With the Better Together and ‘No’ campaign having won we must now, as a country, work fast to understand what that means for all of us – north and south of the border. Labour’s response must be to energise our cities and regions if the party is to own its share of this unfolding story.
Led by senior Labour figures, it was ‘No’ that won on the night, supported by promises of ‘devo-max’ and fears over impending economic doom. However, the unashamedly short-term tactics of the prime minister early the next morning, combined with the canvassing-induced exhaustion of the Labour frontbench, overshadowed our final conference before the election. Despite the Scottish National party losing the vote, it has, with the help of the Conservatives, succeeded in injecting a new shot of nationalism into our politics, putting us on the back foot.
However, pulling the argument back to place where Labour can win does not require competing on this nationalist ground. With the government attempting to direct the debate in a constitutional direction, it was clear from the conference fringe in Manchester that our great cities have different plans and see, in Westminster and Whitehall, power for the taking. Senior Manchester city leaders speaking at Labour conference, and senior Birmingham city leaders speaking at Conservative conference too, reacted to the Scottish ‘No’ vote, not with an academic view on the West Lothian Question, but with a call for devolution to our cities, including a demand for new powers to grow and invest.
So, how can this be achieved and who should lead? A key lesson we must learn from Scotland is that, in this era of weakening central politics, power is not carefully devolved as it was by Labour in 1997, it is wrestled from London in messy and urgent deals. Therefore, if cities are to take the power they need to grow, they cannot wait for central government plans and promises. Businesses, communities and local leaders must strengthen their alliances to seize the initiative and, by supporting and encouraging this, Labour can provide genuinely national leadership without resort to the creaking and tired infrastructure of Whitehall. By working with existing city and regional power structures, including combined authorities, networks of county councils, LEPs and chambers, Labour can circumvent the antipathy to ‘another layer of government’ found in the 2004 north-east referendum, and speak to power structures closest to our work, community and home lives.
Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and David Sainsbury spoke in July about the importance of ‘inclusive prosperity,’ with the Labour leader saying that ‘many businesses have told him that too many decisions are made away from where they should be.’ If Labour is to capitalise on this moment, it must now demonstrate that it understands the repercussions of the ‘No’ vote, and assert that it is their senior figures who are best-placed, in their different regions, to help form strong local alliances to get things done.
———————————
Ben Garratt is an account director at Westbourne Communications. He is the former deputy director of Labour Friends of Israel and is Labour member in Hampstead and Kilburn. He tweets @ben_garratt
———————————
Sounds great doesn’t it? Just a few things to think about: who decides on the powers given, how the powers are used and how far do ‘we’ go? Would moving the issues, in terms of who looks after them, prevent a Mid Staffs and going even more ‘local’ would a Rotherham be prevented or would they just be overlooked.
Would Government, in whatever form it would exist under the new scheme, just ignore problems presented to them and pass the book on to the powers that be at a local level, like Burnham did when I tried to raise an issue about our hospital with him?
Sorry, this isn’t democratic devolution it’s handing over power to unelected LEPs and uncaacountable combined authorities. The North (Yorkshire, North-East and NW) needs directly elected regional governmnet with PR. Otherwise, the growing alienation from politics will continue. Who says the public don’t want another tier of government and more politicians? Actually it’s existing politicians who don’t wnat to lose their power. The NE referendum was offering very little – and was 10 years ago. The North wants what Scotland, Wales, NI and London already have – diretcly-elected government with real power.The North-East party and Yorkshire First are new on the political scene but will soon be challenging Labour from a progressive regionalist position.
Please see http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/09/19/gordon-browns-plan-wont-work-we-need-to-scrap-barnett-and-allocate-funding-based-on-need/ and http://lanchesterreview.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/after-scottish-referendum-by-david.html.
Ben is headed in the right direction. Paul Salveson, I fear is not. Labour’s leadership is engaged in a race against time. The party’s support in Scotland is at risk as the Scottish nationalist scramble to maximise devolved powers whatever the damage to the UK. Particularly irksome as the Labour leadership might see it is the disloyalty of Labour voters particularly in heartland areas that voted for independence. Any policy to address the ramifications of the No vote has to address the economic issues that encouraged too many Labour voters to vote yes. That begins and possibly ends IMO with the UK budget and UK treasury hegemony, not constitutional cravings.
I have set out my thinking in a resolution for my local Labour Party posted here http://tinyurl.com/nhtjc3j.
BTW Paul Salveson is being rather cavalier in his criticism of combined authorities as being unaccountable, that’s precisely what nationalist think about the UK government when it comes to governing their own affairs, despite the fact it comprises …elected representatives.
England expects her own Parliament with all the same powers as Scots one. All new powers to be simultaneous
NONE OF THE ABOVE
The referendum in Scotland reverberated
with angry disillusionment with the whole ‘Westminster system’; disillusionment
echoed across Britain. It also highlighted just how unrepresentative, outdated
and dysfunctional the present political system really is. But are the politicians
listening, let alone up to the challenges of reform?
If Labour still wins next year’s general election, its majority will heavily
depend on MPs from a devolved Scotland. Without these MPs continuing to vote on
issues that don’t affect them, the extent of which is now to be significantly extended
with ‘devolution-max’, Labour will be hard pressed to pass legislation. Yet
relying on these MPs will seriously flaw Labour’s legitimacy.
Moving to a federal system or two-tier parliament would inevitably foreshorten
Labour’s prospects and power. Even without reform also addressing its 15-18 MP over-representation in parliament generally, Labour would find it far harder to win a majority in
the UK minus Scotland, let alone just England. At best, Labour would end up
running the residual UK government, with extensive powers now devolved to the
individual national entities, while at loggerheads with the Conservatives in
control in England (accounting for 84% of the population and economy).
In the referendum many Scottish Labour voters deserted to the nationalists.
They may return in the general election but the resentment towards Labour and
Westminster was palpable; as it is across Britain. While Labour still has a
small lead in the national polls, support is generally weak, unenthusiastic and
simply the least worst option. But, other than making the leap to UKIP, there
isn’t really anywhere else for these voters to go.
Ed Miliband “hears” the disillusionment but wants to keep going as things
are, including relying on Scottish MPs to govern, pending a nebulous
constitutional convention after the election. Meantime Labour is equivocating about
devolution. Scotland was promised extensive powers and backtracking would decimate the Scottish Labour vote. But any powers devolved necessarily leave less in the centre; hence less for Labour in any federal or two-tier system – while sharpening the illegitimacy of Labour’s reliance on Scottish MPs in the meantime.
The Conservatives have been quick to use the situation to party advantage.
By proposing separate voting on English and UK issues and accelerating
constitutional reform, David Cameron hopes to pin Labour to the horns of its
dilemmas. He now has another stick to add to the economy to beat Labour with
during the election while undermining the legitimacy or powers of the next (and
he hopes any future) Labour government should they still win.
But Conservative support is also shaky. They are extinct in Scotland,
barely hanging on in Wales and in England reliant on predominating in the south
and outside the cities. Even with the improving economy, they remain unpopular with
many or are only supported reluctantly, being seen as representing just big
business and the wealthy. Meanwhile UKIP has become the outlet for disaffection, splitting the rightwing vote. Hence Labour still being ahead despite Ed Miliband, lacklustre performance and dismal
perceptions of its economic competence.
Reform also has its dangers for the Conservatives. All the issues of
cleaving between ‘British’ and devolved powers are simply the mirror of those
for Labour. Yet unpicking the constitution risks exposing the narrowness and weakness
of their own support. David Cameron therefore only wants reform strictly within
the present Westminster system.
Given the choice, people would overwhelmingly vote for ‘none of the
above’ main parties or leaders. They are being forced to choose between just
two increasingly narrow and unrepresentative parties and their foisted-on-us leaders
in a winner takes all first-past-the-post system, with government then run by
partisan fiat from the top and centre. Disempowered and unrepresented, people increasingly
disengage or turn to anyone offering an alternative, however retrograde or
unrealistic.
Even under this increasingly trammelled two-party system, neither Labour
nor Conservatives now get much more than a third of the votes in elections
where turnout has fallen to only 60-65%. Yet despite having only the often
reluctant support of less than a quarter of the population, one or other party
nevertheless ends up with all the power and governing all but unilaterally.
All this would suggest far-reaching reform to bring the political system
into the modern world; moving to a more pluralistic system with multiple
parties, proportional voting, devolved power and more direct election of
leaders.
The rub is that any reform will be carried out by and through the
existing system; and soon runs counter to both main parties’ interests in not
undoing their half of the duopoly of power.
So far the Conservatives have simply tried to hamstring Labour but
otherwise want reform confined within the existing Westminster system. Equally,
Labour wants to cling to the election and then govern regardless. And both are happy
to continue to gain power and govern merely by default based on reluctant
support; indeed, are basing their entire elections strategies on doing so.
The hope is therefore that the hiatus created by the referendum will spur
much needed political reform. But more likely is that whoever wins the election
will premise reform on perpetuating the existing system’s party interests and essential
shortcomings.
Might I suggest that ‘Devolution without Democracy’ could be a useful slogan for those pinning their hopes on empowering city regions? Council and business leaders together deciding our fate might seem ‘progressive’ to some but it leaves me rather worried. So perhaps those who favour the idea should suggest ways in which it might be madedirectly accountable to the people.