‘In order to avoid the evils of centralisation and the drawbacks of bureaucracy the central government department should assist with information and grants in aid [but] the local authorities should be given a free hand to develop their own services … in whatever way they choose.’ Such was the resolution passed by the Labour party at its conference in 1918, as Paul Richards recounted in The Purple Book, published by Progress in 2011. The book went on to conclude that: ‘All central government programmes and agencies should be subject to a “public value” test: decentralising and removing functions altogether, focusing resources on the frontline, local neighbourhoods and communities.’ Decentralisation of power was the thread that guided Purple Book authors as they made their proposals for Labour’s renewal and so it is in a sense little surprise that the same logic – by dramatic and existential extension – was the appeal put by the Scottish National party to the people of Scotland. A shift taking place in the 21st century world is one towards pushing power down to somewhere people feel is meaningful to them and, barring the onset of a new cold war in Europe, the impulse towards unitary states will not return.
Such too is what lies behind the most recent contributions to the question of how – rather than whether – we decentralise. Last month IPPR North released Decentralisation Decade, a detailed 90-page report launched at an event in Sheffield by Nick Clegg. One has to only hope that the association with the deputy prime minister does not put the Labour party off the important recommendations in the report’s roadmap for an incoming government in 2015 to set about decentralising power over two parliaments. It seeks to unleash growth in the ‘core cities’ outside London, improve public services, and establish a new political settlement to win the renewed trust of the voters. The new settlement, the tank argues, should include new combined authorities and formal codification of central-local arrangements. Asymmetry will be an important feature of the evolving landscape: ‘Those that are ready to move forward with greater levels of decentralisation should not be constrained by the slower ships in the convoy,’ IPPR argues.
In a similar vein, ResPublica, dubbed the thinktank of ‘red Toryism’, released its latest report Devo Max – Devo Manc: Place-based Public Services, a matter of days after Decentralisation Decade. As the name suggests, the publication focuses on Greater Manchester, proposing that ‘within five years, from the beginning of the next parliament, Greater Manchester should receive a full place-based settlement for its entire proportion of public spend – currently £22.5bn per annum – to allocate as it sees fit, across the scope of its reform and growth programme.’ This should be entirely unringfenced with cuts to Whitehall overheads spend and, drawing on the proposals of the London Finance Commission, include full devolution of five taxes including business rates and stamp duty. Such steps should precede any localisation of income tax – but the tank does envisage this happening.
Staying on the subject of cities and on ideas which have been important in the evolving political debate this parliament, the Centre for London has identified not just the ‘squeezed middle’, but the ‘trapped middle’: London is failing its modest earners, the tank laments. Drawing inspiration from the city of Freiburg in Germany, which catered for its median-income population by purchasing brownfield sites for affordable, low-cost development, it proposes the establishment of Social Improvement Districts, following the precedent set by Business Improvement Districts. ‘Instead of improving the environment in which business operates, the SIDs would be designed to create a better social environment especially for people on modest incomes.’ Normal planning regulations would be suspended and land would be made available at below-market rates, the centre suggests.
By passing power down to people, these ideas have a real chance of becoming a reality. In The Purple Book, Richards exhorts Labour to return to the early days of the party’s founding years – a frenetic commotion of activity begun at the grassroots, rather than inside parliament, and urges the party to return power from where it emanated: ‘More Hardie, less Stalin,’ he says. ‘More co-op, less National Coal Board. Back to the roots of socialism, not its byways and meanders.’
Oh my god (if he/she exists!). Yet more reform! More wasted millions. The NE referendum overwhelmingly rejected devolution. Surely, the Scottish result REJECTED devolution? The YES campaign gained momentum because of utter disillusionment with “Westminster style politics” and the young (not so young, now?) career politicians that pervade the infrastructure (NGOs, “Think Tanks,” etc.). Tories want devolution to cut the power of Labour MPs. It is also about further back door privatisation. Wake up to what is going on!
If we believe in “One Nation,” we must think of our “community” as UK based. More and more people are trying to live in the “Gated Community” phenomenon. Go down this road and we will all be entering villages and towns via “toll gates” and special passes. Parking permits are just a thin edge of the wedge. Some towns/cities have become “no-go areas” for many poorer motorists, unless rich.
Social cohesion is about people from different backgrounds, parts of the country, communicating and embracing each other. Not living in isolation and enclaves. Northern Ireland and sectarianism in the Middle East clearly demonstrate the evils of chauvinistic thinking (especially
local). Coming together is more important than living apart! My time in the Merchant Navy gave me the opportunity to meet, live and work with many people from other parts of the country Geordies, Scousers, Scots, Welsh, Irish, etc. An important part of my many years of life experience!
Old Grassroots Geezer
A persuasive democratic and economic case exists for decentralisation. But we need a little caution.
The trouble is that decentralisation can end up looking too much like fragmentation. That has been the experience of post-war decentralisation in (West) Germany. That, arguably, has been the consequence of decentralising the NHS into Foundation Trusts.
What the UK needs is “joined-up decentralisation”.
New Labour brought in the idea of “joined-up government” at national, local and regional levels. It was a great idea. But it has been very difficult to deliver. In part because it smacks of further centralisation. But mainly because it disrupts embedded establishments.
But “joined-up decentralisation” is different. Its aim is to ensure interoperability of systems between localities. This requires localities to develop and use a shared vocabulary (ontology) for describing things. This then permits knowledge management systems in different localities to “speak” to each other. And that is essential if the “worst” are to catch up with the “best”.
In general “joined-up decentralisation” means adopting and maintaining national / international standards. It is the task of central government to ensure that this happens. But it is the task of localities to agree and jointly modify the standards that they need. And there may be some standards that central government requires.
These standards are primarily of an operational nature (e.g. red traffic lights mean “stop”). It is up to localities to see if they want to set minimum standards for service (e.g. mean life expectancy must exceed 70 – or 80 – years).
Interoperability is far easier to ensure if it is built in from the beginning. Retro-fitting is a nightmare Think how hard it was for NHS to implement Connecting for Health.
Interoperability is essential if a given activity changes its character over time and needs eventually to be delivered at a national level again.
In other words, we cannot be dogmatic about decentralisation. It may not be the democratic and economic solution for all time. It may need to be reversed in part. And the most efficient way of ensuring that is by building in interoperability from the start.