The slow road to Tory localism
Author: Dermot FinchDate: 08/02/2010
Publication: Regeneration and Renewal
David Cameron is "a strong localist". He wants "nothing less than radical decentralisation to reach every corner of the country". He said so in the Conservatives' Control Shift green paper, published a year ago this month. But how radical will Cameron's brand of localism be if he is voted into Number Ten on 7 May?
There will be a change of tone and approach. Where Labour said "Why should we devolve?", the Tories are more likely to ask "Why can't we?". Yet we know that oppositions tend to shout for devolution, while never quite delivering it in government. In a fiscal crunch, the barriers to localism will be even higher.
So, despite their devolutionary zeal, the Tories are unlikely to unleash a radical transfer of power from the centre. Their top priority will be to cut the deficit, not devolve power. Barack Obama swept into power on the catchphrase "Yes We Can". David Cameron's mantra is more likely to be "Only If We Can Afford It".
The proposals in Control Shift include switching all planning and housing powers from regional government to councils, doubling up council tax revenue from new homes and offering 12 cities a referendum on whether to have an elected mayor.
Many took this to mean the Tories were going to scrap all regional development agencies (RDAs), allow a free-for-all on planning, devolve big budgets to local councils, and install lots of city mayors. I reckon the likely outcome will be less dramatic.
Since Control Shift, a big gap has opened up between the Tories' rhetoric and the reality they are likely to inherit. For starters, the rhetoric has been inconsistent - Tory shadow ministers have been saying different things. And second, the reality is going to be a lot worse than even they anticipated.
Take the Conservatives' rhetoric on RDAs. Control Shift was carefully worded: they would "refocus" RDAs, strip them of their planning powers and give local councils the power to set up local enterprise partnerships. That didn't necessarily mean all RDAs were for the chop.
But since then, shadow ministers have often strayed from the party line, dropping heavy hints they would scrap all RDAs. Last October, shadow communities secretary Caroline Spelman told the Tory conference in Manchester that "regionalism will go - lock, stock and barrel", while the year before, her predecessor, Eric Pickles, predicted that RDAs would go the way of Anne Boleyn.
In fact, the Tories have been quietly revisiting their position. It now looks like they might retain RDAs in regions where local authorities want them. One North-East and Yorkshire Forward seem the most likely candidates to escape the chop, albeit in scaled-back form.
Shadow housing minister Grant Shapps and shadow planning minister Bob Neill have each struck a different tone on housing and planning. Shapps offers a purist, "people power" version of localism, based on the belief that voters will do the right thing and favour more new housing - although the developers aren't so sure. Neill is more pragmatic: he sees a clear role for city-regions, and talks more about streamlining national planning guidance than scrapping RDAs.
Meanwhile, the imperative to cut the massive deficit means there won't be much scope for fiscal shift. Shadow chancellor George Osborne and shadow chief secretary Philip Hammond hold the upper hand here, and both are determined to keep a firm grip on the public finances should they get inside the Treasury. Radical financial devolution is off the radar for the next Parliament, at least.
Whitehall mandarins are relevant. Typically, they are sceptical about devolution and localism, and want hard evidence of the benefits before agreeing to let go. Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell will remain in his post for the next government. In a speech a year ago, he placed efficiencies well ahead of devolution. Councils could get new powers, he said, but only if doing so delivered cost savings. Devolution for its own sake was not an option.
The Tories also seem to be rethinking their position on mayors. Cameron is personally committed, but the single-authority mayoral referendums could trigger a series of unhelpful "no" votes. Without the carrot of new financial powers, voters may not see the point of a directly-elected figurehead.
So, the Tories will not let go as much, or as quickly, as many thought. We are unlikely to see swift implementation of radical decentralisation. Instead, we'll see a much more incremental programme of devolution emerge - with the shape and timing dependent on the fiscal picture. Yes, they will adopt a more devolutionary approach than Labour - where they can, they will devolve. But the road to Shifting Control will be bumpy and slow.
A version of this article first appeared in Regeneration and Renewal
