Preparing for a devolution revolution? Ed Miliband in Manchester. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour must be clearer about how devolution can improve people's lives

Labour should use the devolution debate as an opportunity to resurrect hope across the country by pushing power away from Westminster – and communicating why this approach will help people.

The political establishment has been jolted by new forces that are fed by people’s alienation from a Westminster-centric system of government. After the Scottish referendum and the certainty of further devolution north of the border, focus has shifted as never before to how England should be governed. Ukip is latching onto the perception that decisions are taken that a far removed from people’s lives: representation for it in parliament for the first time confirms it poses a threat that cannot be ignored.

Responding to these challenges requires ambition and guts. The Tories have neither – they are taking the opportunity of more devolution north of the border to pursue a Westminster stitch-up that they believe would provide them with a majority in England for the foreseeable future. Dressing up low politics as high constitutional principle is perverse, but unfortunately not surprising that they would pursue this strategy for their own ends.

Labour now has an opportunity to set out a different route for the people of England. The Tories offer a limited vision that leaves the centralised Westminster model intact but focussed more sharply on the people of England. Meanwhile Ukip presents a dark vision of a little England turning in on itself and indulging in easy, knee-jerk responses to very complex challenges in communities.

The Local Government Association Labour Group has understood the threat from Ukip for a while. The sense of exclusion and disconnection that many people feel is real, particularly in communities hit by the decline in manufacturing, the growth of low-wage economies and sharp rises in immigration, often with politicians unable to forecast accurately future numbers, or address the real tensions in many communities today.

There is a danger that those on the hard left ignore the problems, and those firmly on the right attempt to use the fears for a cynical and negative agenda of division. Only Labour can occupy the ground of fairness and equality and lead a mature debate; addressing the issues faced by many but with real solutions.

Ukip isn’t offering any real solutions but they are speaking about the issues people feel aren’t being addressed by mainstream parties. By fusing global change with ultra-local consequences, they are articulating people’s sense of economic insecurity and playing to anxieties about threats to “our” way of life. Labour cannot simply offer a one-size-fits-all national response since people’s experience of disconnection is localised and particular to their communities - be they coastal towns or former industrial areas, for example.

Scotland showed us all how to engage the public in political debate. But the debates weren’t just issues for Scotland – increasing restlessness in England as the other nations in the UK receive devolved powers is inevitable. And if local communities continue to be relatively powerless to respond to the particular challenges they face, Ukip will remain a temptation.

The full Constitutional Convention Labour has proposed is a significant opportunity to involve people in addressing the need for and shape of further devolution in England. This, combined with Ed Miliband’s recent commitment to an English Devolution Act that would further decentralise power, and the establishment of a regional cabinet, sets out a direction of travel for reform that builds on work already done through Labour’s Policy Review, notably the Innovation Taskforce and the Adonis Growth Review.

Now that a broad framework has been set, Labour must be clear about how pushing power away from Westminster and into the hands of communities can enable people to take control of their lives. Substantive decentralisation of power will involve local areas gaining real levers to grow their economies, while also being able to allocate resources to ensure local people are equipped with the skills and confidence to take advantage of new opportunities. It would mean local public services can become more integrated, which would create more responsiveness to needs and agility in adapting to demographic changes. Building capacity locally is important in itself, but also has the potential to neutralise the local anxiety that can arise from new pressures as a result of population shifts from inward migration.

As well as equipping communities to be less vulnerable to outside shocks, and more resilient for the future, decentralising power can be a route to restoring local pride where this is a memory not a reality for too many disaffected people. It offers a way of governing that is not remote and irrelevant, but has greater legitimacy and resonance because decisions are taken closer to, and genuinely with, local people.  

Labour has always been at its best where it gives a voice to those who are not heard. While the Tories are an expression of the established few and Ukip echoes fear and discontent, Labour’s voice can – and must – resurrect hope, restore pride and foster belonging across all parts of our country.  

Jim McMahon is leader of Oldham Council and leader of the Local Government Association Labour Group. He tweets @CllrJimMcMahon

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How the row over Jackie Walker triggered a full-blown war in Momentum

Jon Lansman, the organisation's founder, is coming under attack. 

The battle for control within Momentum, which has been brewing for some time, has begun in earnest.

In a sign of the growing unrest within the organisation – established as the continuation of Jeremy Corbyn’s first successful leadership bid, and instrumental in delivering in his re-election -  a critical pamphlet by the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL), a Trotskyite grouping, has made its way into the pages of the Times, with the “unelected” chiefs of Momentum slated for turning the organisation into a “bland blur”.

The issue of contention: between those who see Momentum as an organisation to engage new members of the Labour party, who have been motivated by Jeremy Corbyn but are not yet Corbynites.

One trade unionist from that tendency described what they see the problem as like this: “you have people who have joined to vote for Jeremy, they’re going to meetings, but they’re voting for the Progress candidates in selections, they’re voting for Eddie Izzard [who stood as an independent but Corbynsceptic candidate] in the NEC”.  

On the other are those who see a fightback by Labour’s right and centre as inevitable, and who are trying to actively create a party within a party for what they see as an inevitable purge. One activist of that opinion wryly described Momentum as “Noah’s Ark”.

For both sides, Momentum, now financially stable thanks to its membership, which now stands at over 20,000, is a great prize. And in the firing line for those who want to turn Momentum into a parallel line is Jon Lansman, the organisation’s founder.

Lansman, who came into politics as an aide to Tony Benn, is a figure of suspicion on parts of the broad left due to his decades-long commitment to the Labour party. His major opposition within Momentum and on its ruling executive comes from the AWL.

The removal of Jackie Walker as a vice-chair of Momentum after she said that Holocaust Memorial Day belittled victims of other genocides has boosted the AWL, although the AWL's Jill Mountford, who sits on Momentum's ruling executive, voted to remove Walker as vice-chair. (Walker remains on the NEC, as she has been elected by members). But despite that, the AWL, who have been critical of the process whereby Walker lost her post, have felt the benefit across the country.

Why? Because that battle has triggered a series of serious splits, not only in Momentum’s executive but its grassroots. A raft of local groups have thrown out the local leadership, mostly veterans of Corbyn’s campaign for the leadership, for what the friend of one defeated representative described as “people who believe the Canary [a pro-Corbyn politics website that is regularly accused of indulging and promoting conspiracy theories]”.

In a further series of reverses for the Lansmanite caucus, the North West, a Momentum stronghold since the organisation was founded just under a year ago, is slipping away from old allies of Lansman and towards the “new” left. As one insider put it, the transition is from longstanding members towards people who had been kicked out in the late 1980s and early 1990s by Neil Kinnock. The constituency party of Wallasey in particular is giving senior figures in Momentum headaches just as it is their opponents on the right of the party, with one lamenting that they have “lost control” of the group.

It now means that planned changes to Momentum’s structure, which the leadership had hoped to be rubberstamped by members, now face a fraught path to passage.

Adding to the organisation’s difficulties is the expected capture of James Schneider by the leader’s office. Schneider, who appears widely on television and radio as the public face of Momentum and is well-liked by journalists, has an offer on the table to join Jeremy Corbyn’s team at Westminster as a junior to Seumas Milne.

The move, while a coup for Corbyn, is one that Momentum – and some of Corbyn’s allies in the trade union movement – are keen to resist. Taking a job in the leader’s office would reduce still further the numbers of TV-friendly loyalists who can go on the airwaves and defend the leadership. There is frustration among the leader’s office that as well as Diane Abbott and John McDonnell, who are both considered to be both polished media performers and loyalists, TV bookers turn to Ken Livingstone, who is retired and unreliable, and Paul Mason, about whom opinions are divided within Momentum. Some regard Mason as a box office performer who needs a bigger role, others as a liability.

But all are agreed that Schneider’s expected departure will weaken the media presence of Corbyn loyalists and also damage Momentum. Schneider has spent much of his time not wrangling journalists but mediating in local branches and is regarded as instrumental in the places “where Momentum is working well” in the words of one trade unionist. (Cornwall is regarded as a particular example of what the organisation should be aiming towards)

It comes at a time when Momentum’s leadership is keen to focus both on its external campaigns but the struggle for control in the Labour party. Although Corbyn has never been stronger within the party, no Corbynite candidate has yet prevailed in a by-election, with the lack of available candidates at a council level regarded as part of the problem. Councilors face mandatory reselection as a matter of course, and the hope is that a bumper crop of pro-Corbyn local politicians will go on to form the bulk of the talent pool for vacant seats in future by-elections and in marginal seats at the general election.

But at present, a draining internal battle is sapping Momentum of much of its vitality. But Lansman retains two trump cards. The first is that as well as being the founder of the organisation, he is its de facto owner: the data from Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership campaigns, without which much of the organisation could not properly run, is owned by a limited company of which he is sole director. But “rolling it up and starting again” is very much the nuclear option, that would further delay the left’s hopes of consolidating its power base in the party.

The second trump card, however, is the tribalism of many of the key players at a local level, who will resist infiltration by groups to Labour’s left just as fiercely as many on the right. As one veteran of both Corbyn’s campaigns reflected: “If those who have spent 20 years attacking our party think they have waiting allies in the left of Labour, they are woefully mistaken”. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.