Devolution is high on the agenda at the moment and it would take some hefty research to come up with a politician arguing against it and for the centralisation of power.
It is in danger of becoming one of those issues that no one questions or dissects. That would be a shame, as we discovered in Cornwall.
In the week before Liz Kendall’s speech on devolution, David Cameron offered Cornwall the first rural deal on devolution. Labour councillors in Cornwall voted against accepting it, so this considered and detailed speech is very welcome. Not all devolution is the same.
In her speech, Kendall takes the thread of ‘giving away power’ and stitches it firmly to the fabric of the Labour movement, from new energy co-operatives to our historic workplace roots and the voluntary, community health provision that gave rise to our beloved national NHS.
This is devolution rooted in people and communities, building from the ground up and a world away from what the Tories are offering to us.
In Cornwall we have had little consultation or public interest and no referendum.
Cornwall has – as well as wealth concentrated in few hands – common cause with many post-industrial areas of the country. With low skills and low wages, we share the chronic problems that in government, despite all our efforts, Labour found so hard to tackle. And we have a housing crisis too.
On top of these problems, Cornwall’s NHS seems to be in permanent crisis, the council’s social care framework is failing, children’s services struggling and millions of pounds in European Union funding has scarcely improved our economy at all.
People want solutions, as Kendall says, and when allowed to they make a good job of finding them. Nothing that Cameron is devolving to Cornwall suggests this kind of radical change.
As she also points out – leaving aside nostalgia for the past – we have lost something very important in Britain’s social life: that sense of ‘a democratic culture in which people felt they could have a say, whether at public meetings or when politicians toured the pubs.’
The disconnect between people and politicians has never been greater. This speech puts devolution forward as a way to heal the divide, with politicians supporting and being involved in grassroots action. For Kendall devolution is about trusting people.
One reason for Labour rejecting the ‘Deal for Cornwall’ is that it was kept secret, not only from the people of Cornwall, but their representatives.
Councillors were given 20 minutes to read the ‘Deal for Cornwall’ document before debate and officers at the doors of the chamber made sure no one left with a copy.
This was obviously more about the press release for Cameron’s arrival two days later than it was about trusting anyone outside the Whitehall and executive sphere. It did not work, people in Cornwall are not easily fooled, and it was treated with the indifference it deserved.
In our local newspaper’s email round-up of news on the day, Cameron’s signing of the document was the fourth link down from ‘Rubble falls from building into Redruth street’ – a story about a couple of bricks coming loose. That says it all.
It is not that people are generally apathetic. There is a huge amount of local enthusiasm for community action: we have renewable energy networks, community land trusts, social enterprises and thriving community projects.
The truth is that the ‘Deal’ gives just one new power to Cornwall council: franchising buses. There is a much talk of ‘working together’ and a promise to deliver intermediate body status for EU funding decisions, but that should have been sorted out two years ago – our programme has been severely delayed by Whitehall failure to do this.
This is a politician’s vision of more power, not the radical change, the trust in people that Kendall is talking about
No discussion on devolution is complete without the touching on the extent of fiscal independence and whether the Treasury will be as keen to redistribute funds as politicians are to devolve responsibility.
Kendall answers this by talking of a new political settlement, where power is devolved to ‘nations, cities, towns and counties’ combined with ‘a new settlement for devolved powers and responsibilities every Treasury cycle.’ There is an underlying assumption that this will result in better use of public funds, which I hope is not code for cuts.
The vision that Kendall outlines is inspiring but it would need to deliver real devolved funding. The worst that could happen is for devolution to become another ‘big society’ soundbite, backed up by nothing more than press releases.
On that note, Kendall also mentions the latest internal Labour party idea – the English Labour party. This strikes no chords in Cornwall.
It would be good for the party to start listening to those of us who believe our party’s future has to include appealing to the south of Britain as much as the north. I doubt that an English Labour party will change the party’s focus on London and north of England and could even make it even worse.
If we really are to adopt a new political settlement, it has to start with the party and we need to avoid the Cameron approach, that devolution is about the top deciding what is good for the grassroots.
———————————-
Jude Robinson is a Labour councillor on Cornwall council. She tweets @JudeRobinson
———————————-