It’s been a while since I blogged about devolution and the
futures of local government. A great
deal has changed since I began posting, initially focussing on the
possibilities raised by “DevoManc” & the (then Coalition) Government’s new
found appetite for subsidiarity.
It’s worth reflecting on how different the landscape looks
now, compared to only 18 months ago. The
Greater Manchester deal is, of course, the tower that dominates the skyline. But alongside GManc we have devolution deals
for Cornwall, West Yorks, West Mids, Tees Valley & more. Local government, in the doldrums for so
long, has (to some extent, at least) been reinvigorated intellectually if not
financially by the challenges & opportunities at stake. Economic growth, seemingly the Government’s
prime consideration in all of its dealings, is crucial to localised approaches
but in tandem with welcome emphases on health & wellbeing, skills &
infrastructure, & the challenges of the future. Chasing small pots of money to fund sticking
plasters for problems is yesterday’s game: everyone seems to be talking root
causes, complex interdependencies & long-term solutions now. Public services have some of their boldness
back, driven in part by the reality that the traditional approaches of the last
twenty (or more?) years are gone.
& yet the last couple of weeks or so have seen a
significant shift in mood. Cracks have
started to show in several areas looking to agree devo deals & Combined
Authority agreements. The “North
Midlands” (an aside: I truly dislike that label) proposal covering Nottinghamshire
& Derbyshire has seen almost daily renditions of in, out & shake it all
about. Districts in Oxfordshire have apparently
gone rogue with a plan for new unitaries. The Norfolk & Suffolk plan is now
spreading into other parts of East Anglia.
Or is it? & so the questioning starts: is it worth it? Might it be
better for us to wait & see what happens? See who fails? Should we sit on
the fence?
The vagaries inherent in a deal-based, rather than a
methodology-based, approach from central Government were always going to result
in an imbalanced & unequal patchwork of arrangements around the
country. The GManc deal, although held up
as a trailblazer & model to follow, is the result of a unique
situation. It would be folly for rural
areas or combined shires to simply copy the “Northern Powerhouse” (another pet
hate); but then it is equally unhelpful to have the Mayoral model imposed from
Whitehall as a pre-requisite for substantial decentralisation. Calls are getting louder for more clarity
from central Government about what exactly is on offer, & what is the quid
pro quo?
Personally, I’m all in favour of asymmetry: local deals need
to suit local circumstances & ambitions.
That may well mean large areas of the country don’t get a deal for some
time, & it may mean that some arrangements are significantly diluted in
comparison to others. The deals already
done are surely only first stages: proof of concept (& accountability) will
lead to more responsibilities.
So the emphasis should be on local leadership (across
organisational boundaries) working with their communities to pinpoint what is
needed, & making a convincing case for it.
A compelling vision for the future has to be the key, not a compelling structure chart. If that means
tearing up the blueprints & starting again, so be it; but that can only
happen if there is an appetite in Whitehall for genuine & variable change. The proof of concept needs to work both ways.
& above all let’s not forget that devolution will be a
process of evolution. A new era for local democracy & accountability is not
going to happen immediately or neatly. Steps forward will, as ever, be followed
by steps back. But democracy,
accountability, politics, geography; these are all messy, complex, disputable
notions without obvious solutions. & surely it’s better to be wading
through the mud than sitting on a barb-wire fence.
