Regeneration plan? The government doesn't have one

MPs find that ministers have "no adequate strategy" to tackle problems faced by England's deprived c

Ministers have no "adequate strategy" to tackle the problems faced by England's most deprived communities, and a focus on economic growth will increase the gap between rich and poor further, according to a report by MPs. Spending cuts compound the problem.

The cross-party communities and local government select committee (which has a Tory/Lib Dem majority) concluded that the government's regeneration plan "lacks strategic direction and is unclear about the nature of the problem it is trying to solve", adding:

It [the regeneration document] focuses overwhelmingly upon the achievement of economic growth, giving little emphasis to specific issues faced by deprived communities and areas of market failure.

Clive Betts, the Labour MP chairing the committee, pointed out that a billion-pound programme to renovate housing in sink estates had been cut, leaving just £30m as a "transition fund". He criticised the government's emphasis on large scale projects such as high-speed rail and the London Crossrail:

The measures identified by the government focus overwhelmingly on the pursuit of economic growth. The government's measures will not attract sufficient investment for renewal into those communities where the market has failed.

There is no sign that the private sector is filling the gap as public resources are being withdrawn... Without further investment targeted at those places most in need, ministers will store up serious social, economic and environmental problems for the future.

This echoes the conclusions of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which warned that favouring more prosperous areas of growth "risks creating a spiral of decline in certain deprived areas" and will further increase the gap between affluent and poor areas.

While this is unsurprising, it is profoundly worrying at a time when the gap between rich and poor in Britain is wider than ever before, with income inequality ahead of Ireland, Japan, Spain, Canada, Germany and France.

Indeed, ministers have made little effort to even create a strategy, with no definition of what "community-led regeneration" means, and no attempt to identify why and where it is most needed.

The problem here is the same it has always been: deprived communities tend to be disenfranchised, therefore there is little political capital to be gained from their regeneration. When times are hard, it's the obvious thing to cut -- indeed, even when times are good, as under 10 years of Labour, these projects remain on the backburner. This summer's riots showed the nihilism of young people within these communities, and the need to regenerate.

Before coming to power, David Cameron himself noted the importance of wealth inequality, citing The Spirit Level in his 2009 Hugo Young lecture. Back in 206, he said:

The right test for our policies is how they help the most disadvantaged in society, not the rich.

Sadly, this laudable aim does not seem to have been borne out.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

What type of Brexit did we vote for? 150,000 Conservative members will decide

As Michael Gove launches his leadership bid, what Leave looks like will be decided by Conservative activists.

Why did 17 million people vote to the leave the European Union, and what did they want? That’s the question that will shape the direction of British politics and economics for the next half-century, perhaps longer.

Vote Leave triumphed in part because they fought a campaign that combined ruthless precision about what the European Union would do – the illusory £350m a week that could be clawed back with a Brexit vote, the imagined 75 million Turks who would rock up to Britain in the days after a Remain vote – with calculated ambiguity about what exit would look like.

Now that ambiguity will be clarified – by just 150,000 people.

 That’s part of why the initial Brexit losses on the stock market have been clawed back – there is still some expectation that we may end up with a more diluted version of a Leave vote than the version offered by Vote Leave. Within the Treasury, the expectation is that the initial “Brexit shock” has been pushed back until the last quarter of the year, when the election of a new Conservative leader will give markets an idea of what to expect.  

Michael Gove, who kicked off his surprise bid today, is running as the “full-fat” version offered by Vote Leave: exit from not just the European Union but from the single market, a cash bounty for Britain’s public services, more investment in science and education. Make Britain great again!

Although my reading of the Conservative parliamentary party is that Gove’s chances of getting to the top two are receding, with Andrea Leadsom the likely beneficiary. She, too, will offer something close to the unadulterated version of exit that Gove is running on. That is the version that is making officials in Whitehall and the Bank of England most nervous, as they expect it means exit on World Trade Organisation terms, followed by lengthy and severe recession.

Elsewhere, both Stephen Crabb and Theresa May, who supported a Remain vote, have kicked off their campaigns with a promise that “Brexit means Brexit” in the words of May, while Crabb has conceded that, in his view, the Leave vote means that Britain will have to take more control of its borders as part of any exit deal. May has made retaining Britain’s single market access a priority, Crabb has not.

On the Labour side, John McDonnell has set out his red lines in a Brexit negotiation, and again remaining in the single market is a red line, alongside access to the European Investment Bank, and the maintenance of “social Europe”. But he, too, has stated that Brexit means the “end of free movement”.

My reading – and indeed the reading within McDonnell’s circle – is that it is the loyalists who are likely to emerge victorious in Labour’s power struggle, although it could yet be under a different leader. (Serious figures in that camp are thinking about whether Clive Lewis might be the solution to the party’s woes.) Even if they don’t, the rebels’ alternate is likely either to be drawn from the party’s Brownite tendency or to have that faction acting as its guarantors, making an end to free movement a near-certainty on the Labour side.

Why does that matter? Well, the emerging consensus on Whitehall is that, provided you were willing to sacrifice the bulk of Britain’s financial services to Frankfurt and Paris, there is a deal to be struck in which Britain remains subject to only three of the four freedoms – free movement of goods, services, capital and people – but retains access to the single market. 

That means that what Brexit actually looks like remains a matter of conjecture, a subject of considerable consternation for British officials. For staff at the Bank of England,  who have to make a judgement call in their August inflation report as to what the impact of an out vote will be. The Office of Budget Responsibility expects that it will be heavily led by the Bank. Britain's short-term economic future will be driven not by elected politicians but by polls of the Conservative membership. A tense few months await. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.