"To avoid the mistakes of its predecessors, the government must recast the relationship between central and local government."

Tom Brake is the director of Unlock Democracy

What does it mean to control the controllables? A brief Google search will reveal multiple interpretations of this expression. On the one hand, it can be seen as an exhortation to prioritise, to concentrate solely on the things we can affect and disregard those beyond our reach.

On the other hand, it seems to imply that the more we can control, the greater our ability to produce the outcome we want. Anyone familiar with the footballing philosophy of Pep Guardiola will know that he seeks to push the boundary of what he can control to the limit and beyond – control of space, control of the ball, control of transitions, etc.

While maximising his team’s ability to control all aspects of the game has brought unparalleled success to Guardiola, obsessive, hyper-centralised control carries considerable downsides as a political model – not least to democracy.

All governments, Labour and Conservative, are susceptible to the inclination to hoard power. 

The last Labour government, it’s true, did buck this trend somewhat with the devolution settlement passed in the late ‘90s. But on the tricky question of English devolution, with the exception of London, it largely steered clear. 

The asymmetries of the UK – in terms of its component nations – ruled out devolved government for England, in the manner of Cardiff, Holyrood or Stormont. It took succeeding governments to extend the mayoral model to more regions of England.

Support for this framework of ‘metro’ mayors – of whom there are now twelve  – working in partnership with local authorities seems to be a rare instance of relative cross-party consensus. Measures to strengthen their powers and those of local council leaders face little overt opposition.

Yet it will nonetheless take courage for Keir Starmer to lead a government, as he committed, that “gives away power and puts communities in control.”

The forthcoming English Devolution Bill will be a good test case. In the King’s Speech, the government pledged to “give new powers to metro mayors and combined authorities… [to] support local growth plans that bring economic benefit to communities.” It remains to be seen whether this Bill lives up to the “full fat approach to devolution” Starmer promised.

The government is right to acknowledge the potential economic – as well as democratic – benefits of enhanced devolution. Indeed, previous governments have made similar noises – think of the Northern Powerhouse and Levelling Up, both cast in unmistakably economic terms.

To avoid the mistakes of its predecessors, the government must recast the relationship between central and local government. 

In a report released earlier this year by Unlock Democracy and Compass, we identified a deeply-embedded culture of “control freakery” in Westminster and Whitehall as a major obstacle to full English devolution.

For the new government’s efforts to be successful, it must break with this past and chart a fresh course away from the current piecemeal, conditional and contractual devolution formula.

In politics, as in life, money can often be the most difficult subject to discuss – but little good comes of avoiding it. Labour must learn the lessons of a short-sighted approach to funding which has precipitated the major fiscal crisis afflicting English local government. 

This means introducing more stable funding for local government through longer (three-to-five-year) cycles, and relinquishing more revenue-raising powers to local representatives.

In addition, the new government must end the perpetual suspicion of rampant pork-barrel politics that has blighted local government funding. An Unlock Democracy analysis of the Long-Term Plan for Towns found that funding allocations were disproportionately skewed towards towns in then Conservative-held marginals.

Perhaps even more importantly, though, any new approach cannot be cooked up in Whitehall. As the report concludes, “devolution has many models, no one size fits all can work for everywhere – we need true localism.”

Local authorities must have more agency in determining the design and implementation of their particular devolution settlement, coupled with the powers to make a success of it. 

Keir Starmer talked positively in opposition about how central government should act in partnership with local authorities, businesses and civil society. Now he’s got possession of the levers of power, the temptation to control as many controllables as possible will be strong, even if to do so would neuter genuine reform to English local government.

Some have said the most difficult thing to do with power is to give it away. Labour must keep its word.

Tom Brake, in his capacity as Director of Unlock Democracy, will be chairing a Labour Party Conference fringe event on 22nd September entitled ‘Devolution and the mission of national renewal’.

Image credit: Keir Starmer – Creative Commons

Comments are closed.