Dear Lord, it’s deja vu again?
Can we see the terms of reference please?
If you happened to slog over the whopping 155 pages of Gordon Brown’s constitutional reform package, you might be left with three thoughts 1) haven’t we been here before? 2) did Labour just launch most of its manifesto for the next general election and 3) just what were the terms of reference for this report?
The report rightfully asks many pertinent questions about where decisions are taken and who should take them, but it is way more than that. Its 40 reccomendations amount to a broad vision for political, economic, constitutional and social reform.
Its diagnosis is that our politics, public services and our economy are all broken. Its proposals seek to bring an end to ‘sticking plaster’ solutions in addressing structural inequalities. It rightfully raises many important questions but equally leaves perhaps more questions unanswered. For example, take the recommendation on the abolition of the 'indefensible’ House of Lords. Its replacement is touted as a new democratic Assembly of the Nations and Regions that is smaller and representative of modern Britain. However, that questions the very purpose of the House of Commons, to most people that is the role performed by the primary chamber? How will this chamber be constructed? By what election mechanism? How will it be ‘of the Nations and Regions’?
Here we go again…
The headline grabbing initiative for the media was Lords reform, an insurmountable challenge for previous governments. As an electoral strategy this is not a doorstep issue. Only a tiny minority inside Westminster actually care about it. I have never met an MP of calibre who doesn’t recognise the experience the Lords bring to bear and the respect they have for committed working peers and their expert committees which are ironically referenced in the report. However, in public It is not politically expedient to recognise the value of the Lords - it is easy to go for abolition rather than focusing on what the House of Lords should be doing, or doing better.
It has become a pressing issue more recently, and here the politics of the moment make sense, because Boris Johnson’s government in particular bulldozed the fragile constitutional framework, ignoring the recommendations of the Burns Review that caps its size at 600. Tolerance of this anarchic constitutional relic rests principally on public confidence in the expertise and experience of those who revise legislation. The appointment of “cronies” such as a junior No 10 advisor in their 20s, and revelations regarding Baroness Mone who has 'taken a leave of absence’ (she hasn’t spoken in over two years) to contest allegations she profited £29m from lobbying Ministers on PPE equipment that was faulty. This all plays into the public mood, Boris Johnson lost two ethics advisors and Rishi Sunak has yet to fill the current post. Recommendations on a new anti-corruption agency to investigate wrongdoing overseen by an ethics and integrity commission to monitor standards in public life, reflect the cronyism charge.
What's inside & Scotland & the Union
Brown is a passionate unionist and his intervention late in the 2014 independence referendum, at the request of David Cameron, played a pivotal role in framing the economic arguments against independence. Given the Supreme Court unsurprisingly ruled that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence, Nicola Sturgeon has now insisted that the next general election in Scotland will be a ‘de facto referendum’ on independence. Brown’s report has sought to neuter that.
If Labour are to form a credible national government it must stop the march of the SNP. Proposals to do so included the expansion of powers for the Scottish Government to improve delivery of public services and prosperity; equal status for MSPs in terms of parliamentary privilege, control over the job centre network to link employment, skills and business; and limited powers on signing international agreements.
Also, reform of UK-wide Departments and Bodies such as the Bank of England, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, MoD, HMRC and Ofgem are to include Scottish representation so that their governance and oversight arrangements will cater for geographic assessments of the effects of their policy interventions. The SNP called it “underwhelming and full of vague platitudes.” But for many of the undecided voters on independence, polling suggests there are around 40%, there is a lot more detail here than the SNP are offering. The SNP have been unable to articulate with confidence Scotland’s future financial and economic arrangements around currency and its current debt to GDP ratio is a barrier to EU membership requirements.
Power to the people
The central thrust of the Commission’s argument is that the state, as currently configured, cannot deliver effective public services and that the centre must give power away. In doing so, people who feel politically abandoned by centralised power structures will have greater agency in their life. Whitehall and Westminster are identified as the cause of many people's displacement. The term “Westminster’ touted endlessly by the SNP is used to maximum derogatory effect, Labour have just endorsed that slogan!
Starmer has wrongfully been portrayed by political opponents as a London metropolitan elite, a lefty islington lawyer. That’s unfair, he has travelled the towns and cities across the UK more than anyone this past year and he studied at Leeds University where the report was launched. Proposals included; the devolution of 200 colleges to local control to match local skills to employment requirements; 200 of the 288 new economic clusters to be outside London and the South East prioritising the future engines of growth such as: digital and technology sectors, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and environmental and creative industries. An end to MPs' second jobs except where professional accreditation is required; and moving 50,000 civil servants out of London - something successive governments have tried for the past 20 years.
Sir Keir Starmer, you’re out of touch and academic, what about the CoL crisis?
In opposition, it is virtually impossible for Labour to frame a costed and coherent economic argument, the media narrative and the political framing limit their ability to take risks. That's just the rules for Labour - they don't get a second chance on economic competence. As written before here, Brown was cautious in the run up to 1997. Starmer knows that tax and public finance debates are largely off-limits for a Labour party in opposition. Expect any policy with a Ways and Means provision attached to be small and largely inconsequential - anything large will be deemed profligate. That gives them limited space to define their offering, they need to look elsewhere to persuade but being 20 points plus ahead in polls allows you to take some risks and experiment and that is what he has done here with this report.
Labour need quick wins
Sir Keir Starmer and Gordon Brown are thoughtful politicians, and to their credit they have put some important issues on the table but the overall report lacks detail on implementation, governance, and responsibility. The central arguments about putting power and decisions where they need to be is hard to find fault with and one the current government agrees with.
The report is a pathway to a vision of Britain that strikes a modern and upbeat tone. However, Labour has more pressing issues to address and the Party requires more policies to excite. Solutions to the questions posed are complicated and challenging and perhaps this explains why Starmer has not committed to the recommendations but put them out to consultation. It suggests he thinks there is too much in the report that will prove difficult. Labour doesn't have time to be navel gazing and consulting, the report - taking two years to write - should have been the consultation!
Brown is a restless and curious thinker with vision, he has always had set ideas on constitutional reform. Typically with Brown those ideas crystalise and he doesn't plan for change or adaptation. One of his commissioners, Lord Murphy, objected to the proposal for an elected upper house and new labour grandees Lord Blunkett and Lord Mandelson have advocated a more cautious approach - Starmer would be wise to consider his priorities on the is package.
The report was launched on the same day mandatory house building targets were officially scrapped in the Government's flagship Levelling Up Bill in the face of backbench rebellion. Starmer has already talked about the importance of home ownership and aspiration. It is time for him to seize these types of opportunities and expand on them as labour can legitimately claim the ground from the conservative party on issues of homeownership, that’s how elections are won.
Devolution and constitutional powers don't cost money, it is not a silver bullet for growth but it must be accompanied by financial resources otherwise power for communities without the money behind it will be a red herring. Also, Westminster and Whitehall has now been defined by Starmer as the foe of the people, if he does not deliver on these reforms, then what is the point of voting for a government that makes decisions from the centre?
