 |
| Sheffield, part of Conservative plans for a Northern Powerhouse. Photograph: Sheffield Town Hall by Matthew Black (License) (Cropped) |
This week, IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) held a meeting in Sheffield to look in depth at the Conservative government's ongoing efforts to forge ahead with its 'Northern Powerhouse' project (Sheffield Telegraph, 2015; Cox, Prescott & Jarvis, 2015). Its report, 'The State of the North', lay out four tests that Conservative plans for local devolution have to pass.
The four tests came under the heading of a question, "How will we know whether the ‘northern powerhouse’ is working?" - and set out what the Conservative project must achieve (Cox & Raikes, 2015):
According to the IPPR, it must "generate a better type of economic growth", that brings jobs and higher wages; it must support skill development, particularly for the "very youngest"; it must invest in innovation and infrastructure to support "future success"; and it must "rejuvenate local democracy".
So far however, Conservative plans have been criticised as more about devolving the blame than devolving power (Bailey, 2015). It has been remarked that Conservative proposals hold onto or concentrate further power of decision-making at the centre, while shifting blame for outcomes onto the scapegoats who have to implement plans, on scarce funds, at the local level.
The criticism facing Conservative plans and some of challenges facing the North - highlighted by the substantial divide between North and South in areas like education (Bounds & Tighe, 2015; Dearden, 2015; Allen, 2015) - only make clear the need to embrace true federalism. And that will only the case if the North, the Midlands and the South, along with the nations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, can stand on equal footing with London's Mayoralty.
But it can't just be a case of setting up assemblies. It has to involve a comprehensive reorganisation of regional, city, local, borough, county and unitary council boundaries, as well as the administrative boundaries of essential public services like the NHS or Policing, so power over decision making and funding can be properly devolved to the appropriate level - where it must be transparent and accountable to its constituents.
Such a reorganisation, clearly done, would still leave room for the highest federal level to remain the place for the broadest strategic decision making. A central government could still set the broad scope and aims, direct investment and redirect distribution of resources to where they are needed. Yet clear separation of powers between levels of government could make work at the centre a share in a partnership, rather than dictation from an ivory tower.
Democracy functions best when the decisions made at the ballot box are transparent: when voters know clearly for what it is they are voting, what powers they are handing over, what its limits are and how they can get rid of those power-holders when the need arises.
