Ed Miliband will shift power from London – but there's a catch

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/09/ed-miliband-shift-powers-london-cities

Version 0 of 1.

Ed Miliband has almost unleashed a revolution. He proclaims a new deal for England, the biggest devolution to cities in 100 years, a radical decentralisation of control with decisions to be taken by strong local leaders. Yet the qualification is important. There might be a revolution and then again there might not be one.

Miliband is an unusual leader, a genuine radical brought up in the New Labour era of caution, expediency and big-tent politics. Both radical and cautious sides inform his plans to propose more powers for cities, or potential powers if they pass certain tests.

The radical intent is sincere. Miliband has talked for years about the need to rebalance the economy from an over-dependence on London, as aspiration that is much easier to proclaim than to bring about. Indeed some of those on his front bench with a tendency towards precision have asked, "What exactly do we mean by rebalancing?" In his speech in Birmingham on Tuesday Miliband offered a partial answer. Some city councils will be given new powers over transport and housing infrastructure funding, the work programme and training. They will receive cash from budgets previously spent by central government in order to carry out new responsibilities.

But amid the hype, the qualifications are easily lost. Under Miliband's proposals, central government will set tests that councils must meet before they acquire new powers and limited cash. They include the need for councils to put in place "stronger political governance to drive economic leadership" – a test that could mean much and little, detailed plans to involve the private sector extensively, and an economic strategy focused on the creation of jobs and reducing the productivity gap. The model for an historic transfer of power leaves the centre pulling levers and determining what form the devolution should take, if it takes place at all.

The proposed dynamic is arguably the only one available. After the hollowing out of local authorities over the last few decades, any government would be reckless to hand over powers and cash without laying down conditions. Councils must rise to the challenge, come up with new ideas and discover an array of potential leaders who have been deterred by the powerlessness of recent times. There is no point handing over powers to authorities incapable of exercising them effectively. This has been the catch-22 that has prevented a redistribution of power since 1997.

In the 1980s powers were taken from councils. As councils became weaker fewer big figures were attracted to stand or work for them. Central government, desperate to prove it was spending every penny efficiently, did not dare to hand over powers to declining councils. The councils got weaker still.

Miliband is right to set tests from the centre rather than hand over duties and cash indiscriminately. But the cautionary tests mean that we too must be cautious about measuring the radical impact. What happens if councils do not meet the loosely defined tests?

Before the 1997 election, when he was leader of the opposition, Tony Blair delivered a similar speech to Miliband's in which he attempted to square the circle. Addressing a local government conference with an apparent flourish, Blair said: "We will give you more powers, as long as you use those powers responsibly." Once the rapturous applause had subsided, some reflected on the implications. The centre would decide what was responsible and what was not.

After 1997, central government decided it would retain the responsibilities – although in creating an elected mayor for London, Blair more than rectified the abolition of an elected authority for the capital. In ways that are measurable on a daily basis the post of mayor, directly accountable to the electorate, has improved the quality of life for Londoners, even if in its early phase it had puny powers and deserves more now.

In terms of the pre-election battle, Miliband is seeking to fill a big tent with his new theme. He might look young but he has been close to the heart of the last four election campaigns. On the whole he can read the rhythms of electoral politics – what works for a Labour leader, the protective shields required when he makes a move.

In this case he cites approvingly the recommendations of Michael Heseltine's recent report on power and economic growth. Although in his 80s, Heseltine is the Conservatives' genuine moderniser. He has been keen for decades on a revival of Britain's cities and is not burdened by a loathing of the state at central or local level as some members of the cabinet are. As Miliband's close ally, Stewart Wood, noted, Heseltine believes that active government, far from being an enemy of growth, is indispensable to it. Miliband deploys Heseltine as a protective shield, as he makes the important but previously unfashionable case that government in various manifestations can be benevolent rather than stifling.

When Miliband spoke in his February Hugo Young lecture about a new enthusiasm for "empowerment of the people", the waffle barometer started flickering wildly. No leader approaches an election proposing less power for the people.

As Miliband argued astutely during the lecture, the fashionable agenda for "choice" in public services has not necessarily empowered most people. He pointed out what should have been obvious: that it is far more complicated to change schools on a regular basis than it is to resolve never again to eat at one restaurant and to try another.

Yet for a long time "choice" was hailed vaguely as the only acceptable form of empowerment. His proposals for devolution are less about empowerment of individuals and more to do with recognising that cities with strong accountable bodies will be more effective on behalf of individuals. Look at their counterparts in other parts of Europe, not least in Germany – the country to which Miliband referred to once more in his speech on Tuesday.

Given that Andrew Adonis is driving this particular agenda, the chances of implementation are quite high. Adonis tends to get things done.

But it is also possible that the relationship between central and local government will remain stubbornly ambivalent and largely unchanged if Labour wins the election. Miliband is proposing a revolution with get-out clauses.

• Steve Richards presents Rock 'n' Roll Politics at Kings Place, London, on 28 April