Osborne has chosen short term political gimmicks over a long term economic plan at every turn

George Osborne has insisted his pre-election Budget would contain “no gimmicks” – we’ll see. What we can be sure of is that the phrase “long term economic plan” will be repeated throughout, as if just saying it makes it a reality.

As the leader of a Labour council, the reality I and other local leaders face is very different. All of us in local government have striven to do the best for our communities over the last five years, even though the financial and political winds are against us.

Life is full of choices. Some easy and some very difficult, that’s government. When Cameron and Clegg walked on the lawn of the bright rose garden to announce their marriage of convenience they knew the next five years would be interesting if nothing else. But when faced with a series of choices, at every turn they have chosen a short term political gimmick over any semblance of a long term economic plan.

At every turn they have chosen to divide people, communities and our country. Rather than be honest about the global financial crisis causing the urgent need to bail out the banks, they took the political opportunity to blame the previous Labour Government even though in Opposition they had committed to match Labour’s spending plans.

They didn’t make sure that those with the broadest shoulders took the hit; instead they set out on a piece by piece breakup of public services. This might have been framed as a budget necessity but let’s be clear it was driven by an ideological view that people don’t need public services, they are a drain on the public purse. The same view of the world which drove the war against the poorest with welfare ‘reform’.

Labour naturally believes in fairness. We believe that the circumstances you are born into should not determine the rest of your life. We believe the outcome is what matters, and for many of our communities we need more social investment to turn around decades, perhaps even centuries of poor life chances. But we also realise that our country is so diverse we need a grassroots solution. Labour has pledged to win power to give it away, and with £30bn of public spend due to be devolved under a Labour government it is clear that we mean business.

Let’s compare this to the Tories. Localism has only ever been a political opportunity rather than a fundamental belief – it was no coincidence the Localism Bill in 2010 was introduced on the same day as the first Spending Review. And so local government has been hit with some of the deepest cuts in the public sector – 40 per cent over five years. Rather than devolve actual power, their project has been about devolving financial responsibility and political blame to councils for the gradual decline and withdrawal of local services upon which people rely.

Any economic plan which is genuinely focussed on the long term would not have frontloaded the cuts to local government to fall heaviest in the first year – which Osborne did. When making decisions about reducing public spending, the Government chose to hit the poorest areas the hardest, by attacking the principle of funding based on need. This has prized short term ideological calculation over the long term health of the nation.

By choosing to leave Whitehall-departmental silos largely intact and salami-slice budgets, in the long term their economic plan has been storing up costly problems for the future. Ring-fencing NHS budgets whilst slashing social care is a nonsense – we are seeing the fallout already in hospital crises this winter. Protecting schools’ budgets while cutting early intervention undermines the potential of our education system to improve the life chances of our children. Osborne’s future plans to bring spending down as a percentage of GDP to the lowest levels since the 1930s demonstrates how he will continue to pursue this short term opportunism over long term sustainability.

It is natural that local leaders will always need to work with the government of any colour in order to make any kind of progress. But any suggestion that Osborne is a friend of the North is frankly laughable. When Osborne arrives in Greater Manchester he might take pleasure in grandstanding on devolution; but I suspect he takes as much pleasure in being able to cut £1.5bn from the ten local councils.

Let’s be clear – George Osborne is not making decisions in the interests of the nation’s future, but those of the Conservative Party. His ‘deal-based’ approach to devolution with city regions demonstrates that his brand of devolving power is entirely based on political necessity rather than any grand vision of effective governance in a complex modern age.  Devolution can deliver better public services and create local solutions to local problems; but it cannot be seen as an answer to chronically underfunded public services.

So Labour’s better plan for devolution doesn’t seek to divide and rule between areas – it would devolve power and funding across the piece – not just to cities but towns and counties too. Labour’s plan goes further – covering skills, employment support and growth funding to ensure that everyone benefits from the economic recovery not just a few. Unlike the Tories, Labour’s devolution offer won’t give areas that choose not to have an elected mayor a second-rate deal. Crucially, Labour’s plan is built on creating a fairer funding formula for local government linked to need.

We need to fight and win a majority Labour government in May, so that we have the opportunity to put this plan into practice and build a new partnership between Labour nationally and local government. Where the Tory and Lib Dem Government have pursued a strategy which divides communities and pits them against each other in the battle for scarce resources, Labour’s will be based on fairness over division, and cooperation over competition.

By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone.

Cllr Jim McMahon is the Leader of Labour Local Government