Almost 10 years ago, on a cold day in late October 2004, I stood with dozens of other Labour party activists at the foot of the Angel of the North. Frozen thumbs-up the north-east devolution referendum as the then deputy leader of the Labour party John Prescott wrestled at the bottom of the hill with an inflatable postbox urging people to send in their postal votes to vote yes to an elected assembly.
The public voted no. Voters were so decisively opposed to increasing the numbers of politicians that no sensible political party is likely to revisit it in the near future. In not selling the devolution project then, we failed our heartlands in a way neither we nor the electorate could have imagined at the time. We could not have foreseen the extent to which this coalition government would actively neglect the Midlands and the north of England.
Had the assembly gone ahead, however, the north-east and other regions that may have chosen to follow would arguably have fared better during the economic crisis. Although we are seeing a fragile, uneven recovery in the south-east and particularly London, the downturn has hit other parts of the United Kingdom even harder.
In the same way that inequality between individuals is bad for us all, inequality and uneven economic recovery damages the UK’s overall recovery and limits what we can achieve as a country. Ed Miliband’s vision for city-regions recognises the need to address economic inequality and that the solution has to be greater devolution, including greater localism with increased responsibility for economic strategy.
According to the Centre for Cities, almost eight in 10 private sector jobs created since 2010 have been created in London with only one in 10 of the jobs going to Britain’s nine other biggest cities. Nothing the government has done has addressed this imbalance. It has failed to find an effective alternative to the role of the regional development agencies since they disbanded them in 2010. Local enterprise partnerships have received no funding from central government and cannot possibly compete with the pull of London. The vision outlined by Miliband recognises that cities – like London – need money and responsibility to enable them to create the environment in which to grow and the investment of £20bn will go a long way to enabling this, if spent effectively.
Yesterday’s announcement is not about limiting London’s capacity to grow or cutting off resources to a major world city. It is not a zero-sum game of either London or the rest of the UK. We do need more jobs and opportunities in London but we do not currently have the infrastructure or housing to sustain the population required to do them, without major investment or subsidy. Jobs and opportunities are not currently always benefitting the existing population but drawing people in from elsewhere in the country, Europe and beyond. While we should not pull up the drawbridge – nationally or internationally – the only option should not be for people looking for work to have to move to London. With the best will in the world, and even with a vital injection of more affordable housing, London cannot expand indefinitely upwards and outwards.
All these proposals are a change in the right direction. However, the devolution project for England will not be complete until an element of democratic accountability is revisited. As a London assembly member, I am clear that one of the strengths of the model in London is that of the directly elected mayor, not simply devolution per se, and when the structures are in place responsibility and powers follow as institutions develop.
Recent referendums have demonstrated that there is currently little public appetite to establish more mayors. This week sees a further welcome announcement by Michael Dugher that Labour will introduce revamped regional ministerial roles. This puts regional development at the heart of government but must go beyond the previous ‘add-on’ responsibility we have seen in the past and must be accompanied by cabinet clout.
Labour’s renewed focus on regional development has a sense of urgency which is lacking in the government’s own response to regional economic growth (or lack of growth). By pushing for economic strategies to be in place within nine months following the next election, the vision of city-regions offers hope of delivery on promises by the end of a first Labour term. It is also the type of policy that promises not just to rebuild the economy but to rebuild our economic credibility. It demonstrates that we are fit to be trusted as the party of government again.
———————————
Fiona Twycross AM is a Labour Londonwide assembly member. She tweets @FionaTwycross
———————————
There are four Countries in the UK, all four must have fully devovled Parliament, breaking England up in favour of the Rest is discriminatory, racist agasint the will of the people and could lead to conflict. Labour must drop it’s Anti English Anti England Stance.
The NE of England voted NO because they rejected Labour’s attempts to balkanise England. Offer England a referendum on an English Parliament and you will get a YES vote!
FFS When the hell will England be treated with the same respect the Labour Party gave to Scotland, Wales and NI?
Where the flip is OUR national Parliament and the right to elect our own MPs without neighbouring countries sending theirs to interfere?
I want to swear at you. I really do. And I live in Yorkshire ! A proud count of a proud and historical nation (Blair knows that phrase – he used it for Scotland)
Voters rejected an assembly without real powers. I have concerns about competing Northern cities and their LEPs all chasing what is now on offer. There does need to be democratic overview, but an English dimension would not strengthen the north (or South West) in the way needed. Why not devolve the House of Lords to elected regional bodies, to share out funding, coordinate progress and scrutinise national legislation? A Federal assembly for the North would help make sure devolution doesn’t just suck everything into the bigger cities- not sustainable.
So what you are saying Anniesec is that you don’t trust the English to govern themselves? I think a lot of English voters would disagree with you. England has no political recognition. Establish an English Parliament elected by proportional representation and this will give the North of a England a voice. Only 73 MPs represent London constituencies out of 533 English MPs in total and the majority of those are Labour! The present UK system stinks and needs replacing with a federal system. Tinkering with a northern parliament or regional assemblies will not resolve the problems.
Wrong. An English Parliament would be dominated by London and the South-East and would not solve the regional inequality Ed Miliband is so boldly determined to tackle. I don’t call devolution of the House of Lords tinkering? A strong and democratic voice for the North is needed.
The majority of English constituency MPs do not represent London and the South East. Of 533 English constituency MPs only 73 are from London so how would they dominate an English Parliament? Wouldn’t Manchester and Liverpool members dominate a NW England regional assembly?
Who said anything about using the same constituency base for a regional body. We need to start thinking outside the box on this one. I would want a system that built in gender balance and recognised diversity for a start.
Devolution needs to be based around city regions. E.g. a region for Merseyside encompassing Liverpool, Wirral, Sefton, Knowsley, Halton etc. A Greater Manchester region. Give these city regions assemblies following the London model and an elected Mayor who will champion their cause and attract inward investment. Then you will have healthy competition between the regions.
At present you have a charismatic Mayor in London who is able to champion London’s interests in the national media on a daily basis. No other cities have similar and it is therefore impossible to compete with London’s might. London has the soft power, and crucially the hard power.
Even the cities which do have mayors do not have strong enough powers, and/or cover too small a geographical area. For example it is pointless having a Liverpool mayor, when this covers only the Liverpool council area and not the metropolitan area which de facto makes up Liverpool. It makes for a futile and disjointed approach. It would be like Boris’s remit covering only the boroughs of Westminster and the City.