I come to praise local party politics, not to bury it

To be sceptical about any proposal for community empowerment is to invite scorn and derision. In the face of declining electoral turnout and concerns about participation in all aspects of public life, it is not the done thing to argue against current attempts to boost civic involvement.

Nonetheless, I think it is right to pitch in to the current debate, which pits local government against what is coming to be known as "the new localism". What's on the agenda? Not just methods of consultation and participation, but service delivery and community management.

As a hasty caveat, I would say that many of the ideas emerging under the new localism banner reflect real needs to engage people in debating priorities, and to involve them more deeply in local governance. Widespread alienation from government and the political process is worrying: the old ways will not do. Neither can the more mechanistic solutions on offer – like postal, text or electronic voting – be relied on to make a dramatic difference.

To challenge this dangerous sense of alienation, government institutions must be supplemented by a whole range of options, tailored to the characteristics of the community. Yet some of the ideas now being canvassed – some, indeed, already being implemented – are fraught with risks of their own.

Set aside the fact that local government is being treated as irrelevant precisely because people do not believe it has the power to deliver what they want. Ignore for the moment the possibility that as alternative structures are set in place to direct schools, policing and neighbourhood management, the public may be even less inclined to bother with voting for councils. Focus instead on what might happen if a growing number of disparate structures appear for consultation or service delivery purposes.

If policing resources are devolved too far, which neighbourhoods are most likely to buy extra police time? The poor ward with chronic drug and nuisance problems, or the more affluent one with lower crime figures but a greater capacity to pay?

Whose interests take precedence when community representatives, directly elected but by far fewer people than a local councillor, oppose a new development that a council needs to counter homelessness?

Independent candidates can do a fantastic job. Some councils are failing their citizens. Yet the party system offers a level of accountability single-issue politics can’t match

We should be raising the status of those local government structures able to take these difficult decisions, rather than undermining them further.

Central to the whole business of government is the juggling of competing priorities: the interests of the taxpayer balanced alongside service users; those of a particular neighbourhood against the wider community. Of course, any individual or organisation is perfectly capable of reflecting these realities, but unlike local councils, they do not have a duty and a responsibility to do so.

Yes, independent candidates and pressure groups sometimes do a fantastic job, while political parties can lay a dead hand on civic engagement. Some councils are, or have been, corrupt and ineffective, failing their citizens in the process. Yet the party system offers a means of accountability single-issue politics can't match.

What if the independents elected to a council on the back of an anti-development campaign turn out to be associated with the extreme Right? What happens when representatives with no common platform besides "Save the Hospital" are called on to decide on issues on which they haven't expressed a view?

It is local government that should be renewed, operating within a framework of nationally determined priorities, experimenting with a wide range of methods to involve local citizens.