It will take more than infrastructure spending to create a "northern global powerhouse". Photo: Oli Scarff, Getty
Show Hide image

Infrastructure spending isn’t enough, we need a radical shift of power away from London

City regions should be at the heart of future economic and social development, with powers and responsibilities devolved from Westminster.

There is an awakening interest in the regional economies and cities at present. After four years of austerity which have reinforced all of the inequalities that divide the south-east and the other English regions, it looks as though some spending on infra-structure may be heading north but it will take more than infrastructure spending alone to create a “northern global powerhouse”.

A major initiative to improve rail transport across the five key northern cities was announced last week in The One North Report, which, proposes a 125mph trans-pennine rail link and a faster link to Newcastle and Manchester airport. It is part of a 15 year plan for improving east-west transport links across the north. The cost of the rail improvements are around £15bn - roughly the same as Crossrail in London and George Osborne is likely to make this a “centrepiece” of his autumn statement which in turn forms part of the government’s proposals for a “northern global powerhouse”.

This may be cynical electioneering ahead of next year’s and it will take a much more comprehensive approach to regional economic planning to address the imbalances in in the English and the UK economies, let alone tackling the continued growth of inequality across society. Yes, we need economic development across the regions but we need strategies that can genuinely address inequality by moving power and economic investment away from Westminster and delivering economic development that meets aspirations for a fairer society that is concerned with equality and sustainability. For more on this see my essay in ‘Building Blocks for a New Economy’, out today.

It is interesting to look north to Scotland and the debate on Scottish Independence as a solution to the regional problems of England. In Scotland, the debate on Scottish Independence has brought forward a strong economic case for independence, arguing the importance of greater natural resources and strengths in education, innovation and ingenuity. They clearly, argue that a one-size fits all policy for economic development in the UK deprives Scotland of the economic levers that are necessary to set the economy on the right path to recovery. In England the patterns of centralised policy making continually reinforce the economic pull of the London and the South East and this deprives the regions of the necessary levers to deliver the economic and social aspirations of people in the regions. The case for different economic policies is a strong one but also is the argument for greater self-determination in social policy, developing economic policies that reflect the values of a fairer society in terms of education, health and equality.

In developing a new strategy for economic development we need to look to city regions as a main focus for economic development with powers and responsibilities devolved from Westminster that require them to place economic justice and sustainability at the heart of economic activity. This cannot be achieved without radical shift in power away from London and the creation of a new banking and investment infrastructure to support this shift.

Cities should be at the heart of future economic and social development. It is here that innovation and creativity thrive and where ideas will develop to create economic and social change.

Stuart Speeden is an independent equalities consultant. His essay on radical decentralisation is published by Compass today in Building blocks: for a new political economy and can be downloaded at http://bit.ly/1qVCH5X  

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496