While Labour’s devolution plans alone won’t pull in the votes, giving the public a bit more of a say over what happens in their neighbourhoods can only be a good thing, Jessica Frank-Keyes writes
Rows over devolved power, and the limits and constraints of centralised government, have been an increasingly pressing theme in British politics over the past few years.
From the Covid-era press conferences, where Nicola Sturgeon, Mark Drakeford and Boris Johnson all announced different versions of the same policies on slightly differing timetables; battles with the EU over Northern Ireland; or the rising power of metro mayors, age-old debates over who wields power – and where – cut to the core of our present-day politics.
The May 2 local elections have seen Sadiq Khan tie his campaign to the message that a Labour government will “reset” the relationship between London and Westminster.
And Andy Burnham clearly felt assured enough in his ‘King in the North’ image that ‘Labour’ didn’t even make it onto his launch posters.
For an emerging Labour administration, the issue of devolution is likely to remain front and centre.
Keir Starmer used his conference speech in October last year to unveil his vision for devolution, announcing that his government would give all towns and cities in England new powers and increased funding in a bid to alter the “hoarding of potential” by Westminster.
He ramped up the rhetoric again in a January speech, making clear that he saw the process of decentralisation as intrinsic to Labour’s “decade of national renewal”, and expliciting linking it to the Tories’ somewhat abandoned promises of levelling up.
While speaking at the local elections campaign launch, he and deputy Angela Rayner fleshed out their “full-fat approach”, promising a “new Take Back Control Act” – in a bid to reclaim the language of levelling up from the Tories – via mayoral transport, energy and planning powers.
This would see all towns and cities in England not already covered by existing devolution deals asked to form groups, or ‘combined authorities’ to bid for new powers of their choice, assuming some responsibilities Westminster currently holds, Rayner recently told the Financial Times.
For Labour, these policies are inextricably linked to the idea of growth, and in particular, Starmer’s first mission: for Britain to achieve the highest sustained growth in the G7.
His devolution plans are also another sign of the Labour leader going into full ‘heir-to-Blair’ mode.
But does building on Blair’s constitutional reforms – from setting up the Scottish government and the Welsh Assembly, now Senedd, to achieving the Good Friday Agreement – present an opportunity to shore up what could be a historic majority, or risk weakening it?
Devolution appears to be relatively popular with the public. Recent polling by the Local Government Chronicle (LGC) and Savanta found 48 per cent of a 2,000-strong sample supported ‘greater devolution’ as a good idea, while just 15 per cent were opposed.
But Savanta director Chris Hopkins reckons while “polling consistently shows the public like the idea of greater devolution and more influence locally”, politicians offering “devolution alone won’t be enough to move many votes – and certainly isn’t an election decider”.
He also noted the question of voters’ faith in politicians, warning that offering popular policies is one thing, but whether the public “trust them to do so, is another matter entirely”.
It’s a fair point, and a particularly prescient one for our current moment. A key question Labour has repeatedly faced is whether Starmer’s promises are worth the paper they’re written on. The scrapping of the £28bn green spending pledge is the classic example.
Ant Breach, associate director at the Centre for Cities, argued there is definitely more scope for further devolution in the UK.
Breach stressed that compared to our international peers, we have “an incredibly centralised political system”. Other major developed economies distribute taxes very differently.
“In Japan, it’s about 25 per cent of taxes applied to the local level; in Poland or France and Italy, it’s about 10 or 11 per cent; and in the UK, it’s only about five per cent,” he said.
He acknowledged that with any kind of devolution agenda you have to accept that sometimes people from a different political party than you are going to get elected.
“But the real prize here isn’t that you’re getting more people on your team… it’s actually about getting every part of the country to have the right incentives and the resources and ability to improve places and the local economy,” he said.
“The real prize here isn’t that you’re getting more people on your team… it’s actually about getting every part of the country to have the right incentives and the resources and ability to improve places and the local economy.”
Ant Breach, associate director at the Centre for Cities
Breach argued that if Labour is set on achieving record levels of economic growth for the UK, pushing ahead with devolution and boosting the patchwork of local economies is the answer.
Devolution would also help solve a deeper problem – the public’s increasing disconnect from Westminster.
It’s a fair assumption that a bit more say over your own neighbourhood – the types of housing built, or support offered to local businesses – would be welcomed by most of us.
Perhaps politics would seem less like a pointless faraway game, or something politicians ‘do at us’, and instead become something a bit more intrinsic to our daily lives.
The UK’s leading cities, like London and Manchester, already flourish under the metro mayoral system – so why not go further?
While, as ever, it’s a waiting game to learn what exactly Labour’s manifesto will entail, it’s clear there will be more devolution debates if Labour win the next general election.