Silly season and the north/south divide

Throughout the quiet news month of August, there have been plenty of north/south divide stories. Each of these has caused uproar north of Watford Gap each time a national politician or journalist has argued that the south of England is being hard done by. We’ve had Lord Howell recommending that fracking be concentrated in the desolate North East (subsequently changed to North West), Janan Ganesh arguing in the FT that the UK needs to accept it’s London-centred and a  front page from The Times railing against the southern bias of rail fare increases.

There are strong counterarguments to each of these viewpoints, but whereas the original stories hit the headlines, the response from ‘the regions’ is often confined to the letters pages, local press and niche blogs. It often feels like London is seen as the sole driving force behind the UK economy, when in fact those outside London make up 80% of our economic output. Constituency MPs often (although there are notable exceptions) see little between their narrow local patches and their national ambitions. There needs to be more focus at a regional and a city regional level. Is it any wonder that the devolved nations and London consistently get more public spending per head than any of the other English regions?

This lack of regional voice is perhaps symptomatic of a more general over-concentration of political power. The absence of a strong second chamber, no proportional representation, and no separation of the economic and political centres adds to this lack of plurality and absence of checks and balances. While the first-past-the-post electoral system favours Labour and the Tories as opposed to the smaller parties, more and more people perhaps feel under-represented by either party. Between 1992 and 1997, Labour only gained 2 million votes while the Conservatives lost 4.5 million. From 1997 to 2010, the Tory’s gained 1 million votes but Labour lost 5 million. Even our economic crisis is arguably due in part to this concentration of political power. Successive oppositions play it safe by matching Government spending plans rather than offering alternatives.

So, rather than silly season being due solely to a lack of news, could it be the one time other ideas can get an airing and MPs feel freer to challenge their party lines? Sure, not every idea is a good one – some are certifiably insane – but August allows political voices and ideas that would usually have no significant audience to be heard.

England in particular could benefit from political power being more widely dispersed. If the other city regions of England outside London had strong elected metro mayors to hold central government to account and stand up for their cities – whilst not being the only or a complete fix – matters could greatly improve. Yes, ‘city mayors’ were rejected by almost all of the cities which held referendums last year, but their reach was too small, both in terms of geography and power.

If none of the major national parties see a new infrastructure project in the West Midlands as a priority, what can Brummies do? If they had a metro mayor and the project was considered important enough by locals, you can bet that at least one candidate would campaign for it. Combined Authorities now seem to have cross-party support, but the success of the model in Greater Manchester may be to a large extent down to Manchester-specific factors – a strong single core in the City of Manchester and the stability and strength of the city’s leadership. As Tony Travers of the London School of Economic puts it: “Mayors without question are very much consistent with the spirit of the age – visible, figurehead urban leaders who are a much better fit in a world of 24-hour news and the need for celebrity visibility.”

Metro mayors could help champion those areas and groups that have been under-represented and test more robustly some of the Westminster consensus. In the meantime, perhaps silly season isn’t quite so silly after all.