{"id":12206,"date":"2020-11-01T07:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-11-01T07:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/?p=12206"},"modified":"2026-04-18T19:34:31","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T19:34:31","slug":"englands-constitutional-key","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/2020\/11\/englands-constitutional-key\/","title":{"rendered":"England’s constitutional key"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

It seems counterintuitive, and maybe untimely, to think of the coronavirus epidemic as a “constitutional moment” as well as a medical crisis. \u00a0But it might turn out to be just that, though not for the reason you might think.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A constitutional moment is when a decisive rearrangement of power takes place.\u00a0 We may just have seen the start of one. \u00a0Not between London and Edinburgh, despite Nicola Sturgeon’s more skilled epidemic communications and the rise in independence support, but rather shifts inside England. \u00a0The face-off between Andy Burnham and other northern Mayors and central government in London about the restrictions applying in their areas looks like the beginning of a long-awaited, and badly needed, redistribution of power within England, with profound consequences for the UK.<\/p>\n

On the face of it, this has been an argument about financial support for businesses and individuals affected by lockdown restrictions. \u00a0But underneath it’s a challenge about both the legitimacy and effectiveness of London government in English regions.<\/p>\n

English discontents<\/h2>\n

England is the most centralised country in Europe. \u00a0English local government has suffered decades of disempowerment and control. \u00a0(Scottish readers should not feel smug: consider Holyrood’s treatment of Scottish councils over the last 10 years.) (See Gordon Munro in this edition). \u00a0Regional government in England has fared little better. Michael Heseltine\u2019s (weak) Government Offices for the Regions<\/a> and the regional development agencies<\/a> set up by Labour after the failure of the north-east referendum<\/a> have been wound up by recent governments. \u00a0Directly elected Mayors in some areas might have looked merely symbolic. \u00a0But they have become a focus for discontent in the present crisis.<\/p>\n

That discontent has deep roots.\u00a0 Concern in northern towns and cities about economic disadvantage and alienation from government was successfully mobilised by Brexit campaigners in the 2016 referendum but their real beef was with London, not Brussels. \u00a0Now, central government\u2019s incapacity to deal effectively with coronavirus \u2013 notably the ineffective, centrally run, contractorised test and trace system \u2013 stands for a wider inability of the central UK state to operate effectively across England. \u00a0Whitehall, systematically undermined by recent governments and demoralised by Brexit, has ceased to be able to run things well.\u00a0 Unsurprisingly, people in English regions are asking for more power closer to home.\u00a0 There is an increasing consensus across the UK political parties \u2013 especially Labour \u2013 that they should get it.<\/p>\n

It’s worth asking what sort of distributed power.\u00a0 It’s not a demand for legislative devolution; England\u2019s Parliament is Westminster.\u00a0 Instead, it’s a demand for locally responsive and effective government, extensive executive devolution.\u00a0 We know from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that this can work. \u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

There is no reason at all why the Mayor of Manchester should not have similar powers to Nicola Sturgeon over not just economic development or physical infrastructure, but the administration of health services or education.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Decentralising to the regions<\/h2>\n

Three things are needed for decentralisation to work well at regional level. \u00a0First, political legitimacy, which the direct election of Mayors (and maybe, as in London, scrutinising Assemblies) can provide. \u00a0Second, functioning administrative structures to run services which really matter to people \u2013 like health or education. \u00a0And third, financial choices, over how to spend money, and how much to spend: that is to say, spending authority plus some tax discretion, most obviously on local taxes, rates and council tax, but maybe also personal taxes as well.\u00a0 But it all has to hang together nationally too: especially in a common understanding of what is guaranteed to citizens all across the country.\u00a0 Obviously, civil and political rights, but also social rights too: guarantees on income support, schooling and healthcare at the point of need and so on.\u00a0 The challenge for the centre is less in identifying the rights \u2013 they are largely uncontroversial \u2013 but allocating resources equitably to guarantee them.<\/p>\n

Decentralising government in England would be good for central government too.\u00a0 It could focus on doing its national job properly, not on micromanaging public services all across the country.\u00a0 Any business, indeed any well-run organisation, understands this: successful chief executives are those who make sure everyone else in the organisation can succeed at their jobs. \u00a0Boris Johnson is the latest, and perhaps most obvious, example of how not to do that. \u00a0Aneurin Bevan famously said of the National Health Service that the dropped bedpan in Tredegar would echo in the corridors of Whitehall. \u00a0Nowadays, with rolling 24-hour news cycle and endemic social media, the racket in ministerial offices is simply unmanageable.<\/p>\n

Change has a long way to go. \u00a0There are not Manchester-like Mayors all over England, and the powers of those that do exist remain narrow. \u00a0But the times are changing, and the shift in perception caused by the coronavirus crisis may well be irreversible. \u00a0It has shown not merely the weakness of the present government, but underlying weaknesses in our system of governance. \u00a0UK Labour politicians have grasped this and have strong political incentives to take the issue forward, but it is interesting also to see senior Conservatives like Sir Graham Brady aligning themselves with regional interests also. \u00a0Political incentives work both ways.<\/p>\n

What’s in it for us?<\/h2>\n

Why should a sceptical Scot be interested?\u00a0 One way of looking at it is that this change gets to the root of a persistent problem in devolution. \u00a0Earnest talk about intergovernmental relations \u2013 they have never been worse than today \u2013 focuses on the behaviour of politicians. \u00a0Why can’t they work together? \u00a0Why do devolved leaders grandstand, or UK ministers ride roughshod over them?\u00a0 There has been plenty of bad behaviour, but the underlying structural problem is asymmetry.\u00a0 Today only 15% of the UK population has devolution, and even well-intentioned UK governments understandably focus on the other 85% most of the time.\u00a0 (Not surprising, if they are trying to catch all those dropped bedpans.) \u00a0A UK government focused on strategic issues and not micromanagement will, however, become a different kind of beast.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The deeper insight, however, is to see this as the start of a much more federal UK: that is to say a country with more geographical distribution of power, not merely to the devolved nations, but real decentralised political power inside England too. \u00a0The UK will always be a very untypical federation: not four nations with England as one unit, but a federation of both nations and regions, which are also within one nation. \u00a0That means a different kind of constitutional structure from a typical federal state, but a structure which discharges the same functions.<\/p>\n

\n

It will recognise what is shared and must be dealt with for the whole entity together, not just obvious things like international relations and macroeconomic management, but also those common social rights and standards which everyone expects to be guaranteed all across the country.\u00a0 This is complemented by radical decentralisation of everything else, and of course the particular safeguards for the special, protected statuses (which differ one from the other) of the smaller nations inside the larger whole.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Writing such a constitution would not be easy and shouldn’t be done prematurely.\u00a0 But it may be time to start thinking about it.\u00a0 The key question is what kind of society we want to support, and the balance between subsidiarity \u2013 local and national empowerment \u2013 and solidarity \u2013 mutual support of the richer for the poorer areas (see Germany<\/a>).\u00a0 The institutional questions will no doubt fascinate constitutional lawyers:<\/p>\n

\u2022 What will be the role of a new second chamber of Parliament in ensuring that national and regional voices are properly heard and interests respected at the centre, as is common in federal states?<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u2022 How do we distinguish the UK and English roles of the Commons?\u00a0 (Much more easily when it oversees English regional government.)\u00a0<\/p>\n

For Scots, endlessly split over the unhelpfully binary independence question, change in the UK offers a different option which not just constructive unionists but thoughtful nationalists will be attracted to once we have emerged from the present crisis.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Main image of \u00a0Andy Burnham learning Manchester had been placed in Tier 3 via PA\/Andy King; image of Johnson\/Sturgeon via 10 Downing Street oGL v.3<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

‘… a different kind of constitutional structure from a typical federal state, but a structure which discharges the same functions…For Scots, endlessly split over the unhelpfully binary independence question, change in the UK offers a different option which not just constructive unionists but thoughtful nationalists will be attracted to…’<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":40,"featured_media":12215,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[125],"tags":[40],"class_list":["post-12206","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics","tag-devolution"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12206","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/40"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12206"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12206\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18632,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12206\/revisions\/18632"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12215"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}