Andrew Stevens
Following last autumn’s landmark Scottish independence referendum, devolution has gone beyond a watchword for the kind of constitutional anoraks who routinely assemble to debate the English Question, to something of a full-on and almost election-defining battlecry for the future of the kingdom and its cities and towns. At least that was narrative on show in Glasgow for the Core Cities UK ‘Devolution Summit’ (#devosummit) last month, where we listened to a conveyor belt of ministerial speeches and caught up with some of the office’s old friends from the across the UK local government sector over a vol-au-vent or two in the city’s Royal Concert Hall.
Digital advertisements for Fifty Shades of Grey beamed down on us from screens throughout the city centre as we arrived at Glasgow Central, but it was seven shades of something else which party spokesmen did against each other’s devolution proposals in the usual pre-election dust-offs. Before that though the audience heard from Manchester leader and Core Cities UK chair Sir Richard Leese, himself in post since 1996 (a year after the Core Cities Group itself was formed) on the potential for reshaping the UK’s constitutional settlement using bespoke devolution to cities like his, with the recent grabbing of considerable and enviable new powers which have stunned other UK cities and even frustrated his own party’s leadership. This was followed by a similarly upbeat assessment from Glasgow’s own leader Gordon Matheson, the Core Cities Group’s first non-English member as of last summer, having pocketed its own Caledonian ‘City Deal’. The Core Cities Group were at pains to see that in this year of Magna Carta’s 800th anniversary, their own ‘Modern Charter for Local Freedom’ of modest asks over finances and freedoms unveiled at the event sways the debate ahead of the general election, following the party leaders’ post-referendum promises of ‘constitutional conventions’ by mobilising the kind of game-changing public support needed in the form of a change.org petition (which has garnered all of 143 signatures since the event, or less than half of those in attendance).
Bristol mayor George Ferguson’s angry red trousers may have been on display in the front row, but it was Ben Page of Ipsos-MORI who then showed delegates a series of slides of polling data displaying a lack of public appetite for exactly what the Core Cities were calling for, with 55% opposed to tax freedom for big cities and less than one per cent of ‘Northerners’ seeing devolution as a big issue facing the country. Oops. The devolution debate did remain in play however, as Keith Brown, holder of Scottish Government’s ministerial brief for infrastructure and cities, gave a home turf address on demands for decentralisation, suggesting that cities should perhaps make better use of existing powers rather than issuing grandiose ‘charters’ and demanding ‘home rule’ for themselves. Even this modest concession was a step too far for one of his party colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, who had earlier taken to Twitter to declare it all a deception (devolution to “failed” cities, that is).
It largely continued in this vein on Twitter when newly-elected Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy took to the stage to urge greater decentralisation during this “exciting time in Scottish politics”, not just to the Scottish Government from Westminster but down to community level, challenging the ‘centralisation’ of public services within Scotland. There was talk of “giving power away” to people, a new ‘Crossrail for Glasgow’ and a Scottish Labour ‘Cities Strategy’ to be led by Glasgow and Edinburgh’s council leaders and London-based party thinker and urban fixer Lord Andrew Adonis, which Murphy thought could result in the kind “economic powerhouse” of these ‘Twin Cities’ recently seen in Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield with their George Osborne sponsored ‘Northern Powerhouse’.
For his part and indeed party, it was left to the Chancellor’s coalition colleague Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander’s to seize the after lunch devolutionary moment, with hints of willingness to consider devolving stamp duty to cities on account of their “new era of pride and prosperity”, reminding us that the 10 Core Cities “deliver 28% of the combined economic output of England, Wales and Scotland”. And of course assert his lifelong cherished commitment to localism of belonging to the ranks of “unusual breeds of politician who came into politics to give power away” who just so happened to be in Glasgow that day. Numerous policy maker and city leader panel discussions and think tank report launches on the new ‘mass bespoke’ model which took place at the event also chimed in agreement with his well-auguring and not unduly observant belief that “Big cities are good things for wages and for productivity.”
As we attended the summit on behalf of our Japanese member local authorities to report on UK urban policy developments and trends, by way of a conclusion it could be worth contrasting the state of the decentralisation debate in both countries. Following the September independence referendum in Scotland and ahead of this May’s UK general election, the policy world and his dog has weighed in with their thoughts on what form the end of ‘politics as usual’ of the Westminster System should take – Core Cities, Key Cities, County Regions, English Votes for English Laws or indeed none of the above.
In Japan policy interest in recent years has shifted from looking at decentralisation in the round through regionalisation of the nation’s 47 upper tier local authorities into blocs of nine or 10 regions (so-called do-shu-sei), towards a semi-permanent cabinet mantra of ‘regional revitalization’ to eliminate disparities between depopulating areas and on-going piecemeal decentralisation. This has also been done from a considerably different starting point as codified local autonomy has been in existence since 1947 and Japan’s 20 designated cities already enjoy structural competence in key areas, though perhaps without some of the sudden radical devolutionary zeal shown towards Greater Manchester in recent months. Though a side issue on the national scale, Osaka has engaged in a decade of debate over its wider area reorganisation along lines similar to Tokyo, which stands apart from other local governments in its metropolitan structure. So not so much the world and his dog here, but rather regionalisation as the dog that didn’t bark.
