So Manchester is getting a mayor, and the applause appears
near universal. To my mind, however, for socialists, proponents of devolution,
Labour supporters and proponents of accountable democracy, this represents not
a bright new dawn, but a repetition of the worst elements of devolution which
has been experimented with over the last forty years. Hopefully, Labour will
wake up and burst this bubble – not through wholesale opposition, but the bold,
brave and universal devolution that the whole of the UK needs.
So what’s my opposition, and why? And what’s the response
from socialists who want a new constitutional settlement?
My biggest issue is that it’s another piecemeal attempt at
regional government. It has relied on the wrangling of the personalities
involved, the powers they have been offered – and the interest that those
personalities have in the control and administration on the table. It’s not a
broad basis for regional government across the UK, rather it answers a very
particular set of questions for the local authorities involved in this
consultation, we’re still lacking a new underpinning for the allocation of
power across the UK.
Such imbalanced ‘devolution’ has created massive problems –
London being the most obvious example. As there is no counter-balance to
London’s success in running its affairs elsewhere in the UK, it’s just resulted
in further centralisation in a particular region, and the sucking away of
investment and innovation from other areas. It’s easy to see this happening
again in a northern lop-sided devolution such has been outlined – especially
with Liverpool, Leeds and West Yorkshire so close to Greater Manchester, who
now have no way to compete with this new ‘city region’.
This isn’t devolution, this is re-centralisation. There is a
country outside the M25 that’s not Manchester, but Manchester and the North
West have very successfully managed to brand themselves as the ‘other’. The
relocation of the BBC is the best example of this – with production being
reduced in Yorkshire and effectively shut in Birmingham, all as the BBC uses
the rhetoric of the regions to solve every ill from London-centric programming
to cost implications. Manchester is now getting a further boost to this quite
destructive (albeit laudably successful) self-created image. The truth is that Manchester
has the individuals and the innovation to make the current local government
compromise work well, less dynamic authorities need a new settlement much more
urgently. So why does Manchester get looked at first? Rewarding success is one
way of looking at it – embedding failure is the other.
And what of Oldham? Or Wigan? Or Bolton? There’s nothing in
this new compromise to boost those smaller areas within the new metropolis.
Indeed, the worrying tone from the whole exercise for London is that there is a
consideration that the current administrative compromise in the capital is
sufficient. Actually, dynamic local authorities need more powers so as they can
innovate and best utilise those powers and funds which are ineffectively run by
a centralised authority, whether that be in Westminster or a city hall. These
are powers like licensing, planning, community healthcare and employment.
Again, a meaningful conversation about the allocation of powers in along the
principles of subsidiarity has been side-stepped with a new bit of glitz. Local
authorities need boosting too – and that boost is even more urgent when they
should be providing a counter-balance to a big regional authority as well as
Westminster. Nothing on offer here does that.
The great failure of the 1970s local government compromise
was that far too much effort and attention was placed on the big cities at the
centre of the new counties – Birmingham in the West Midlands, Leeds in West
Yorkshire, Sheffield in South Yorkshire, Manchester in Greater Manchester and
so on. This new proposal does just that again, because there’s no local
government counterbalance to the regional authority. Worse than that, it’s
centralisation in a person, not just a region.
In London we see the difficulties in holding a mayor to
account. Where elected mayors were rejected by the people in referenda over the
last decade or so (Manchester included, it must be noted) the main concern has
been about the creation of some local oligarch, not really about the powers
that they would hold. Where they have been elected (most painfully in
Doncaster), this has proven to be true. It is antithetical to the British
culture of government to have such power vested in one individual. As we see in
London, the assembly is largely ineffective at hammering home the deficiencies
of Boris, and whereas Ken boldly took the reins of a raft of powers he was
never intended to have, the assembly has lagged behind – having no ability to
create an effective level of scrutiny of the powers amassed by these big
personalities.
Is this due to the individuals involved? Certainly not.
There are a number of exceptionally good assembly members in London, but the
assembly is not empowered, as it is secondary to that mayor. Most of the good
work that’s done by the assembly is either local or constituency based or as a
result of the blessing of the mayor. I, for one, prefer collegiate
decision-making processes. I, for one, want our leaders scrutinised by a
political grouping, as well as a chamber, as well as the people once every four
years.
Finally, as a last whinge, I’m alarmed by the talk of
further devolution along this pattern of ‘city regions’. Although this does, in
part, answer my worries about lop-sided devolution it throws up two further
questions. Firstly: why not everywhere at once to stop some regions getting a
head-start? Nick Clegg has even spoken about how this is part of the strategy,
so regions can ‘compete against the South’ as well as emerging economies across
the world. Competition is not going to breed success, only elimination and
further exacerbate disparities between regions. Of course, the Lib Dems,
desperate to sacrifice anything on the cold altar of homogenous market
competition, blindly believe in an uncontrolled hand of the market rescuing
communities in a heated battle of white-hot capitalist innovation. One would
have hoped that some sense of political economy, history or frankly a quick
glance at the Beveridge Report might have dampened this, but four years of
Con-Dem government has shown that they have a blind zeal for markets and a hate
for any form of market redress. Royal Mail anyone?
Secondly: what about rural communities? The great untold
shame of 21st Century Britain is the poverty and pain in which our
rural communities live from Cornwall to the Scottish borders. These are the
areas that would benefit most from actual regionalisation – and an actual
re-allocation of powers, not just a shift in admin. The ability to raise tax
revenue, for instance, would benefit these areas most, even in but even the
reliance of so many rural communities on shoddy public transport which limits
economic, social and cultural opportunities, which can only be improved by
regionalisation. Relying on a city-region model disadvantages not only rural
and semi-rural regions, but the rural parts of those city regions which are
particularly overlooked. An individually elected mayor, heavily reliant on big
conurbations for votes are unable to respond effectively to rural issues and
the growing crises in rural education, employment and child poverty – again,
Doncaster is a real example of this failure.
So where do we go? To me, the answer is obvious. Firstly we
have a consistent model of devolution across the UK, in order to end the
democratic deficit that currently exists from region to region. Next, we look
at every element of infrastructure, taxation and welfare and decide on the
smallest unit of government which can effectively deliver such services – from
the parish council to Brussels. And let’s eliminate the meaningless levels of
tokenistic democracy that now litter our public services – elected NHS boards,
Police and Crime Commissioners spring to mind.
Those powers should also be given to the lowest unit of government,
ensuring an holistic approach, led by innovative policy-makers and local
voices, rather than vaguely interested individuals with no real mandate. We
then set levels of statutory minima of provision to be provided in each area of
competence (a library, school, job centre, post office, transport links,
theatre, public houses, health centres, hospitals, fire stations, policing…).
Allowing for a new model of redistribution between areas and regions we can
then let local areas get on with governing themselves, in a collegiate and
collective way, sharing services, expertise and strengths.
There’s a massive question for the Labour Party here –
either we believe in effective local government and power in communities, or we
don’t. We can’t let this agenda be overtaken by the Tories – especially when
they appear to be empowering some communities who are solidly our people. In
the wake of the Scottish referendum, and the inevitable West Lothian
questioning, we should have a plan in the wings for a new constitutional
settlement. I’ve got a wish-list, but at this point in the game, anything
consistent will do.
