Steve Richards: The Tory leadership battle shows the need to revive political life outside Westminster

Politicians can influence party membership, but members cannot be relied on to select leaders

What matters in British politics tends to happen at Westminster and is played out in the national media. Scotland has its parliament, London its Mayor and Wales has an Assembly. These forms of devolution have changed the political culture a little, and for the better. But there is no getting away from it. Policy-making and the related debates are driven by the views and performances of national leaders. Impressions of parties are also based largely on the conduct of their national leaders.

What matters in British politics tends to happen at Westminster and is played out in the national media. Scotland has its parliament, London its Mayor and Wales has an Assembly. These forms of devolution have changed the political culture a little, and for the better. But there is no getting away from it. Policy-making and the related debates are driven by the views and performances of national leaders. Impressions of parties are also based largely on the conduct of their national leaders.

In such a political culture, the Conservatives are right to change the way they elect their leader. It is easy to mock. They do not like the outcome of past leadership elections, so instead of broadening the party membership they change the rules.

One way or another, it seems the MPs will have the decisive role in determining who will succeed Michael Howard. The power of the local activists will be diminished. In an ideal world, vibrant political parties would be kept alive by sophisticated campaigners from around the country who are aware of the essential qualifications for national leadership.

But parties are not in such a healthy state - far from it. Sadly, it does not matter very much that they struggle to retain members. As long as nearly all the political attention is focused on the performance of a few national politicians, there is no great need for parties with mass membership. The brutal truth is that the quality of national politicians can influence the breadth and size of party membership, but the members cannot be relied on to select appropriate leaders.

In the 1980s and early 1990s it was the Labour party that agonised over internal democracy. Again, the debate was rarely guided by pure principles. The antagonists sought election rules that would bring in a leader of their choice. They were concerned about means only because they sought specific ends.

It was the election of Tony Blair, in July 1994, that brought about an increase in membership and not the other way around. A youthful charismatic leader, presented by a largely doting media, inspired large numbers to sign up for Labour. Quite a lot of them have left subsequently because they are disillusioned with Mr Blair, but again it was their view of the leader that determined their actions.

Significant political movement always comes from the top downwards. In the early 1980s the SDP attracted large numbers of members, largely because of the charisma and national exposure of its leading figures. Similarly, if the Conservative MPs manage to elect a charismatic new leader, they will probably gain more party members.

For all the fashionable talk of "choice" and the empowerment of communities, we still instinctively turn to the centre. If there is a crisis in a single hospital ward, the Health Secretary springs into action. When the trains do not run on time we ask the government what the hell is happening. The timid Labour government miscalculated on this front in 1997. Frightened ministers assumed that they would not be deemed responsible when the privatised trains performed dismally. To their horror they still got the blame.

In such a culture, ministers are right to set national targets for public services. They raise the taxes and will get the flak if the cash is spent inefficiently. There are no alternative local institutions strong enough to hold the providers of services to account.

Astute national politicians seek a different and more pluralist political culture, but they do so tentatively. In his first speech as a cabinet minister last week, David Miliband spoke of the need for "civic action carried out in the main at a local level" with local government "at the core". For some years now, Mr Miliband has reflected on the vibrancy of cities in the Victorian era where mighty councils played a pivotal role.

Writing on his life outside the cabinet once more, Alan Milburn suggested in yesterday's Independent that the answer to the disconnection between electors and elected lay in "moving more decision-making out of the frenzy of Westminster and into the hands of local people".

The Conservatives too are contemplating a shift away from the centre. The most fertile thinker in the Shadow Cabinet, David Willets, has argued for a revival in local government. The former Chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Howe, told me recently that he regarded the weakening of councils as the biggest error of the Thatcher era. A possible contender for the leadership, David Cameron, recently spoke at a conference organised by the voluntary sector in which he enthused about the benefits of local bodies delivering services to communities.

But none of them know quite how to let go of the national strings. They face some genuine dilemmas. Inevitably, the puny powers of local government attract a fair amount of mediocre political talent. It is a huge risk to increase the powers of councils in the hope that over time the quality of representation and accountability will improve.

Currently, ministers are exploring ways of empowering local users of services - but their idealism comes up against the indifference of the users. Many voters do not wish to be empowered. This is hardly surprising when 40 per cent cannot be bothered to vote at general elections.

Tony Blair was on to something early in his leadership when he put the case for mayors. Big names are a form of accountability in themselves. In London voters know that Ken Livingstone is responsible for the Congestion Charge. Elsewhere most people do not have a clue who leads their council. Sadly Mr Blair's caution blunted his own initiative. He offered a referendum on the introduction of mayors when he should have imposed the change on the bigger councils. Referendums are nearly always used to block change.

Something needs to be done to revive political life outside Westminster, partly for the sake of national politicians who are the exclusive focus of the media's attentions. More importantly, a more enticing local political culture would provide effective training for national political leaders. One of the more striking features of the 1997 Labour government was that few of the ministers, including Mr Blair, had run any body of significance in advance of ruling the country.

Mr Blair would have benefited from a stint as a council leader, but who can blame him for heading straight to Westminster in a decade when local government was being destroyed? Two immediate benefits of a stronger local democracy would be better-trained national leaders and more politically sophisticated party members capable of electing a national leader.

Instead, at a time when local politics was still on its knees, William Hague gave his party members the power to elect a leader. Not surprisingly they blew it. A party that cannot change its members has no choice but to change the rules.

s.richards@independent.co.uk