometimes even 
destroyed. And it is this which the activities 
of recent Lalbour governments, with 
their emphasis on the onganisation of 
power at national level, have done little 
to foster_ 
3. Such a programme is not Jess but 
more radi·cal than those which have been 
put forward by the Labour party in 
recent elections. The rep'lacement of the 
capitalist system by a ystern of industrial 
cooperatives, the establishment of a new 
tier of regional government in Britain 
with effective economic powers, the regeneration 
of community activity in street 
and pari h-these are not small but fundamental 
changes in our present ocial. 
political and economic structure. Theyare change which will tran form people' 
lives more dramatically than tinkeringwith the structure of economic organisation 
at the top, .than replacing a set 
of private directors with a set of publicdirectors in one or two industries or 
firms, creating a new ministry or agency. 

4. Although such changes are radical, 
they probably correspond far more 
closely with the aspirations of large sections 
of the public than a further pro-
gramme of large sca~e nationalisation 
and much else which features so prominently 
in Lrubour .party programmes. 
We should not adopt particular pro-
grammes simply because we believe they 
are popular. But we should certainly not 
be deterred from embarking on a 
strategy we ·believe to be desirruble because 
it may also 'be popular. A pro-
gramme on the lines suggested would 
prove popular precisely because it corresponds 
with the aspirations and beliefs 
of the bulk of the population. 
5. A new emphasis on micro-sociali m 
would also mean that it ·need not be 
necessary to await the re-election of 
another Lrubour government in Westminster 
before anything could be done. 
Some of the changes .could be introduced 
at the local level, by Labour county or 
district councils, or Labour regionalassemblies (i.f the regional tier is created 
as here suggested), regardless of what 
government was in power nationa·ll y. 
6. Under such a policy, the Labour 
party would remain the party that is 
committed .to higher levels of publicspending and better welfare services. But 
much of the money would come to be 
levied at local level and the services 
would be organised on a loca·l basis 
(though some kind of equalisation grantwould still be required-perhaps more 
than ever-to remedy the inequa·lities 
between different areas). 
This pamphlet has attempted to outline 
the essential feature of such a pro-
gramme: a policy concerned with people 
rather than power, with the communityrather than the country as a whole, with 
creating sociali m at the grass roots, 
rather than in vast tate structures and 


national organisations which do little to 
improve the quality of people's lives. 

Of course, our programme cannot consist 
·Only of such proposa·ls, nor can we 
forget altogether about the exercise of 
power at the national level. Even if 
power can be decentralised, as it should 
be, the state wiU .continue to exist and 
electors will be concerned about what 
political parties intend to do at the sta·te 
·level. During the next few years, therefore, 
the L3Jbour par.ty will need to 
hammer out policies to convince the 
public ·that we can solve the country's 
most serious problems, above aH those 
of the economy. We shall need to show 
that we can produce the growth the 
country has so 'lamentably Jacked (andwhich wiN be necessa,ry to 'finance the 
increases in plliblic spending we shall also 
rightly be proposing). We sh~ll need to 
come forward with a credible incomes 
policy, such as wiH be required both to 
keep inflation under control and .to bring3Jbout a fairer distribution •of income (a 
proposal which successive opinion po·lls 
show the mass of the electorate favours). 
We shall need to have policies to deal 
with the .problems of energy conservation 
and the environment generally, the 
importance of whioh mere and more 
eleotors are rightly recognising. 

It has not 'been my purpose to cover here 
the whole range of policies a future 
Labour .programme wiH need to include. 
Other .pamphlets and party documents 
will amply cover these. My aim has been 
simply ·to show that if we are to come 
up with a policy which VVIil]l appear relevant 
to the deepest concerns and aspirations 
of our peop'le and if we are to hope 
to resolve some of the most difficult 
problems of our a·ge-those of the ali·enation 
and frustration created by large scale 
organisation-we shall need a programme 
designed to create nat only a moPe 
socialist state at naviona•l level but the 
type of socialism at the gra s roots which 
wi'll a•lso .provide the satisfactio!lJS felt to 
be most important by the man and 
woman in the &treet. 


recent fabian pamphlets 


research series 


327 Howard Glennerster (ed) Labour's social primities SSp331 Chris Ralph The picket and the laJW 60p333 Nicholas Bosanquet Economic strategy: a new social contract 7Sp334 Carl Wilms Wright Transnational corporations 7Sp33S Vincent C<l!ble Import controls: the case against 70p336 Christopher Parsons Finance fm development m sufV'ival ? 7Sp337 Robin Cook, Dan Smith What future in NATO ? 7Sp338 AJan Fox Socialism and shop floor power 60p339 Peter A·rcher The role of the law "Officers 7Sp340 Deepak Lal Poverty, power and prejudice 7Sp341 Tom Sheriff A deindustria:lised Britain ? 60p342 David Scott Bell Eurocornmunism 80p343 J. Goode, D. Roy, A. Sedgewick Ene!'gy policy : a reappraisal 80p 

tracts 

438 Anthony Crosland 
448 Lisanne Radice 
4SI Diaune Hayter4S3 Nicholas Falk 
4SS David Watkins 
4S7 Tom Crowe, John H . Jones 
4S8 Robert Tayl<or4S9 A Fabian Group460 Walter Jaehnig 
461 A Fa!bian Group462 Bryan Gould and others 
463 Austin Mitchell 
464 Giles Radice 
46S Peter Scott 
466 C. Pond, L. Burghes, B. Smith 
467 Trevor Hames 

young fabian pamphlets 

Sooial democracy in Europe SSp
Reforming the House of Commons SOp
The labour pa:rty : crisis and prospects 60p
Think small : enterprise and the economy 7Sp
Industrial common ownership 6Sp
The computer and society SOp
Lrubour and the social contract 6Sp
Deserting the middle ground SOp
Family service fa.r mentally handicapped 60p
Creating a caring community 6Sp
The politics of monetarism 60p
Can Labour ·win again ? 7Sp
Community socialism 6Sp
What future for higher education ? 70p
Taxing wealth inequalities 6Sp
Open up! 6Sp 


37 David R. Allan Socialising the company SOp42 Martin Smith Gypsies : where now ? 40p44 Melvyn Westlake World poverty : the growing conflict 70p4S Geoff Ha:rris A wider Europe SOp46 David Elliott The Lucas Aerospace workers' campaign 60p47 Tom SchuMer Education through life 6Sp48 Mark Swift A regiona•l policy for Europe 70p 

books 

R. H. S. Crossman and "Others New F<l!bian Essays cased £1.7S 
Brian Albel-Smith and 'Others Socialism and affluence paper £0.60 
Peter Townsend and ·others The fifth social service paper £2.50 
George Cunningham ( ed) Britain and the world in the 1970s cased £3.00 

socialism at the grass roots 
The Labour IParty, in seeking to achieve both greater equality and more 
public control over economic affairs, has been preoccupied by the organisation 
of power at the level of the state and has virtually ignored the 
meaning socialism should have in the living community in which people 
live and work. Evan tuard therefore suggests that in future the party 
should turn its a1ttention to the establishment of a sense of community. 
In particular, power should be devolved so that decisions are taken where 
their effects are felt. In local government this would mean the creation of 
a regional tier below which many decisions would be devolved to district 
and to community councils. The informal, voluntary sector should be recognised 
and encouraged so that local groups either providing services or 
meeting for recreation can flourish. At the workplace, priority should be 
given to putting cooperative principles into practice. 

As a councillor, IMP and minister, <Evan tuard has seen how government 
works. Here he suggests how changes could be made so that the lives 
of ordinary men and women can really be improved and enriched and a 
sense of community cre·ated within society. 

fabian society 

The Fabian Society exists to further socialist education and research. It Is 
affiliated to the Labour Party, both nationally and locally, and embraces all 
shades of socialist opinion within its ranks -left, right and centre. 
Since 1884 the Fabian Society has enrolled thoughtful socialists who are 
prepared to discuss the essential questions of democratic socialism and 
relate them to practical plans for building socialism in a changing world. 
Beyond this the Society has no collective policy. It puts forward no resolutions 
of a political character. The Society's members are active in their 
Labour parties, trade unions and co-operatives. They are representative 
of the labour movement practical people concerned to study and discuss 
problems that matter. 

The Society is organised nationally and locally. The national Society. 
directed by an elected Executive Committee, publishes pamphlets and 
holds schools and conferences of many kinds. Local Societies-there are 
one hundred of them-are self governing and are lively centres of discussion 
and also undertake research. 

April 1980 
Cover design by Dick Leadbetter Printed by Civic Press Limited (TU), 
Civic Street, IGiasgow G4 9RH 11S·BN 7163 0468 6 'ISSIN 0307 7535