Even before a single member of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly has been elected, the political consequences of devolution are making waves. What happens in one part of the United Kingdom impacts on another, as the new Labour machine is discovering to its horror.
In my view, the leadership was justified in its efforts to ensure that Alun Michael beat Rhodri Morgan in the Welsh internal contest. It is perverse to argue that the national Labour leadership should have no say in who represents the party in different parts of the country. But several senior members of Alun Michael's campaign team tell me that the manner of his victory has caused immense long-term damage to Labour's reputation in Wales. Indeed, one of Michael's most important strategists has concluded that the string- pulling should not be repeated in any equivalent contest. He is advising Blairites in London that Ken Livingstone should be allowed to put his name forward as a possible Labour candidate for the London mayor.
So events in Wales are influencing the combustible politics of London. They explain why the name of Mo Mowlam recurs in relation to the mayor. The Mowlam candidacy is based on crude thinking: if , after Wales, we have to keep our hands clean and let Livingstone stand, we will throw at him our most powerful, glittering electoral weapon. But the "Mowlam for mayor" reports reflect merely the fleeting thoughts of increasingly desperate ministers as they muse over the problem with journalists.
While Tony Blair can be ruthless, he is not going to be that ruthless. Mowlam has done many years' hard service on the Northern Ireland brief; she can't exactly name her next job but she certainly won't have one imposed on her. Why should she take the political risk of resigning her Commons seat? What is more, Blair wants to make full use of his political asset on the national scene as well as the capital's. No, Mo Mowlam is not going to stand.
Senior Downing Street insiders still hope that Frank Dobson is persuadable, but the longer he makes it clear that he is not interested the more his vote-winning potential in London declines. A reluctant candidate imposed by the centre is not going to get off to a booming start. Dobson is reluctant for the right reasons. He feels passionate about his Health brief; so passionate, indeed, that the last time I interviewed him for the BBC I am sure he would have hit me had he not been a couple of miles away in the radio car.
The broadcaster Trevor Phillips is looked on favourably by the leadership, and that presumably explains why he has just announced that he is throwing his hat in the ring. If it looks as if his candidacy is gaining momentum, it is just possible that he will be pitted against Livingstone in a contest.
I would still put my money on the Livingstone candidacy being blocked at the first hurdle, probably in July as everyone heads off for their summer holidays. But the point is that the traumatised party in Wales has placed doubts in the minds of the nimble-footed new Labour strategists. Their control of the party machine, which has been maintained for nearly five years since Blair became leader, isn't working in quite the same way any more.
The early impact of devolution is not limited to tactics and strategy. New Labour's economic policies, so astutely massaged for Middle England's embrace, may not play as well in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, both the SNP and the Liberal Democrats are opposing the 1p cut in the basic rate of income tax, announced in last week's Budget. Though both parties are playing politics - the SNP voted with the Tories against some of Gordon Brown's other tax increases - its stance has changed the dynamics of the tax debate.
For the first time in many years an election campaign will make a direct link between the amount of tax we pay and the services we receive. Perhaps it will herald a more mature debate in England, although I doubt it.
Some leading figures in the Labour Party in Scotland are uneasy about placing an income tax cut at the centre of the campaign, which raises another interesting question. The reduction in the basic rate is not going to apply for another year, so presumably a Labour-led parliament in Scotland, in a coalition with the Lib Dems, could decide to reject Brown's policy and spend the money elsewhere. Except that, before the Scottish Labour Party had time to decide on its approach, Brown had declared that the SNP's "tartan tax" would cost it support. So Scottish Labour is stuck with the policy now.
At the Scottish Labour conference a couple of weeks ago, I was struck by the arrogance of some journalists and activists. A discussion with two commentators on Radio Scotland was typical: one argued that Blair should keep away from Scotland, the other suggested that he should be allowed to come but should show more gratitude. Walking into this den of inverse snobbery, Blair stuck to promising computers for every school. His modest demeanour was a reminder in itself of the degree to which devolution is a radical act. His speech, full of small promises usually involving computers, reminded me of those he made in opposition. The government won an election in 1997 by a landslide and has volunteered to fight it all over again in Scotland. Even so, the Scottish media and dissenting activists will have every right to make hay if the leadership in London has told the Scottish Parliament, in effect, that the Budget tax cut planned for 12 months' time is untouchable.
All these ripples and not a vote has been cast. Goodness knows what it is going to be like when these devolved bodies are up and running.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
