Tackling the left’s devolution doubters

Both Ed Miliband and Jon Cruddas have ‘come out’ this week as devolution converts. In the case of the Labour leader, his Hugo Young lecture spelt out that public service reform could no longer be driven from the centre “because the centralized state cannot diagnose and solve every local problem from Whitehall.” Jon Cruddas meanwhile, highlighted how Labour has consistently turned its back upon those within its tradition who have advocated social justice from below – the guild socialism of GDH Cole and the neighbourhood democracy of Michael Young – and Cruddas goes on to claim Labour’s “future growth lies in us once again, returning to issues of power, democracy and devolution”.

They are right! But even with such big beasts advocating a devolutionary turn, we need to be mindful of the fact that most opposition parties pass through this moment in the electoral cycle but then row back on their promises once they tread the corridors of power. The Labour leadership needs strong backing for its stance, because amongst those on the left, the doubters continue to outnumber the converts. But their case is crumbling.

Number one on the doubters list is the fear of postcode lotteries. The idea that decentralised control of services might lead to variations in the quality of provision from place to place strikes fear into the hearts of many on the left who naturally stand for ideas of universal healthcare and education. If Ed Miliband’s central mission for public service reform is to drive out inequality, then surely the way to do this is through centrally-controlled budgets and top-down standards? Apparently not. New Labour’s experiment with new public management shows quite the reverse: standardised services unable to respond to local needs; disconnected frontline workers duplicating costly interventions rather than offering wrap-around care to those with multiple needs; middle managers more concerned with ministerial scrutiny than community care. There is a growing body of evidence both at home and internationally that shows that the over-centralised state is the cause of inequalities, not the solution.

The doubters also argue that local authorities can’t be trusted with the powers and financial responsibilities now held at the centre. But in doing so they are flying in the face of public opinion.

The steady erosion of local government in England has indeed left too many councils with weakened leadership and low voter turn-out. But polling evidence shows that public trust in local councillors remains consistently higher than in parliamentarians and the public much prefers greater local accountability. This is not to mention the evidence which points to the superior efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities in comparison with central government departments.

Empowering local government is a chicken and egg conundrum. As has been amply demonstrated in London, as responsibilities grow so does public accountability. With the formation of statutory combined authorities in five of England’s biggest city regions likely to be in place by April, the opportunity for transferring risk and responsibility to legitimate devolved bodies like London is greater than has been the case for many decades. The  public rejected regional assemblies and city mayors because they would not be given any significant powers which they were concerned about, but devolution will drive accountability and – as Greater Manchester’s root and branch review of its democratic structures shows – citizens and their leaders can be trusted to ensure their democratic processes are commensurate with the powers they hold.

But perhaps Cruddas’ and Miliband’s biggest immediate obstacle is Labour’s zero-based review. At a simple level, zero-based budgeting sucks control into the Treasury, historically the department with the greatest propensity to centralise. But the terms of the review itself hardly sing with the virtues of a more devolved settlement. None of its five principles offer a hint of decentralisation, none of its independent commissions seems to recognise the role of cities or local government in delivering growth or efficiency, indeed, the only nod to anything other than central government solutions to the on-going fiscal challenge are references to the Adonis Growth Review and the Local Government Innovation Taskforce. Much must hang then on the strength of these pieces of work to make a case for greater fiscal autonomy and Treasury reform as IPPR North has sought to do.

This week has seen a step change in the definition of a new type of progressive politics and public service reform. However, the devil will be in the detail and in the ability of the Labour leadership to persuade many more converts. All those committed to reducing inequality must form a broad coalition and get behind them.

Ed Cox is Director of IPPR North