Following our crushing defeat there can be few now who doubt that anti-politics, apathy and the rising tide of populism hurt the Labour party more than our opponents. Scotland is clearly a unique and special case but even there it still possible to view our capitulation alongside the erosion of sentimental and electoral loyalty in white working-class areas as part of the same phenomena. This cultural collapse presents us with many complicated and seemingly contradictory political challenges. For example, class is clearly a component of both the Scottish National party and the United Kingdom Independence party’s cultural appeal – as the inability of the Green party to ‘surge’ outside their middle-class heartlands further highlights. Yet, arguably, both also represent an extreme weakening of class-based forms of identity when compared with local or national pride.

Then there is the broader, European-wide paradox at the heart of how social democracy approaches globalisation. On the one hand an era of intense global competition and rapid technological change requires every last drop of power to be utilised in order to spread fairness and opportunity to the powerless: globalisation and deindustrialisation have emphatically not delivered for communities like Stoke-on-Trent. And yet the ability of the central state to contribute to this task is undermined not just – as some would have it – by the need for fiscal responsibility, but also by the growing political clamour for localism and democratic renewal. Indeed, surely one of the clearest lessons of post-globalisation politics is that people need power to reside closer to them; to feel a deeper connection with those responsible for the decisions that affect their lives.

For that reason Labour must now position itself as the party of community, localism and civic power. We must be the party that offers a modern approach to devolution – both at the local and constitutional levels – as a vehicle for both economic and political renewal. Ed Miliband understood this and realised that devolution must be a component of our economic vision. Rightly, he argued that we cannot tackle our poor productivity and rising inequality without significant economic rebalancing. Yet perhaps what was missing was a sense of how this feeds into a broader political argument. England is one of the most centralised countries in the world – practically nowhere else do the capitals of finance, culture, commerce, politics, media, fashion and sport all reside in one city. But a political project that seeks to redress that must make a far bigger argument than the economic. Devolution must be about identity, power and pride – not just prosperity.

What is more, this is precisely the sort of the terrain the Tories seek to carve out with their much-vaunted ‘Northern Powerhouse’ agenda. And, while their approach is piecemeal and incomplete, we should avoid treating it with too much disdain. Whatever else we may think about Tory local government policy, clearly the devolution of transport, skills and health powers to an excellent Labour combined authority in Manchester is a good thing. A far better approach for Labour would be to outflank the Tories and give more power back to people and local communities. And the government’s new education and adoption bill presents us with a perfect opportunity to begin this task.

As it stands the bill is a curious mixture of shoddy, slapdash legislation – with crucial concepts such as what makes a school ‘coasting’ left undefined – and a continuation of a narrow and divisive approach to school improvement. We should aspire to improve education in every school yet the bill offers nothing to parents and pupils of the 145 academy schools currently rated inadequate by Ofsted. However, the bill also accelerates the unhealthy and arbitrary centralism which sees almost unfettered power consolidated in the role of the secretary of state.

It can hardly be understated how much global education has moved on from this approach. The leading jurisdictions around the world are not responding to the 21^st century digital economy with top-down, target-driven command and control. They are devolving power, broadening the curriculum, learning to let go: unleashing excellence, not mandating adequacy. As such, it is difficult to fathom why schools sit outside the Tories’ devolution agenda – but it is an omission the Labour party will expose by using pro-devolution amendments to reshape the bill. Decisions about new schools and addressing underperformance are better made at a combined authority level by people in a position to understand the distinctive context of each school and more able to challenge and inspire in their communities. And few things are more important to a local community’s sense of pride than its schools.

Nye Bevan had a famous stump speech about his early political career: ‘When I get older I said to myself, “The place to get to is the council”. That’s where the power is. So I worked hard and, in association with my fellows, when I was about 20 years of age, I got on the council. I discovered when I got there that power had been there, but it had just gone.’

Where it had gone – with both parties’ collusion – was Westminster. If Labour wants to become the party of community once again it needs to win the race to hand it back.

———————————

Tristram Hunt MP is shadow secretary of state for education and a vice-chair of Progress. He tweets @TristramHuntMP

———————————

Photo: purplemattfish