We’ll have what they’re having – what Brown could borrow from Germany

At last Labour is talking about power: who holds it, where it lies and how we should better distribute it. We applaud Gordon Brown commission’s serious attempts to decentralise, devolve and democratise. The report is a welcome intervention that anchors questions of power and democracy at the core of Labour’s political project.

And yet the vision offered up through the Brown commission lacks the depth and breadth needed to address our democratic malaise and respond to people’s appetite for power. In two key ways, the proposals fall short: failing to involve citizens and the public in designing a new democracy from the start; and overlooking one of the most important structural changes this country needs to respond to the challenges of 21st-century government: proportional representation.

Our new report, written off the back of an exchange trip to Germany, demonstrates in detail what the twin structural changes of decentralisation and a change of the electoral system might mean for climate, inequality and faith in politics. Our delegation of Labour MPs and civil society organisers came from one of the most centralised countries in Europe to learn from one of the most decentralised. What we learned in Germany was that levelling up means powering up, unlocking people’s ability to make change happen close to home.

Depth and breadth

If Brown is serious about subsidiarity, bringing power as close as possible to people, we need ‘double devolution’; power should be cascaded outwards from the centre, but it should not stop there. Local leaders must go further to combat deep-seated alienation from politics and bring citizens into the heart of decision-making. From the very start, citizens should be co-decision makers in determining how devolution happens, so any democratic settlement is co-owned by citizens from its inception. The report recognises this, but is scant on detail on how this should be achieved and, crucially, embedded. The proposal of “greater use of deliberative and participative processes at a local level so people can have a greater say on how money is spent in their community” is, however, to be applauded. Participation must be meaningful – and therefore connected to resource.

But this meaningful partnership between policy-makers and people should start with the question of devolution itself – ideally through a constitutional convention or citizens’ assembly. Brown’s report presents this as an option, but it seems somewhat of an afterthought, coming near the end and following over a year of deliberations, which have thus far taken place behind closed doors. If we’ve learned anything from both the successes of New Labour and the last 12 years of Tory rule, it’s that people’s ownership matters – not just for legitimacy but for longevity. As Lisa Nandy points out, the home-grown community energy co-operative outlasted the Sure Start centres that, for all their benefits, were designed in Whitehall and delivered from on high.

But this vision needs breadth, too. As we saw in Germany, serious political change demands cross-party buy in. Under the German proportional system, in which power is more evenly spread within and between the parties – and across the country – co-operative politics is normal. This means that any ambitious programmes of change – like their ‘Great Transformation’ to combat the climate crisis and inequality – has a breadth of support demanded by their voting system.

The report acknowledges that “a well-functioning electoral system is vital to the health and defence of our democracy”, but nowhere is there a suggestion that electoral reform is on the table. Labour members and trade unions are ahead of the party leadership here: not only do a massive majority of Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) and unions support electoral reform, but they prioritised it at a time when Labour was performing well in the polls, proving they are moved by principle and pluralism rather than just pragmatism. They know that to do anything politically transformative requires breadth and depth of support that includes other parties – or it is vulnerable to attack when the Tories regain power. As one of the architects of the famous Scottish constitutional convention, which embedded grassroots, cross-party and civil society support from the outset, we hope that Brown can see the benefits of this lateral approach.

So if Labour were to commit to radical decentralisation and to changing the electoral system, what would it mean?

A great rebalancing

Labour’s focus on a meaningful transfer of power is a strong and compelling antidote to the flimsiness of the Tories’ ‘levelling up’. Levelling up should be about drawing on all the energies and experiences across the country, not giving handouts to ‘left behind’ areas in return for votes.

This starts by recognising that many regions that are currently overlooked have in the past been the pioneers of industrial growth and political progress, such as Greater Manchester, the home of both the industrial revolution and political movements, from the Suffragettes to Peterloo. A decision to place these regions at the heart of the next wave of technological and political change would shift perceptions of these places – from drains to drivers of the national story.

The efficacy and symbolism of local leadership

This requires local leaders with the power and resources needed to bridge the gap between national vision and local practice. We need a new conception of the ‘enabling state’, facilitating not dictating the direction and pace of change. In Germany we saw how even in small towns, the presence of inspiring local mayors can help people feel part of something, creating channels for contribution and creating a sense of ownership. When the council opens up doors, people start to feel more connected to politics – and a new generation of local leaders emerges.

Devolving power helps parties win elections

And it is this generation of local leaders in Germany that helped catapult the SPD from 15 to 24% in the polls within a matter of months and they went on to become the biggest party in the German government. In the northeast of the country, Olaf Scholz leaned on his local SPD candidates, who spoke more confidently to issues of local concern and could speak to the difference they make in power. The Labour Party is already in power across the UK – from metro mayors to local councils. If Labour can unite around a programme of fundamental rebalancing, it begins to look like a party that speaks for every corner of the country – and can evidence its efficacy.

Powering up, not levelling up

If Labour can seize this agenda and use it to tell a story of what Britain could be, it will be seen as standing for something much bigger: a redistribution of power which would unlock talent and energy across the country. The UK and Germany share common challenges – social and regional inequality, de-industrialised regions in decline, cultural divides. But Germany’s decentralised government structures and proportional voting system are observably more effective in responding to challenges and enabling progress. Its constitutional setup enables financial rebalancing and allows for political innovation.

We cannot simply emulate Germany, nor should we try. But its constitutional setup shows us a successful existing alternative and raises the urgent question: what could Britain do if we were to introduce PR and radically decentralise? The Brown commission has sparked a conversation about our imbalanced country, one we hope will be deepened and widened through their proposed “ground up conversation with the people of Britain on the change they want to see.” Only then might we have a hope of reaching the scale and scope of change we need to connect power, politics and people.