Jon Cruddas and Stella Creasey are reported by the Guardian this morning to be saying that:
The old model of politics where progress depended upon centralising the capacity to act — whether in the market or by top down state intervention — no longer works,
They appear to be echoing sentiment in the Guardian by left of centre think tanks that said Labour must embrace:
Devolution of state institutions, by giving away power and resources to our nations, regions, cities, localities and, where possible, directly to the people.
In my opinion both views are wrong. Bluntly, most people do not want power: politicians might want power (and why is often questionable) but ordinary people want to get on with their lives safe in the knowledge that other bits will work. And what is more, that is how things must be if we are to have an efficient economy. The efficiency of the division of labour demands it. So people don't want to run schools in their spare time; they want them to be run well. The same is true of most services.
More importantly, I do not think people want to hear from politicians who want to run way from responsibility. They want to hear how politicians will use the power they are entrusted with. And they definitely do not want to hear this from the left: they've had enough of the cowardly politicians of the right who seek power merely for private gain.
Instinctively I do not think people trust this decentralisation agenda. They are right not to do so. There are two reasons. The first is pragmatic. Like it or not decision making has to be near to the location of the power to tax. In the UK this is centralised, and is likely to remain so. Indeed, if a progressive and redistributive tax system is to be retained it has to be so.
Second, there is a distrust of localism. This may work for wealthy areas but the UK's regions would suffer as a result. The people of the UK want consistently high standards of services, not local control of variable poorer ones.
So, you can call me a statist centralist if you like (and I really don't care if that is what is required to deliver the services we need for the propsering society I think most people want) but I suggest Labour should steer very well clear of all such ideas, and the rather dangerous notions of diversity in services, with poorer standards for lower income area that they inevitably embrace.
It should, instead, I think, propose a Courageous State. I do, of course, unashamedly refer to my book of the same name, but for good reason. In that book I refereed to the concept of the cowardly politician. On the right these are the politicians who want power to enrich a few by transferring control of public services to the private sector. People have no desire to see this replicated on the left, although I am not in any way suggesting those on the left proposing localism gave the base motives of the cowardly politicians of the right.
However, like it or not, that localism will result in poorer services, unacceptable variation in supply, and poorer areas getting lower quality services than wealthier ones. And that's the last thing the left should be suggesting.
Labour does have to be bold. But it's big idea can't be having power to give it away. That's what all the neoliberal paties have to offer. If the left is to be relevant it has to take power to achieve the unambiguous goal of redistributing income and wealth in society to address povety; to provide the social safety net all in society need wherever they are; to provide the essential public services all require such ax dedication, health, transport, care services, las and order and more besides; and to direct the investment, nationwide, that will deliver sustainable growth.
That is what people want to hear from the left.
And they would vote for people who believe in such things.
They won't vote for people who want yo devolved power to local authorities.
Labour has to get the central narrative right, and the state is at he heart of it. There is no other option for the left.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Couldnt agree more. Fragmenting things just adds cost and confusion which is a wonderful opportunity for stealing. Aprime example would be the awful mess surrounding private pensions.
There can’t be more of a top-down power grab than the proposed EU-US trade deal (which is on top of the existing WTO corporate protection).
The fantasy of LD localism policies is just that… even if ordinary people did want that sort of devolved power (which like you, I doubt), they would have a only a limited capacity to transform their lives within the confines of the corporate superstructure. Opposition to tracking, GMO crops, renationalisation of health services/transport and above all development of renewables would be impossible.
These proposals are a distraction.. and whether it is naivety, someone is pulling a fast one or a toxic mix of both, they do nothing to deal with the dangers of international finance, climate change or fossil fuelled energy production. The TTIP (and the TPP) must be opposed.. and replaced with your Courageous State.
It’s an interesting tension this, Richard. I see you objection to the neoliberal agenda, and that localism can easily become variably: a post code lottery on service quality; a way for prosperous regions to capture and perpetuate advantages they have from largely historical good fortune.
On the other hand, I think there is a great deal to be gained from decentralisation of the decision making and monitoring process. Some recent polls in the Guardian strongly suggested that the majority of people are actually very switched on politically and _do_ care, but don’t feel empowered to make changes.
The balance I’d like to see is a radically changed form of representation. I’d like to see party politics disappear, and instead see the population choose multiple individuals as their representatives for particular offices. Perhaps he minister for x goes, and instead the people choose the make up of the top level civil servants by P.R. (along with some lifers to ensure continuity). I’d like to see far far greater transparency of decision making processes. I’d like to see instantly removable mandate (would that have stopped the NHS changes? School system changes by Gove? Dropping of pledge on tuition fees by Lib Dems?). I’d like to see an end to adverserial decision making, and an embrace of consensus decision making whenever possible.
I’d like to see many more situations where there is debate, potentially by the entire population, to come to a consensus position. I suspect that it is _the_process_ of debate and listening to other people’s concerns or hopes, and consequently adjusting our own, that is actually very powerful. It is not specifically the decision made but taking part in that decision and coming to agree that it is collectively best.
Incidentally, I don’t see this imagined arrangement as preventing “big ideas” from happening. We’d still be able to collectively decide it’d be a great idea to fund green lending. In fact, I think it would be a lot easier for big ideas to surface with a was of popularity.
I also don’t want to see the removal of the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy performs a lot of useful functions with monitoring, reporting, ensuring compliance, etc.
Yeah — that’s all pretty pie in the sky, but you need a dream, right? 🙂
I think our current system of command and control, be it by government or corporation, is in great part a hang on form a time when we were much less able to communicate than we are able to now. If that’s the case, there doesn’t need to be a revolution. It’ll eventually just happen. And if I’m wrong, it won’t happen, which will be okay, because in that case, it shouldn’t happen.
I’m a pragmatist and democrat
1% would engage
I am bored by rule by the 1%
The Co-op has revealed how bad rule by local activists can be
Give me a well directed Westminster instead, imperfect as it will always be
I’m a pragmatist too, but also a hoper and dreamer (I think you are too).
I don’t believe you have evidence to back up your conviction here that only 1% would engage, and you are working from (reasonable) prejudice.
As I said though, it doesn’t much matter — if there is a future in it, it will happen anyway.
The 1% is well known – everywhere
Even on the web
1% engage
9% lurk
90% observe from afar
And I am a dreamer with feet firmly on the ground
I guess I’m somewhere between Benjohn and Richard here. I think many people would respond to the opportunity to get involved in managing public services at a local level if they were given the time to do so. That means paying people for their time – something we don’t even do properly for local councillors at the moment, which is a disgrace. Rather than a 40-hour full-time working week it would be better for people to be able to spend (say) 28 hours working on their “day job” and 8 hours a week helping run public services, plus some additional leisure time. I think one of the reasons that attempting to involve people in running services tends to end up with the 1% doing it at the moment is that they are the only people with the time and inclination to do it for nothing. Pay people properly and the enthusiasm will be there across a far wider range of the population.
Also, it’s not just service users – I’d like to see workers in these services getting involved in managing them as well. I think the recently departed Tony Benn had a lot of good ideas on this in the mid-1970s. Industrial democracy and all that.
However, the decentralisation agenda has clear limitations – given that multinational conglomerates and the big banks are so powerful we need institutions large enough to stand up to them and not be annihilated in a David vs Goliath fight. So some aspects of power will need to remain centralised for the foreseeable future.
Howard
If that change was possible – or if employers were required to give time off for this purpose – then I agree, a lot would change
Richard
Hooray, hooray, thank you Richard. Decisions need to be taken at the right level, and for many, many decisions this means at the national level. It’s not called the National Health Service for no reason.
Hear, hear, Richard, AND Howard in his subsequent post. Frankly, we need another Atlee/Bevan/Bevin/Morrison Team willing truly to “Face the Future” and to “Win the Peace”, after the woeful experience of the outright war waged by the Tories on the poor and the disadvantaged – on everyone who is not “one of us”.
This COMPASS declaration rmeinds me powerfully of the tag from the Roman poet Horace:
“Parturiunt montes, nascitur mus ridiculus!”
“The mountains are in labour, giving birth – the result? A piddling mouse!”
And another, from Pliny – “fotuna fortes favet” = “Success/fortune is on the side of the bold”
Fingers out, Labour, and GIVE US WHAT WE WANT = courageous action in favour of the many!
‘the outright war waged by the Tories on the poor and the disadvantaged’
The gini coefficient for the UK is lower now than when the Labour government left power. How do you square this with the above statement?
Open your eyes
Look at the real world
This data is the real world. I also notice that despite the rise in food banks, the number of people who say they are going hungry has also dropped under the coaltition.
Relative poverty hasn’t increased, and on the whole has also declined under the coalition.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/households-below-average-income-hbai-199495-to-201112
Whilst it might make a nice, easy party political attack line, the truth represented in the data is that there has been no “war on the poor”.
I utterly disagree
And so do the vast majority of commentators
You are, very simply, wrong
I’m afraid labour should have adopted the Courageous agenda around so many issues of the last few years -but they didn’t and have been caught vacillating. Unfortunately the ball is in the austerian’s court and by now most of the public have been fed the Government = household myth that suit’s the neo-lib project. I think we will return to a courageous state but only after the neo-lib slash and burn has got much, much worse.
However, like it or not, that localism will result in poorer services, unacceptable variation in supply, and poorer areas getting lower quality services than wealthier ones. And that’s the last thing the left should be suggesting.
Recollection says it wasn’t like that when I were a lad 30 years ago – at least not if you were talking council services. I lived in a community that was right on the boundary between wealthy, Tory-run North Yorkshire and impoverished Labour-run Cleveland. Services in Cleveland were far better than in North Yorkshire: the argument originally was that you paid for what you got, but the gap in what it was costing was eroding very rapidly, and the gap in services was not.
Things only changed when the statist Tories introduced the right to meddle in local affairs with legislation to cap rates (and subsequently poll tax) rises.
Indeed
Aware of Section 5 of the comments policy, obviously – but you’re aware the initial Labour government of which Mr. Dickie speaks so fondly only lasted, limping, for six years until being turfed out in 1951, by an opposition whom were also considered as the pawns of wealthy industrialists, landowners and fashionable bogeymen of that era? (and then in a country which was far more socially cohesive than now)
Whilst I agree its legacy endured in a varied form for much longer (up until 1978) but even then, it collapsed amidst industrial relations issues and rampant inflation. How would what you are proposing now, in a world hugely different than that period (1945 – 1978) fare any differently?
Are you saying neoliberalism is now the only form of government permitted in a democracy?
If people chose an alternative why should they not have it?
You’ve misunderstood my point here. My question is do you think people will actually vote for what you have proposed? – they did in 1945, but 6 years latter, to a large degree somewhat frustrated by the continued presence of wartime restrictions more than 5 years after the war’s end, they went with the opposition on a platform that by your understanding would be Neoliberal – my point is that even in the event what you propose is adopted, how do you know people will vote for it, or are you saying the Courageous State is the only logical form of government in a democracy and those who are sceptical about it are being nefarious?
Yes
There has been a war on ordinary people in this country
They’re desperate to reclaim it
Van_Patten – the Tories only managed to win in 1951 because they had accepted the main components of the 1945 Labour settlement. They went into the 1945 election opposing the NHS, nationalisation of major industries, expanded unemployment benefits, and full employment – by 1951 they accepted every one of those and essentially their programme was very close to Labour’s. This remained the case in every election for the next 20 years. I don’t think either Richard or me is proposing that we simply turn the clock back to 1978. That wouldn’t provide the kind of radical reforms the UK needs.
Agreed
In 1951 the labour party actually received more votes than the Tories it is just that it did not translate into seats. By this time the Tories had fully accepted the welfare state (which they hadn’t initially). Now the Tories want to reverse all that and are doing it at great speed!
So they’re desperate to reclaim the country but only 1% are engaged in politics? Q.E.D?
Simon – absolutely, 1951 was one of the most egregious examples of the inadequacies of the FPTP system, as Labour piled up votes in Industrial heartlands but the people footing the bill for the largesse voted for the Conservatives (to over-simpify), whose manifesto did recognize the Welfare state as a fait accompli. I think, though that the Welfare state has developed in ways that its founders could never have envisaged. It was never meant as a permanent option – and I think Beveridge would be fairly horrified to think that this was seen as a ‘normal state of affairs’ 65 years on.
People want the country reclaimed
They also know they are quite unsuited to be a politician or run local services
So?
@ Mr Van_Patten
YOu say “but you’re aware the initial Labour government of which Mr. Dickie speaks so fondly only lasted, limping, for six years until being turfed out in 1951”.
Three comments:
1) The point that Labour was NOT turfed out, but actually got MORE votes than the Tories has already been made.
2) “Limping” is a singularly inapt description of an administration that NEVER lost a by-election during its term of office, and which during its time in Government transformed Britain for immeasurably better, until the “castle” was captured by a malign philosophy in 1979, that has been to the immeasurable DISadavantage of the majority of the country (just stick you nose outside the Westminster/London hothouse/lunatic asylum to see how “loved” Thatcherism is!). I have absolute not a shadow of a doubt that had Jim Callaghan gone to the country in 1978, and won even a small majority, to govern long enough to use North Sea oil for something more useful than greasing the palms of the new, Thatcherite “aristocracy”, this country would now be in a far, far better situation, rather than the asset-stripped milch-cow it has become.
3) I speak fondly of the 1945 Government, NOT because I want Labour to mimic, or repeat its solutions – which were the right solutions for 1945 – but because I LONG for a Party that has moral and ethical and political principles, a clear vision, and can clearly demonstrate that it has the will and vision and courage to do so. THAT is the “Atleean” approach I am seeking – a man who fully embodied moral, ethical and principled political vision. Ed Milliband COULD be such a Leader, but to do so, he needs to summon up the courage to address the electorate directly, spelling out his moral vision – moral vision being something the Con-Dems would apparently not recognise if they tripped over it on their doorstep.
Mr. Dickie
Any response to your assertions in points 2 and 3 is likely to fall foul not only of Section 5 of the comments policy, but probably Section 2 as well – suffice it to say your historical interpretation of the Labour government, let alone the Tatcher administration in point 2 is one that could be (and has been) debated ad nauseam by historians, and will probably be so for a good time to come, Factually I can point out that despite winning more votes than the Tories they did lose in 1951, a streak that continued until 1964, (so 3 defeats in a row) which suggests that perhaps their impact was rather more limited than you suggest.
Also in response to Point 2 – neither Major Party (Tories or Labour) lost a by-election in the period 1945 to 1951. The Conservatives did however win 85 seats (vs. Labour loss of 78) in the 1950 General election, which paved the way for the victory in 1951 (despite winning fewer votes) – hence why I used the term ‘limping’, and which would again question the long term impact of the 1945 -1951 government (which incidentally I also hold in high regard)Where I would hazard we might agree is that I would say both parties in that era were apparently more principled and conscious of a sense of obligation to the poorer members of society than their modern counterparts. Churchill was (and from a historical perpspective remains) a controversial figure for many reasons, but I doubt he would approve of the policies of the current administration…..
I don’t know, Richard. I have a lot of sympathy for the idea of locally run cooperatives and collectives running public services and such.
A big caveat though, is that this is properly funded with proper governmental oversight. After all, didn’t the original founders of the Labour party envisage nationalised industries under workers control? Indeed, this could be run either through green QE or through branches of municipal or public banks along the lines of the model of the Bank if North Dakota.
It could be a way of running a sustainable local economy with people-driven cooperatives buying as much produce as possible from local farms rather than transporting it thousands of miles from abroad as is often the case now. These could provide cheap produce at a fair price for the farmer, with less strain on the environment through excessive transportation. Local bakeries could be set up, as could clothing and furniture manufacturing. Small to medium sized businesses could be set up to create sustainable local jobs. Sure, there will often be cases where the raw materials will have to be brought in from miles away, but the actual creation of the produce could be strictly as local is is humanly possible.
Through properly funded and ran cooperatives, the subsidy that cooperation brings can provide cheap goods,but bought at a fair price.
Amenities and utilities can be ran in tune with the local community rather than distant structures deciding what is best for an area from on high.
I have a deep mistrust of those who want to shrink government responsibility too, but I think, if properly ran and funded, nationalised industries, utilities and amenities could be better run with a bottom up, rather than top-down structure.
I want lots of representation e.g. On boards
But we need strong direction of our government
Stevo!! – I absolutely agree. Great post.
At the moment we have a problem with grasping oligarchs and big business so focussed on money making that they put profits first, second and third before anything else.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26744117
It is vital that we resist TTIP and TPP otherwise no government will be strong enough to stand up to the elites and their multi national corporations.
Government in the UK is becoming increasingly parasitized by “Big Business”, which is indoctrinating the civil service with “its values”. I can’t help but think of Martin Wolf’s comments about Banks
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/10/26/banks-vampire-squid-or-spider-wasp/
The result of Big Business’s occupation of Government will be Fascism, this is hardly surprising given the current power structure in most large corporates.
A state where power and accountability is centralized is vulnerable to this sort of attack. I think history has shown that democracy is a very fragile thing and a lot of work is required to safeguard it.
Richard, you have made a very strong case for centralised government. However, I think that it may be necessary to devolve power to a local level at least temporarily until “Big Business” can be brought to heel and subject to a process of democratization..
I really do not think local will beat global
But at the moment,Richard, global=austerity (IMF,ECB)-this can only be resisted locally. If the money supply and fiscal measure are in the hand of austerians in cahoots with corporate interests then local challenges are the only answer. In any case, ‘qui custodiet custodes’ is always up for grabs.