A report on the UK’s Future worthy of the name
Jessica Studdert reacts to Labour’s latest proposals to reform the UK constitution.
There was plenty to be excited about in Gordon Brown’s Commission on UK’s Future report, which if enacted would be the most radical devolution of power we will have seen in our lifetimes.
Of course there’s the obvious pushback – it’s easy to promise devolution in opposition, much harder to achieve when holding the reins of power. So the depth of the analysis is crucial. To push these recommendations through would require a shift in mindset across a whole Government which would recognise how it can achieve impact in the complexity of the 2020s, and the limits of one-size-fits-all policymaking which has proved incapable of overturning deepening social and economic divides.
And the report is clear in its presentation of evidence and analysis that UK’s (in particular England’s) geographical inequalities are directly linked to over-centralised governance. The toxicity of this ‘Whitehall knows best’ thinking permeates decision-making and concentrates it in Westminster.
“In no comparable democracy do so few people at the centre make decisions so far away from so many… with multiple centres of power, initiative and influence across the country, communities can see administrations more responsive to their needs”.
This is important recognition from any mainstream party, but particularly Labour, which has a clear social justice mission. Despite its origins as a party of mutual cooperation and associations of working class communities to create power and influence from the ground up, Labour has in recent decades taken a more controlled, planned approach to achieving change- relying on targets and micro-managing over local adaptability and permissiveness. The party has yet to see a plurality of locally-led responses as a virtue and be comfortable with that.
the focus is not just socio-economic dimensions of inequality…the report also addresses themes of culture, identity and power
So lines like “our underlying principle is that devolution in England should be built from local communities & councils, rather than imposed from the centre” are important, radical shifts. They also mark a clear break from successive Conservative administrations’ devolution policy, which has largely been “done to” areas and been less open to local initiative.
Naturally the report is critical of 12 years of Tory government, not just their austerity policies but also the habit of power-grabbing centrally. However it also offers a longer-term critique of decades of centralisation – an implicit rather than explicit reflection of the part the previous Labour government part played in that.
Especially given the author, there was a refreshing willingness to rethink the dominant Treasury orthodoxy in Whitehall with a frank recognition of the damage this has caused in recent years: “Rather than rebalancing the country by directing funding to underutilised areas and people, it has actually led over the long-term to the under-resourcing of the worst of areas – holding back the country as a whole.”
It’s good to see a focus on the function, not just the form of devolution, which so often dominates. There are crucial roles for local government to play in driving individual growth plans, local economic clusters, devolved control of job centre and further education colleges, plus new fiscal powers and regional investment. This is all designed to link growth and opportunity at the local level, and enable areas to maximise the place-advantages they possess.
Crucially also, in a departure for Labour, the focus is not just socio-economic dimensions of inequality which have been a historic strong point of the party. The report also addresses themes of culture, identity and power on which it has traditionally had less to say, and has lost ground to the right on.
there was a refreshing willingness to rethink the dominant Treasury orthodoxy in Whitehall with a frank recognition of the damage this has caused in recent years
This leads the report to view devolution as much more than a policy, but a deeper constitutional question. The recommendations seek clarity of roles for different spheres of national and local government and protection for local government which is sorely needed.
In this light, the headline grabbing recommendation for House of Lords reform isn’t proposed for its own sake or symbolism. Sometimes constitutional questions can be a niche distraction from mainstream priorities. In this case however, an assembly of nations and regions is seen as logical part of wider constitutional settlement.
An under-reported aspect of the report is actually one of its most radical suggestions: the idea of a series of new social rights, for example over health, housing, social assistance and other areas to be determined. While the report focused on economic devolution and constitutional reform, it was relatively silent on public services. But the prospect of a series of social rights would provide a clear national framework through which to secure responsive, supportive and locally adaptable public services. The ideas lay important groundwork for the future development of a coherent governing agenda across economic, democratic and social support, which are anchored locally and protected nationally.
Such bold thinking is very much welcome. We wait to see how these recommendations will be taken forward by Labour, but no doubt, as a signal of intent, this report is a very strong starting point.
Photo credit: ‘The PM speaking to UK and international journalists at a post-G8 press conference’ by Number 10 on Flickr. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Join our mailing list