The limits of devolution for the left

In a recent Guardian interview, the shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting, acknowledged that the Labour party historically had been divided between devolutionists and centralisers, “but now the whole of the shadow cabinet supports the devolution agenda”.1 Streeting went on to say that the purpose of a Labour government was to “win power to give it away”. This is a curious perspective. It surely matters to whom that power is given away. If Labour governments are elected, only to give power away to their political opponents – Conservatives, separatist parties and others – is localism always better for the people whom Labour is meant to serve?

The mission of a Labour government is to create a more equal society and to improve the condition of the working class. This article argues that the devolution agenda could operate contrary to those key objectives by empowering forces that work against the common good and by inhibiting the ability of a Labour government to pass transformative and redistributive national policy.

Historically, as Streeting acknowledged, the Labour party contained within it many sceptics of policy decentralisation. The ability of a House Commons majority to deliver radical, transformative change across the whole of the UK was one of the bedrock constitutional objectives of working-class reformers for decades. The British constitution offers the opportunity, rarely matched anywhere in the world, for a democratic socialist party to govern as a majority and to use that power to transform society with few legal impediments.2 Should a government wish to nationalise industry, the banks or hospitals, a simple majority in the lower chamber of parliament should suffice.

In recent years, Labour has taken a broadly uncritical approach to devolution, which sees local as always better, but this is because decentralisation has been targeted to Labour-friendly areas like London, Wales and large cities. Given the counter-cyclical nature of local and national politics, Labour in power in Westminster would likely correspond with huge Labour losses in local government. And, then, what would Labour's response be if, as a result of further devolution, regional governments start to charge residents for using NHS services? Or, very likely, what would happen when ‘local people’ refuse to deliver badly needed housing, to obey infrastructure targets or to accept immigrants and asylum seekers into their areas?

It is odd that Labour would become the champion for an arrangement that would fragment the welfare state. Yes, devolution creates space for policy experimentation but, as we see in other decentralised systems, it does so at the expense of universalism. Localism does not always serve the greater good of the country. Local control can be a more elite form of control. When devolved units are given more power, including to opt out of the welfare state and from their wider obligations to their fellow citizens, people in poverty more often than not are the losers.