2026年9月19日，在其政党召开会议前夕，自由民主党领袖埃德·戴维在布莱顿的皇宫码头为民众提供了炸鱼薯条作为餐点。照片来源：Stefan Rousseau/PA埃德·戴维领导的自由民主党显然是推动更深层次地方民主改革的最佳候选者——这正是公众迫切需要的。然而，9月对政治评论家来说是个“残酷”的月份：因为在这个时候，人们总不得不对自由民主党发表批评意见。自由民主党似乎缺乏明确的政策方向，其成员们总是重复着“我们不知道该怎么做”这样的回答。戴维本人最近甚至警告称：“我们正处于一场关乎生死存亡的斗争中”，必须捍卫自由与平等的价值观……真的吗？既然戴维本人的影响力已经变得微乎其微（几乎与那些毫无实际影响力的政治人物相当），这番话又有什么可信度呢？
The Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, serves up fish and chips at Brighton’s Palace Pier ahead of his party’s conference, 19 September 2026. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA Simon Jenkins Ed Davey’s party are the obvious candidates to push for the deeper local democracy the public is crying out for eptember is the cruellest month for political commentators because it is when something has to be said about the Liberal Democrats. They are a play without a plot, a chorus line of seemingly endless “don’t knows”. Their leader, Ed Davey, recently warned that “we’re in the fight of our lives” to defend the values of liberty and equality. Really? How can this be when Davey is becoming about as relevant as Count Binface? The Lib Dems’ central predicament has remained unchanged for a century, ever since the decline of David Lloyd George and the rise of the Labour party. There is simply no space in Britain for a centrist party when so little divides the big parties and they broadly stick to the prevailing ecomomic orthodoxy.
自由民主党的核心困境已经持续了一个世纪——自从戴维·劳合·乔治的声望衰落、工党崛起之后，这种情况就一直没有改变。在英国，当主要政党之间的分歧如此微小时，中间派政党根本就没有生存的空间；这些政党大多仍然遵循主流的经济政策。
But there is now a ray of hope. One of the newer developments in British politics is the rise of single-issue parties. In Scotland and Wales, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru demand independence from the UK, while in England the Reform party has dedicated itself to curbing immigration.
不过，现在出现了一线希望：英国政治领域出现了一些专注于单一议题的新兴政党。在苏格兰和威尔士，苏格兰民族党和威尔士民族党主张脱离英国独立；而在英格兰，改革党则致力于控制移民问题。
A lack of a clarifying message could partly explain why the Lib Dems have suffered heavy defeats at recent byelections and slipped to fourth or fifth place in many national opinion polls, regularly trailing the Greens and Reform.
自由民主党之所以在最近的选举中遭遇惨败，并在多项全国性民意调查中跌至第四或第五位（经常落后于绿党和改革党），部分原因可能就在于他们缺乏清晰、明确的政治主张。
In order to improve their electoral fortunes, the Lib Dems need an equally straightforward cause, one that should have broad appeal and identify an area neglected by the other parties. That cause is now glaring: the devolution of government authority.
为了改善自身的选举前景，自由民主党需要一个能够获得广泛支持的、且能够解决其他政党忽视的问题的核心议题。如今，这个议题已经非常明显了：那就是政府权力的下放（即将更多决策权下放到地方层面）。
Time and again in national league tables, England ranks as having one of the most concentrated central governments in Europe and by some measures in the world. English citizens’ ability to participate in local democracy is extremely weak compared to other countries such as France, Germany and those in Scandinavia.
在英国的全国性排行榜中，英格兰的中央政府权力集中度一直位居欧洲乃至全球前列。与其他国家（如法国、德国以及斯堪的纳维亚国家）相比，英国公民参与地方民主的机会极为有限。
Time and again in national league tables, England ranks as having one of the most concentrated central governments in Europe and by some measures in the world. English citizens’ ability to participate in local democracy is extremely weak compared to other countries such as France, Germany and those in Scandinavia.
在福利保障方面，英国的地方公共服务质量较差且存在明显的不公平现象（尤其是与斯堪的纳维亚地区的本地化公共服务相比）。英国中央政府对地方政府的控制力过于强大，这导致公民的实际生活状况持续恶化。
Welfare comparisons show the UK’s local services fare poorly and inequitably compared with those, for instance, in localised Scandinavia. The authority of Britain’s central executive over local government is overbearing, with ever more disappointing outcomes for citizens.
“地方自治”一直是政治辩论中的核心议题；新工党甚至曾提出过“新的地方自治政策”，但实际结果却是：在2001年至2005年间，英格兰和威尔士仅产生了12名民选市长。
Localism is the issue and one that has featured prominently in political debate for decades. New Labour even proposed a“new localism” The result was just 12 elected mayors in England and Wales between 2001 and 2005.
2010年，戴维·卡梅伦承诺“将权力从中央政府下放到社区层面”，但随后他通过强制推行住房政策及严厉的紧缩措施，实际上违背了自己的承诺。2024年，基尔·斯塔默再次承诺“通过向社区下放权力来深化民主”，然而他的首要举措却是否决地方政府的规划审批权，将地方政府称为“阻碍发展的障碍”。多年来，“将权力下放到地方”的口号已成为选举中的惯用口号，但实际上所有政府都并未真正履行这一承诺。自玛格丽特·撒切尔时代以来，中央政府逐渐加强对地方税收、教育、住房、公共服务及城市规划的管控力度。如今，英国地方议会的主要职责仅仅是执行中央政府的指令；它们既缺乏资金，也缺乏实施其他政策的权力。因此，地方民主制度自然遭到人们的嘲笑——例如，最近牛津郡皮丁顿村关于“地方自治”的投票结果便充分证明了这一点。
In 2010, David Cameron pledged a“radical shift in power from central government to neighbourhoods” He then did the opposite through enforced housing targets and a fierce programme of austerity. Similarly, in 2024 Keir Starmer promised to “deepen democracy by … devolving power to communities”. Yet one of his first moves was to overrule local discretion in planning approvals, describing councils as “blockers and nimbys Over the years, the phrase “shifting power locally” became an almost ritualistic election chant, clearly based on polling data. No government really meant it. Ever since Margaret Thatcher, the centre has taken ever more control of local taxation, education, housing, care services and planning. The job of a British local council today is in effect to do what the centre tells it. It has not much money nor power for anything else. It is therefore no wonder that local democracy is subject to ridicule: see, for instance, the recent “independence” vote in the Oxfordshire village of Piddington.
毫无疑问，威斯敏斯特那些所谓的“地方主义者”中，最引人注目的当属安迪·伯纳姆（Andy Burnham）。他提出的“大都市市长”制度（该制度是在保守党执政期间推出的）在中央政府与地方政府之间增设了一个新的官僚层级。这些大都市市长的主要职责是执行国家制定的住房建设和能源投资目标，并且他们似乎有权否决下属地方议会的决策。
Unquestionably the most headline-grabbing of Westminster’s pseudo-localists is Andy Burnham Does he mean it? His innovation of a cohort of metro mayors – introduced under the Conservatives – inserts a new level of regional bureaucracy between central and local government. Their role will primarily be to enforce national targets of housebuilding and energy investment, and presumably to override decisions of local councils beneath them.
伯纳姆宣布英格兰的大都市市长可以保留部分所得税和商业税的征收权，这被视作他对所谓“权力下放”政策的承诺的体现。不过，这些市长究竟能在多大程度上真正行使这些权力，还有待观察。
Burnham’s announcement that mayors in England will be able to keep a share of income tax and business rates was cited as proof of his commitment to his so-called devolution agenda. But the extent to which mayors will be able to wield these powers remains to be seen.
首相将部分政府职能从伦敦迁至曼彻斯特的举措，其实并没有削弱中央政府的权力——只不过是将这些职能暂时转移到了曼彻斯特而已。这无疑为自由民主党（Lib Dems）提供了可乘之机。
skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The prime minister’s moving of parts of the No 10 operation to Manchester hardly reduces the power of the centre. It merely relocates it, temporarily. Here, surely, is a Liberal Democrat cause.
值得注意的是，自由民主党在地方政府领域取得了显著的成功。在去年5月的地方选举中，该党控制了多达76个地方议会，从而成为地方政府领域的重要政治力量。如今，自由民主党的地方议会领导人数量甚至超过了该党在议会中的71名议员。因此，他们对英国实际治理的影响不可忽视。
Significantly, the one area in which the Lib Dems have flourished is local government. At last May’s local elections, the party took their control of councils up to 76 establishing them as a major political force across local government. This was a major achievement. There are now more Liberal Democrat council leaders in Britain than the 71 Lib Dem MPs. As such, their impact on the actual government of the country is substantial.
这种情况迫切需要一场“革命”，而自由民主党完全有理由成为这场革命的领导者。该党应当全力推动民主化、真正意义上的地方自治制度。欧洲各地都存在适合当地实际情况的地方自治模式可供参考。越来越多的证据表明，英国传统的中央集权式治理模式（即白厅政府）早已过时、效率低下；每周的新闻报道都在揭示各种治理问题。
This cries out for revolution and the Lib Dems have every reason to be its champions. The party should go flat out for democratic, truly local self-government. Models of appropriate tiers and functions can be found across Europe. The cause is now aided by mountainous evidence that Britain’s centrist model – the famous“Rolls-Royce” of Whitehall– is now a clapped out jalopy. Every week the headlines cry that nothing seems to work.
这对自由民主党来说是一个极具挑战性的任务——他们必须自己提出一项重大的宪法改革方案。该党的76个地方议会可以列出他们希望恢复给自己的权力。真正应该站在会议讲台上的，应该是这些地方议会的领导人，而不是那些在威斯敏斯特无所作为的议员们。
This is the all-consuming challenge for the Lib Dems to make their own. Propose a major constitutional reform. The party’s 76 local councils can list the powers they want restored to them. It is these council leaders who must stand on stage at their conference, not Westminster’s indolent parliamentarians.
自由民主党应该成为代表英国地方利益的政党，并将“人民当家作主”的理念重新落到实处。
Liberal Democrats should become the party of local Britain and restore the government of the people to the people.
西蒙·詹金斯（Simon Jenkins）是《卫报》的专栏作家。
Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist