Reader TTS

It is hard not to laugh at an entrenched remainer suddenly discovering his enthusiasm for democratic legitimacy and bringing government closer to the governed. But even so, that does not

mean that Keir Starmer is entirely wrong when he calls for a federal United Kingdom. Starmer’s argument, made as he seeks the leadership of the Labour Party, is a conventional one. His

attack on “the monopoly of power in Westminster” and a call for “a large-scale devolution of power and resources” is a standard for critics of the British state, often described as among the

most centralised in the rich world. A peculiarity of British political development means that while many former colonies have adopted federal models to share power, the motherland has

mostly held to its unitary origins. Over its history, Westminster has often drawn power to the centre, most dramatically by abolishing parliaments in Scotland and Ireland, but even in its

more humdrum reduction of local government’s powers, most recently by removing schools from local authority control. Even the capital city itself struggles to escape from Westminster’s

grasp. London’s mayor can be disparaged as a glorified transport commissioner and compared unfavourably with American counterparts who take more tax, wield larger budgets, and exercise

broader powers. While David Cameron’s Conservatives championed the notion of metro mayors, which have grown more common in British cities, local government bore its share of public spending

cuts. Some mayors, such as Andy Burnham in Manchester and Andy Street in the West Midlands, have proved themselves able cheerleaders for their areas, though much of what they cheer for is

simply more power. Cynics will note there is little that’s novel in politicians demanding more control for themselves at somebody else’s expense — but such a criticism can be levelled at

central government too. It also must be true that politicians who are responsible for local decisions and who live in the affected area are likely to make better calls than distant

Westminster counterparts. There is also the principled case that allowing locals control over local decisions is more democratic — and more justifiable — than throwing such decisions over to

the national electorate. There is something absurd about a voter in Southampton having as much input into transport decisions in Sunderland as a Mackem. But although the logic is

straightforward and many policy wonks are attracted to it, devolution has been received ambivalently by the British public whenever it has been offered. Referendums on mayors in England and

Wales in the last two decades have usually attracted less than half of eligible voters, with many rejecting the prospect of having another elected politician. Most infamously 78 per cent of

voters in Northeast England rejected John Prescott’s plans for an elected regional assembly in November 2004, with only 47.8 per cent of eligible voters casting a ballot. The North East Says

No campaign, whose strategic advisor was Dominic Cummings, beat the government with a pithy slogan: “Politicians talk, we pay”. The main problem with Starmer’s proposal is that it is

unclear what he means by “federalism.” It is also unclear what his leadership rival Rebecca Long-Bailey means when she calls for the devolved governments in Wales and Scotland to be on an

“equal footing” with Westminster. These half-formed ideas are mostly intended for the Labour activists who enjoy constitutional wrangling — they are not serious proposals. There can be no

doubt that Britain’s lopsided constitution is partly responsible for London’s political dominance and the resentment that is felt elsewhere. This needs an answer that does not simply involve

making more politicians. Any case for devolution must be based on solid reasoning for allocating powers. England “doesn’t break down neatly into recognisable regions”, as CityMetric editor

Jonn Elledge pointed out, and it is home to at least four-fifths of the UK’s population. Grand federal designs are therefore difficult. More practical is a continued focus on city regions

and strengthening of existing local authorities. But this is not a slogan for a leadership contender.