There's a fascinating bit in the PM's levelling up speech which isn't about him or his administration specifically.
Instead, its another illustration of the extraordinary centralised nature and attitude of the British state 1/7 gov.uk/government/spe…
Specifically it's about local Government.
The key bit in the speech is this message to local leaders about how they acquire greater powers:
"Come to us with a plan for strong accountable leadership and we will give you the tools to change your area for the better"
2/7
It is preceded by a mini-rant about Ken Livingstone and the 'loony left' with the unmissable implication that localism is inherently to be distrusted and only empowered under strict conditions, licensed by Ministers in Whitehall 3/7
This attitude is not new or specific to this administration. 'City Deals' were the same: convince us you're not mad lefties & we will allow you to spend some money on things that we sign off. So too was the 'new localism' under Labour which was all about 'earned autonomy' 4/7
It is a peculiarly British form of Government. In most countries, local Government has a specific set of functions and a clearly defined and clearly understood role. Central Government interacts with but doesn't fundamentally alter it all the time. Moreover... 5/7
...there is no sense in most other countries that local government exists and exercises power at the pleasure of central government, to be amended or revoked at any time. Local government is instead, just a part of, erm, government 6/7
But this is the UK. So whatever else is or isn't new in this speech, it seems there's going to be no genuine local empowerment or real devolution of power.
It will instead be another variant of: 'submit your plans to Whitehall for approval and we'll be the judge of them' 7/END
Post script: this was a 7 tweet thread so there’s insufficient space to explore the complexities of the UK Gov’t largely doing this mostly for England only in the context of devolution complexities (eg city deals are open to cities in devolved areas. That’s a whole other story)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As one of the best writers on complex UK matters, @alexmassie wrote (below), it is the misfortune of the United Kingdom to be governed by people who do not understand the United Kingdom.
It is as true with regard to NI as it is of Scotland 2/20
The UK not only has multiple and complex national identities within it; it also has more than one constitutional tradition. Tensions between them have often been managed well. No longer. See this superb blog from Micheal Keating for @ConUnit_UCL 3/20
Of course a referendum risks the Union itself. But denying one that people have voted for would change the Union fundamentally, ending the long era of voluntary partnership.
Unionists need to decide whether they want to save the Union by convincing enough people to support & cherish it or by hardline legal tactics. It’s one or the other. This new ‘muscular’ unionism feels more like ‘know-your-place’ unionism 3/6
So would this be a single UK wide referendum or a separate vote in the 4 different parts? If each part of the UK has its own vote, why would Scotland, having been denied an independence referendum it might well by then have voted for in May, vote for this package instead? 2/7
If it’s a single, whole of UK vote, what happens if England votes yes and Scotland votes no? Does it get through? Imposing a new constitution on Scotland with English votes would be a pretty odd way to counter Scottish independence 3/7
Firstly, the ‘war’ does genuinely seem to be over. Congrats to Tom Scholar on his reappointment, kudos to the PM & Chancellor for a wise decision, and to Simon Case for whatever he’s done to bring these pointless hostilities to an end at such an important time (2/20)
But it’s worth asking: what has this latest attempt, accompanied as it has been by ferocious (if mostly anonymously briefed) rhetoric, actually involved?
The answer is, by historical standards, virtually nothing at all. There have been two discernible strands of activity (3/20)
- the message to millions who valued closer ties with continental Europe is: suck it up
- the message to Scotland is: we’re in charge. We’re bigger than you. We can impose our will on you. Know your place
2/4...
- the message to Northern Ireland is: we know we’ve hugely destabilised you. But we’re going to pretend we haven’t and we’d be grateful if you could pretend not to notice too. But most of all, we don’t really care because it was worth it to get what we wanted for England
It’s very strange that this speech about ethics in Government from the head of the committee on standards of public life hasn’t received a lot more attention.
Lord Evans, a superb former head of MI5, is someone who chooses his words carefully.
“Quite simply, the perception is taking root that too many in public life, including some in our political leadership, are choosing to disregard the norms of ethics and propriety that have explicitly governed public life for the last 25 years...” 2/
“and that, when contraventions of ethical standards occur, nothing happens.”