- Latest Blog Post: Is the BBC hurting British politics? by Rob Knight
- Latest Comment: Joe Otten on Is the BBC hurting British politics?
Subscribe to our RSS feed here
English Devolution
Real local power to change things comes from strong devolved polities with fiscal powers, not from Cameron's vague paternalistic notions of "social responsibility".
On the face of it, articles today in the Guardian on Cameron's "vision of social responsibility" and Scottish Devolution and Independence might not have too much in common. But scratch the surface, and the same questions arise - and in each case the same answer is suggested.
Jonathan Friedland is a little embarassed at the attention "Dave" is lavishing on the "Guardianista troika" of Polly, Simon Jenkins and himself. But Cameron has a big idea to sell in order to get himself the keys to No 10, and he needs to sell this "big idea" to a wider audience:
He explains it as the simple belief that society's problems are up to all of us to solve. In other words, social questions currently left exclusively to the state would, in Cameron's Britain, be resolved not by central government alone, but by other key players as well, from charities to big business [my italics].
Unfortunately this statement highlights the problems with his idea, already picked up on by Tim Congdon and that I will expand on below.
Cameron is onto something, however, and Liberals should take note:
The left too has a heritage it may have forgotten, a libertarian, anti-statist tradition dating back to the 19th century and earlier, with its friendly societies, mutual associations and trade unions... If Cameron could stir that earlier, sleeping sentiment on the left, and combine it with the traditional Tory, Women's Institute brand of voluntarism, he could forge himself quite a coalition.
There is a problem with this because, as Friedland notes:
Much of that spirit was smothered by the Fabians' technocratic worship of the state and by the Labour experience of 1945, which combined to make many progressives believe the only vehicle capable of carrying their ideal was central government.
And that is a big challenge for Liberals - the ingrained notion that (i) the state must provide everything (and by that, we mean the centralised bureaucratic Westminster-based state) and (ii) that if things don't work at the local level, Westminster must intervene to sort things out.
Friedland uses this latter point as the basis of his challenge to Cameron's idea - that,as he puts it, "our civil society is too weak to carry the load he wants it to, and that would spell disaster for the very people he claims to care about."
I disagree with Friedland here. Cameron's "big idea" won't work, but not for the reasons he states. The problem with Cameron's idea is that it is, in the end, a paternalistic approach to problem solving. As Tim Congdon put it in his Telegraph article last week:
I never imagined that the modern Conservative Party would again embrace old-fashioned Tory paternalism, with a frank advocacy of expanding the state's responsibilities. The election of David Cameron to the leadership therefore came as a shock to me.
Ultimately Cameron is advocating that Central Government dispense largesse to charities and other NGOs for them to deliver services. The priorities will still be controlled centrally, and the taxes raised and collected centrally. The link between those responsible for delivering those services and those paying for them will be long, distant, and mediated via Whitehall and Westminster. In other words, this talk of "social responsibility" is a smokescreen - because Westminster will still be calling the shots and all the attendent problems will remain.
So, what is the answer? For me, Simon Jenkins touches on it in his article on Scottish Independence:
Partial devolution to Scotland and Wales remains a feather in Tony Blair's cap. It recognises the ambition of two component parts of the kingdom for an autonomy that reflects their sense of identity. No visitor to Edinburgh or Cardiff can be in any doubt that they are nowadays more different "places" from England. Their experience led Blair, or at least John Prescott, to answer the West Lothian question by offering similar powers to English regions. But those regions enjoy no collective identity or loyalty, being artificial Whitehall constructs. The idea failed.Prescott's best answer to the West Lothian question would have been to have conferred partial autonomy on England's counties and cities. They would be viable: the county of Hampshire is the same size as the autonomous state of New Hampshire, and three times the size of sovereign Luxembourg. Westminster MPs would not then be deciding how to run English schools or roads or clinics or police any more than they used to, or any more than they do Scottish ones. Westminster MPs would have as little control over one part of Britain as over any other. They would be ruling a federation, as does the German parliament or the US Congress.
Jenkin's answer gets round the problems with Cameron's proposal. Strong local polities, with a pre-existing sense of identity (or "demos") exist in the form of Counties (traditional borders please!) and Cities. Given the power to raise their own local taxation, they would be able to run local schools, hospitals, transport and the like, either on the state-owned model or by tendering to private concerns, as their local electors saw fit. And, more importantly, the link between locally funded services, and local responsibility, would be clear and democratically accountable. It should also increase the volume and quality of participation in local government both from the passive (elctoral) and active(councillor) sense too, when people realise who controls the purse strings.
I hope our policy makers take note.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Google
Agree with all that. Links in with Chris Huhne's stuff on devolving NHS powers, quoting the example of Denmark.
As Hywel points out in another place (and implied in your comment re trad borders), the existing local govt boundaries (counties, mets & unitaries) don't always mesh with 'natural communities', so these might need some work too.
Do you have a link to the Hywel piece?
________________________________________________
"Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
Yes, in principle I agree. The only thing to say against it is that it doesn't address the emotional need for an English Parliament as the focus for the nation.
My own idea on this was for a more flexible system which allowed further devolution (to towns, for example) if those lower levels of government wanted it. It's barmy that a planning decision on a carpark is taken anywhere other than the affected town, for example.
Emotional need, Bish? I thought you of all people would be against paying for a government without purpose! :o)
I agree with you on the Town Council point.
________________________________________________
"Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
You're right, it would offend my principles. But in terms of the political practicalities, I might just have to go along with it.
Whilst the argument is well made, there needs to be an acceptance of the realities that major cities dominate their immediate hinterland and there is far more logic in establishing (for example) a Manchester city-region with associated economic, transport, and housing powers than there is in reconstituting Lancashire and Cheshire.
I fully agree with Tabman's post. Let's hope politics and policy moves in that direction.
Inamicus - mostly I agree with you, except to say that county boundaries should be decoupled from local government. Ultimately, though its about where a community decides it owes its identity. If Sale residents south of the Mersey feel themselves part of Cheshire who are we to force them into Manchester?
________________________________________________
"Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
The problem with schemes like this is that there will always be those siren calls to have central government transfer payments from one area to another. This destroys the link between voter and council, and eventually hands power back to centre.
I think there is a great deal to be said for the elegance of going by historic counties. Elected may^H^H sherrifs. Who wants to be sherrif of Nottingham(shire)?
Yes cities do dominate. I'm not so sure how much Hull dominates N and NE Lincs that justifies putting them in the same region. So counties are not ideal for economic and infrastructure planning. But who wants economic planning anyway? And regional infrastructure planning is just as bad for cities like Sheffield in the corner of the region.
I'm in favour of this kind of system - it makes a lot more sense than an English parliament, without forcing bizarre ahistorical 'regions' on the voters.
I don't buy the idea that England needs its own parliament just because Scotland has one; I think we ought to be above 'parliament envy' and, at any rate, England is far larger and more populous than Scotland. The London assembly complicates the idea of an English parliament further.
In fact, many of the centralised 'public service' functions of the British state are fairly recent inventions, and decentralised, county-based government is a far better fit with the character of England. If we could decentralise those functions, Westminster could remain as a proper British Parliament, debating foreign policy, macroeconomic issues, security and issues of truly UK-wide significance. Westminster would come to resemble the 'minimal state', with other functions of government taken up by county governments. It's an idea that, at the very least, deserves serious consideration.
Let´s see if I have understood you, Rob. You are suggesting a Scottish parliament, a Welsh assemley, and 44 (or whatever) English traditional counties? And in the centre (London or possibly wherever) an overall British Parliament? So Wiltshire, for example, is the equivalent of Scotland?
Have I got that right?
Tabbers - Hywel's comment was on the Lib Dem Voice Forum so can't link to it here, but will post a link to this over there
Rosemary, I agree that it seems counter-intuitive at first. But, to take an example from the US, New Hampshire is far smaller than California, but both are viable states. I think there are two key criteria:
1) That the unit of devolution be something people feel affinity for. 'North East England Region' doesn't work, but 'Yorkshire' might. We've already seen that the public reject these artificial regions when given the choice.
2) That the unit of devolution be capable of managing the necessary services. Size plays a role here, and a unit that is too small would fail.
There are doubtless plenty of ways in which this idea could be improved. But it instinctively feels like a better solution than an English parliament. To me, 'Englishness' implies a certain distrust of central government, and an English parliament would be barely less centralist than the current setup. I think we should use the principle of subsidiarity as a guide; if we can move power closer to individual citizens, then we should.
Rob, agree with this.
One question, though. Scotland, Northern Ireland (?), and England & Wales have different legal systems. Would there be any requirement for a tier at the England (& Wales) level to cater for this?
Another point to bear in mind is that the subsidiarity argument also works in Scotland and Wales (and Northern Ireland). For example, do the Metropolitan concerns of Edinburgh and Glasgow match those in the Highlands? Do decisions taken in Inverness really meet the concerns of those in Stornoway?
________________________________________________
"Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
"One question, though. Scotland, Northern Ireland (?), and England & Wales have different legal systems. Would there be any requirement for a tier at the England (& Wales) level to cater for this?"
You have to distinguish a bit between different laws and different legal systems which apply those laws.
With some very minor exceptions mainly relating to the conduct of terrorist trials, Northern Ireland has the same legal system to England and Wales but quite a lot differences in individual laws. Scotland has a very different legal system which combines many aspects of the English system of common law with continental civil law.
So although England has much more in common with Scotland than Australia (say) in terms of the actual laws we have, Australian precedent is often much more useful in interpreting legislation in English courts because they have a much more similar approach on matters of interpretation.
There isn't actually a huge practical problem with having different actual laws within the same legal system, or different legal systems interpretting the same law.
It's worth pointing out that if Scotland votes for independence, then it will probably be possible to have an English Parliament and devolution to the counties.
And in such an eventuality, the English parliament should be limited to defence, security, justice and trade matters, with pretty much everything else done at county level.
That's certainly what I'd like to see.
Sorry, surely if Scotland were to declare independence (still very unlikely in my view) there would still be Wales and Northern Ireland so an English Parliament could not deal with defence, security etc? Indeed, the whole case for a separate English Parliament would be further weakened as the Welsh Assembly has fewer powers and Northern Ireland does not have a GB party structure so cannot deliver an in built majority for Labour or any other party (and anyway both are smaller than Scotland).
Incidentally, I think that the SNP's latest favourite argument for independence, that Scotland would not have gone to war in Iraq, is terribly weak. If Scotland had been independent, the remainder of the UK would have gone to war anyway with all the disasterous consequences it has had. Scottish MPs (because there was only one Tory, quite a few Lib Dems and SNP and some rebellious Labour) came close to tipping the balance against war. The SNP's argument appears to amount to saying that an independent Scotland could have been smug and impotent on the sidelines whilst actually making it easier for Blair to launch a flawed war. It is not even as if it would have saved many if any Scottish lives - undoubtedly, many Scots would join UK regiments were Scotland to become independent as the job opportunities for servicemen in Scotland would be fairly limited and the career is perhaps disproportionately popular there for historical reasons.
I think if Scotland went for independence, the Union would probably collapse completely. That is to say the English might well decide to go it alone too.