Littered in the news this week are place names of exciting importance. Vance’s entry into Munich’s Security Conference, Riyadh’s peace talks, the latest news from Washington, and Kyiv’s continued defiance against Moscow all battle for the attention of the world’s public. While Macron once again pushes for European strategic autonomy, decisions are being made closer to home about those age-old challenges: potholes and bin collection.
The English Devolution White Paper (EDWP) is a fascinating document. It sets out an attempt to create a ‘permanent shift of power away from Whitehall’, devolving power ‘to hose with skin in the game’ and ultimately ‘relight the fire of our economy and ignite growth in every region’. For a country that prides itself on centuries of tradition, the EDWP is a refreshingly bold policy. More than that, it is a much-needed attempt to organise the byzantine organisation of local politics in England.
One point that does stand out, however, is the prolific and bounteous use of the words ‘strategy’ and ‘strategic’. A quick Ctrl+F search for ‘strategic’ will highlight no less than 397 references. Considering that only one of these is to be found in either of the forewords or the executive summary, one wonders how considered the strategy behind English devolution actually is. Referring to last week’s piece, strategy is about aligning means, ways, and ends within a competitive environment. It is also partly about how we organise ourselves as a country to achieve that. What exactly, then, is strategic about the EDWP? In this article, we look at the good, the bad, and the ugly.
The Good
By far the most interesting point to be made about the English Devolution bill is its very existence. New ideas being injected into British politics is to be welcomed, even if their relevance or effect is at times unclear. This bill, however, does offer tangible changes.
Within the Devolution White Paper is the framework for ‘Strategic Authorities’ which sets out the areas to be devolved and the powers they possess. Such a change moves away from the labyrinthine mess that is the current state of local politics. Between town, parish, county, historic, ceremonial, metropolitan, borough, and district councils, the ability for constituents to easily understand decision-making processes is negligible. By having ‘Strategic Authorities’, Labour has reintroduced better possibilities for civic-political interactions. If it functions as intended, it could give England the tools to empower itself without relying on Westminster.
The White Paper aims to relocate the power that is utilised to the place where power has an effect. In other words, local responsibility for local issues. One interesting example of this is the new community ‘right to buy’ scheme which brings community assets (think empty high street shops, pubs, and community spaces) into community ownership in an effort to tackle empty high streets. For quite some time, Brits have been treated as ‘customers’ and ‘consumers’ but by giving us a chance to really be stakeholders into our communities, we have a chance at truly being citizens instead.
As part of this, though applied more broadly, there’s a renewed opportunity for culture to flourish. Manchester has already demonstrated what regional ownership can do for services and culture. The bee network uses the worker bee imagery of industrial Manchester and local authority over transport to create a functioning, distinctive system. Who knows what forms of culture and innovation might flourish elsewhere?
The Bad
The downside to devolution is that it might endear the country toward competition instead of cooperation. Devolved areas, whether it is Greater Manchester or Scotland, generally have a tendency to try and prove the value of devolution by moving away from central government policies. If they don’t, the rationale behind introducing another layer of administration and yet more politicians into the system falls short. In attempting to stand apart, however, devolved areas run the risk of hindering coordination.
Local authorities empowered to deal with local problems and being able to create local services is not just disarming alliteration, it is also an endearing goal. Yet many local problems are national problems manifesting at a local level. Because of this, devolved responsibility may well also end up as diluted responsibility where local leaders blame Westminster for not tackling national problems while ministers skirt accountability by placing blame at the feet of mayors.
There is discussion within the EDWP of ensuring that national agencies reconfigure their work to seamlessly integrate national and local work. This, on top of the Council of Nations and Regions as well as the Leaders Council, creates platforms for ensuring that local leaders gain ‘a bigger voice in national policy making’. Maybe that can work. But maybe it relies on the right personalities being in the room.
The Ugly
The fundamental problem that this piece is concerned with is that English Devolution seems entirely premised on the notion of ‘strategy’ and ‘strategic authority’ yet nowhere is there any real consideration given to how devolution helps England or the UK to conduct strategy. Beyond finances, immigration, healthcare, and the other key issues that regularly crop up in news cycles, one of the big challenges facing the UK is its aging population and therefore its aging politics.
Analysing the challenges of Britain’s aging population is for another time but suffice to say that our tax base is diminishing, our economy requires more immigration for sustenance, and our politics is increasingly hijacked by the demands of a demographic that lacks perspective on the issues facing the new adult generation.
Something I’ve noticed while being back at home is that there is a generation of adults that do not understand politics. The key voting population, as far as I can see, largely understands politics as an exercise in management and administration at a national level. Rather than being the “art of the possible”, for them politics is fundamentally about delivering services. This is important because that generation is also the one with the time, network, and experience to credibly take up the new positions offered by English Devolution. My major concern is that English Devolution will further catalyse the devolution of politics into being an administrative affair. At a time when the country requires real vision, leaders with steadfast conviction, and the commitment to undertake a strategy in the face of threatening competition, does English Devolution really help the UK to prepare for the challenges of the future?
Conclusion
My uncle was born not too long after World War II and grew up playing in craters that had yet to be cleared. Since then, the UK’s experience of conflict has either been in the distant south Atlantic and Middle East, or in the form of occasional terroristic activities. Today’s threats are closer, they are bigger, and they can fester.
It is possible that all of this is me reading too much into the prolific use of the word strategy but then again, what exactly is the relationship between these devolved authorities and strategy? At a time when old powers cannot be relied upon to work collaboratively and new powers are working to reshape world politics to their benefit, I fear that the UK may just end up with yet more politicians adept in the art of blaming potholes on someone else.