Does London know best?
Bob Buxton, co-leader of the Yorkshire Party, on the devolution revolution
Does London know best? You might think from the ever-expanding powers that successive governments have claimed for themselves that it must do. It certainly acts as if it does. Why else would it have taken so many powers previously exercised locally if not for the fact that it thinks it can do things better?
And yet, the proof is in the outcomes. Are our cities thriving? No. Are our public services reliable? No. Is our state responsive and delivering what people want? No.
This isn’t simply a matter of blaming one London government or another – the failures are historic and collective, the result of Whitehall badly micromanaging things it should never have wanted to oversee in the first place and ruthlessly and recklessly cutting and capping council budgets while, at the same time, demand for essential or mandated services has grown and grown.
So, the new Labour government’s commitment to a “devolution revolution” is very welcome. Putting genuine power in the hands of local people is where it belongs, as, after all, they are the ones who know best what an area wants and needs. And if they don’t – or if they can’t deliver on it – well, that’s why we have local elections.
Yet, what has been promised by the deputy PM Angela Rayner isn’t really a devolution revolution. It’s just a bit of tinkering. While Labour does have form in genuinely delivering devolution – under Tony Blair, Wales, Scotland and (intermittently) Northern Ireland got parliaments and even London got an assembly to go along with its mayor – England, more generally, has so far only ever seen the creation of several metro mayors with limited powers and even more limited budgets.
Metro mayors have their merits – they can be cheerleaders, lobbyists, publicists and advocates for their respective areas and oversee the few things they really do run – but they can also be dangerously unaccountable. Still, for now, this system is better than nothing.
Another problem has been the hotchpotch way metro mayors have been rolled out in England. Some areas have them, others don’t. Why this has been the case isn’t clear, which is why we welcome Labour’s commitment to addressing the regional imbalance. It’s needed. Take East Riding and Hull. It’s the only part of Yorkshire that hasn’t yet secured a devolution deal. No mayor, no seat at the table and the very real risk of being left behind.
But, if a real devolution revolution is going to take place, we need to see far more radical change, where regional powers are similar to those enjoyed in other countries like Australia, Canada and Germany (or even here, if we take Scottish devolution as an example).
It’s no coincidence that English cities and regions outside of London are among the worst-performing in Europe and also the least empowered. In contrast, when local authorities have even greater control over certain powers and budgets, it not only breeds self-confidence, it also gives rise to a whole ecosystem of industries and services that would otherwise flock to the capital. This, in turn, delivers more fairness, more equality and a stronger and more united country, too.
The Starmer government has taken a small step in the right direction, but it should have more confidence in the logic of its own arguments and evidence. What we, The Yorkshire Party, want to see is a devolution programme that is a lot more ambitious than it currently is, where local representatives have full control over serious budgets and where decisions cannot be overruled by Westminster. That’s true devolution.