Rob MacDonald
Introduction
This article explores the linking of progressive federalism concepts with some of the key struggles we face, the need to create popular alliances, develop our policies and grow the Communist Party of Britain (CPB). It highlights needs for local, regional and national democratic systems and economic powers of intervention for the interests of people across England, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall. Democracy is the key aim, not bureaucracy.
I shall reference some past struggles which arguably transformed public opinion, changed national and local government relationships and created popular democratic assertions by people for the right to control capital locally. Modern circumstances in England, Scotland and Wales, including recent ‘devolution’ deals inherited from Conservative governments, will also be considered, along with the wide variety of current questions, such as the steel industry and manufacturing, transport, town regeneration, utilities, regional resources and environmental issues.
I shall show current democratic inconsistencies between England, Scotland and Wales, as well as the significant fall in local democratic representation of people – the drop in the number of elected councillors – since the 1970s. That trend continues today with mergers of councils, electoral boundary changes and fewer elected councillors at this year’s local elections.
Over recent decades, we have seen growing concentrations of power among elite politicians and the rise of non-elected people to positions of power and influence. Latest examples in 2024 include a new wave of 10-year long-term town boards launched across England this year. These were initiated in the final months of the last Conservative government. Former Conservative levelling-up secretary Michael Gove MP described town boards as ‘new-style politics’.
Ongoing local and regional deals effecting communities, economies and democracy established under previous Conservative governments exist in many places. Communists need to consider these. So should the new Labour government.
There are larger and smaller schemes. Some may seem trivial to some on the left. But these schemes matter to many towns and thousands of residents. They cover subjects that people care deeply about – industrial estates, employment, construction contracts, town centre regeneration, the public realm, bus and railway stations, leisure and sports facilities, arts and cultural spaces. In my view, we overlook these at our peril.
Our central Party leadership cannot be expected to be aware of all local and regional developments. Individual members and branches should provide that link. They should connect the Party with local and regional affairs, negative or positive.
It is important to emphasise that a nuanced approach may be needed. Rather than dismiss all these issues out of hand, it is better to know what is happening locally and regionally, and then engage in a considered way. Local knowledge can build our credibility, resonance, capacity, connections and the potential for new alliances and stronger political responses.
The impact of Conservative government policies on north-east England in the 1980s was a catalyst in my political awakening as a teenager. I joined the Communist Party in Middlesbrough in the mid-80s. Local, regional and national needs, rights and aspirations were, and remain, core political motivations for me – my political raison d’etre, then and now.
The 1980s included the Miners’ Strike, whose 40th anniversary has been marked this year. The Strike was linked to Thatcherism and many other figures, including Ian MacGregor at the National Coal Board. MacGregor was previously at British Leyland and at the British Steel Corporation, where he had enacted huge closures on Teesside and in other steel regions of England, Scotland and Wales. These were all part of the wider deindustrialisation of Britain and the assault on industrial trade unions.
Deindustrialisation not only affected blue-collar workers, but included a massive decline in research and development work associated with manufacturing, affecting many well-paid white collar jobs across a number of regions, including north-east England. It also had long-term economic, political, social and demographic impacts, in particular the loss of young people from industrial regions (including suburbs and commuter belts), the ‘brain drain’ and the ongoing North-South divide.
That era also brought early Thatcherite regional development policies and organisations, along with local council rebellions such as in Liverpool and rising calls for Scottish and Welsh parliaments.
I heard Mick McGahey, the late deputy leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, speak in Middlesbrough Town Hall during the Miners’ Strike. A key Communist Party figure, he made the link between struggles, policies and democratic systems – including the argument for a Scottish Parliament. Rightly in my view, Morning Star articles and letters in 2024 have highlighted McGahey’s approach and contributions. For me, that type of joined-up approach is needed for today’s circumstances, especially in England.
In this article, I mainly consider England. But I briefly refer to Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Spain. I believe the points I raise are applicable to different locations.
Because of my Scottish roots, I have always taken an interest in developments there. Through marriage, I have links to Ireland which I have visited many times and been influenced by too. I also know members of the Communist Party of Spain (PCE) domiciled in Britain, who have been exploring the building of a new ‘plurinational’ governance. We are dealing with nations and regions facing challenges and tensions caused by multiple factors.
In England, I compare some regional devolution deals and mayors’ remits in the North-East and North-West. Importantly, I highlight how these powers vary and also how public support – or opposition – can vary with different elements or from region to region. This complexity is perhaps illustrated by the seemingly contradictory situation in the Tees Valley in north-east England. There, voters this year elected a controversial Conservative regional mayor for the third time. Then they elected Labour MPs for Westminster just a few weeks later.
Overall, I’m highlighting these topics because I believe that Communists, and the wider left, need to connect better with local and regional affairs. These situations offer the left additional opportunities to show how capitalism, monopolies and a lack of popular democratic power impacts at local and regional levels, in addition to national and global narratives.
Also the CPB had candidates in the 2024 local and general elections. That should help to improve our local and regional presence and awareness. The Party is reviewing its election activities and considering any lessons. Perhaps some of these ideas can help too?
For clarity, I write this as an ordinary Party member. I am not an expert. I have not got the solutions or policies here and now. But this is a discussion feature based on real, current situations and observations. It also highlights useful pamphlets, books and ideas available to all Party members. It is hopefully a useful contribution to our collective knowledge, debates and actions, inside the Party and beyond.
It is definitely an appeal for an informed, connected, outward-looking Party in all localities and regions – a Party which builds alliances, seizes good opportunities to act, understands and influences local and regional public opinion, and make serious, popular and engaging political contributions which resonate and motivate.
The 2024 elections
2024 has not only seen local council and regional mayoral elections as well as the general election. It also marks the 50th anniversary of the important 1974 local government reforms, which created many of the councils we know today, and the 25th anniversary of elections to the re-established Scottish Parliament and the then National Assembly for Wales (now the Senedd).
However, in recent years there have been council mergers and major austerity cuts, leaving many councils, public services and communities in trouble.
The new Labour government outlined early priorities in July for matters including economic growth, housing, planning, railways, energy, more regional devolution and limited reform of the House of Lords.
All England’s regional mayors were invited to Downing Street within days of Labour’s election victory. A government press release said the meeting would “begin the process of shifting power from Westminster through a major programme of devolution to power-up all corners of the country.”
The Daily Mirror’s headline on 18 July, for the King’s Speech setting out Labour plans was “Taking back control”. Angela Rayner spoke of a “revolution in decentralised decision-making” and wanting more councils to “take the plunge” with devolution on areas such as transport, planning, adult education, jobs support and skills.
Now, around 100 Labour MPs at Westminster have backgrounds with local councils. Does this bode well for councils, communities and regions over the next five years? Time will tell.
Needs, democracy and intervention powers
Do our local, regional and national governance systems provide the powers of intervention we really need to control our economic circumstances? And do they enable meaningful public participation in democracy and decision-making? Importantly, how can we connect the struggles people face every day with the need for economic powers and better democratic systems? Can we connect vital issues of public concern, such as the economy, housing, education, transport, inequalities between towns, cities and regions with the need for progressive federal arrangements?
We need to consider fundamental issues around capitalism, the British economy, monopolies, power and decision-making. Can public dissatisfaction – and aspirations – be turned into popular assertions for the right to control capital locally? Can we build meaningful participatory democratic systems that meet our needs and enjoy popular support? Taking back control was a key slogan around Brexit. It resonated with millions. But gaining control remains an ongoing task.
These questions and others, around circumstances and needs in England, Wales, Scotland and Cornwall, are being considered by the Party’s Progressive Federalism Commission.
Mixed opinion and awareness among communist party members
The Progressive Federalism Commission aims to provide ideas and reports, which might be developed into clearer policies or actions for the Party. The Commission’s work is not easy. It has highlighted quite different levels of awareness and opinion on various issues among CPB members, including across different districts, regions and nations, but especially in England.
Uncertainty and concerns were raised by some about understandings and definitions of nations and states, and national questions balanced within internationalism. Some were sympathetic to Irish self-determination but not Scottish or Welsh. Some felt England was overwhelmingly conservative and English questions were usually the domain of the right.
Yet, they also recognised some attempts to counter that, some radical parts of English society and history, and concepts of ‘progressive patriotism’ and culture such as the singer Billy Bragg, who has articulated other narratives about England.
Nonetheless, it is arguably a measure of the left’s weakness in articulating English domestic questions that, in turn, our members struggle to articulate proposals for England including new relationships with Scotland and Wales, and how Scottish and Welsh arrangements and demands can, arguably, enhance England too. Members’ apparent difficulty to consider English questions is also in contrast to their typical fluency in discussing non-domestic international issues.
In my view, widespread education, discussions, proposals for and creation of new or radically reformed local, regional and national English institutions, new economic powers of intervention, investment in communities, services and infrastructure, investment in engaging democratic systems including physical local and regional English democratic chambers, civic spaces and new regional assemblies, would do much to articulate and enact a progressive, democratic England. There has been money to revamp Westminster. Let’s see serious proposals and funding for better English local and regional democratic systems and institutions.
In some ways, members’ mixed feelings regarding institutions and democratic systems were also apparent when the Party stood in elections this year. Some members were unsure or unconvinced that the Party should stand in local elections. Some were unclear about the Party’s stance on electoral politics, as set out in our strategic programme Britain’s Road to Socialism (BRS). Some were unclear about the purpose of local councils, regional mayors, combined authorities, ‘devolution’ and the many other projects in localities and regions, such as levelling-up and town boards. Some probably viewed councils as bureaucratic administrations rather than democratic forums. Both are true.
Of course, much good work was done by Party members in the elections. Yet, it would be a mistake not to consider if members could be better-informed about local, regional and national governance and democratic systems, warts and all. I think it’s important that all members understand the variety of arrangements we have, and how they arose, to be able to think about changes needed in future.
We probably need some historic understanding too. The Communist Party has many good resources, pamphlets and books on history. Some of these explain the growth, development and tensions between capitalism, national and local governance and the people’s democratic demands at different places and eras. Examples include changes in national and local government during the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, the modern Scottish and Welsh parliaments and recent English ‘devolution’.
The 2024 general election highlighted a desire for change but also undemocratic features of the first-past-the-post electoral system. Despite relief that Labour won, we also know Labour’s huge number of MPs does not reflect the proportion of votes they received or full public opinion.
Significant numbers of people voted for the Conservatives and Reform UK. Others voted for Greens or independents. But the smaller parties gained far less seats than they deserve proportionally. The Communist Party supports proportional representation as a fundamental democratic principle.
Pamphlets, books and concepts of use
Several Communist Party and Manifesto Press publications cover key topics such as the development of capitalism, national and local government and democratic demands. They include discussions of periods when workers, trade unions, communities, councils and others have formed broad alliances to challenge monopoly capitalism and seek significant new powers. Important examples include the London borough of Poplar in the 1920s and Scotland in the 1970s. Today, similar broad anti-monopoly alliances are needed, calling for new arrangement to tackle capitalism at local, regional and national levels.
These pamphlets and books include:
- The Party’s pamphlet, Johnson’s Post-EU Britain or Progressive Federalism? by John Foster.
- Other John Foster pamphlets and books such as Nations and Working Class Unity in Britain.
- The BRS, which includes content on progressive federalism.
- Peter Latham’s book, The State and Local Government, published by Manifesto Press in 2011.
These publications show how England, Scotland and Wales all have histories of democratic movements and of radical rebellion by working people and their allies. No single nation or society is innately radical or conservative; circumstances change over time and reflect competing and contradictory forces and trends. The above publications also show how national and local governance has been developed under capitalism to protect power, wealth and the status quo. Thus, popular democratic rights and economic concessions have had to be fought-for – they are never willingly granted.
Scottish rebellions and alliances
John Foster has often highlighted the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders (UCS) work-in of the early 1970s in Scotland. This was also the focus of his book with Charles Woolfson, The Politics of the UCS Work-In, published by Lawrence & Wishart; but the struggle also featured in his article about popular fronts and anti-monopoly alliances in CR112.
During the work-in, Communist shop stewards led a movement of occupation ‘work-ins’, rather than strikes, against the proposed closure of four yards on the upper River Clyde by the Conservative government under Edward Heath.
In effect, the government’s intention was to create surplus labour in Scotland that would then be available for the movement of new car manufacturing plants and other multinational firms to the fringes of Britain, to restructure the British economy ahead of joining the EU.
However, the UCS work-in raised fundamental questions about the right to work, and economic and democratic decision-making in Scotland and Britain. It also led to the convening of a Scottish Assembly with trade unions, the Scottish TUC, councils, churches and chambers of commerce participating. Importantly, small and medium-sized Scottish businesses were involved: many of them supplied shipyards or were linked to Clydeside communities reliant on shipyard employment.
The threat to Scottish businesses and the regional economy by Westminster government policies and global capitalism was exposed. This drove a wedge between the Scottish business community and the Conservative Party. Aspirations for a Scottish parliament, with powers of economic intervention, were raised too.
This type of alliance had a major impact on Scotland, but also England and Wales, with over 100 occupations and similar demands during the early 1970s. But later came right-wing reaction from the Conservatives, with the Thatcher governments of the 1980s and ’90s and their ongoing legacy. However, as John Foster argues, similar types of mass anti-monopoly alliance are needed today.
Britain’s Road to Socialism and progressive federalism
The BRS identifies how capitalist monopoly corporations and their state systems can be replaced by state power in the interests of the working class and its allies. It is described as a living, developing programme to be constantly tested and reassessed. It is a guide to action.
In my view, everything I discuss in this feature is in keeping with the purpose and spirit of the BRS. The concept of progressive federalism is explored on pp 55-6. The programme states:
“It is essential for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh National Assembly to have the full economic, legislative and financial powers necessary to protect and develop the economic, social and cultural interests of their peoples. Such powers are particularly important for the Scottish and Welsh governments to intervene decisively in the economy, to exercise popular sovereignty over monopoly and market forces.”
Regarding progressive federalism, the BRS states that it should
“aid and not hinder any attempt to shift the balance of power in favour of the majority and enable working people and their allies to exercise increasing control over the allocation of resources at federal, national and regional level. Its institutions must be able to respond to the democratic demands of an anti-monopoly alliance, expressed through political parties, to shift wealth and power away from monopoly control. A British federal parliament, elected through STV [single transferrable vote] in multi-member constituencies, would have jurisdiction over foreign affairs, defence, macro-economic policy and national insurance, the power to raise taxes on wealth and income, and the responsibility to redistribute income among the nations and regions on the basis of social need. National parliaments in Scotland, Wales and England, together with English regional assemblies, should be elected on the same basis, with powers to raise revenue and specifically to advance democratic control through state investment and public procurement. A federal upper chamber [to replace the House of Lords] elected by the national parliaments and regional assemblies should have responsibility for upholding national and regional rights and revising all legislation.”
Personally, I am not sure that Party has acknowledged more recent mass events in Scotland around the 2014 independence referendum, such as rallies, debates, writing and culture over years? Some commentators elsewhere have described those years as a ‘democratic tsunami’ across Scotland.
While the SNP has suffered losses and controversy recently, I think Scottish independence will remain a significant topic. If Labour fails to deliver, the SNP could see a revival.
Public debates about power, democracy and the modern needs of nations are happening elsewhere too. The Welsh Parliament has moved to increase the number of elected members – describing it as investing in democracy. In Ireland, there have been citizens’ assemblies to consider constitutional issues; Sinn Fein has backed regional events with the Commission on the Future of Ireland. In the past, the concept of creating a new federal Ireland based on its historic provinces was put forward under the ‘Nua Eire’ idea.
However, apart from an abortive referendum over a North East Regional Assembly, England has not had any other similar referenda, debates or big conversations. The Brexit referendum had some mass elements but it was initiated by the right and powerful. There has never been a lengthy, popular conversation in England to fully explore its needs, aspirations and options; the left should advocate it.
PCE members have held meetings in Manchester, Edinburgh and London, exploring national and regional arrangements between Spain, Catalonia and the Basque country. Their attempts to formulate new democratic and governance arrangements for the Iberian peninsula are similar in some ways to the proposals from our own Progressive Federalism Commission. Their informal ideas include a ‘pluri-national’ governance system and establishing a republic. Environmental questions, the loss of young people and the impact of mass tourism are also being looked at.
English governance, capitalism and rebellions
Peter Latham’s book is another fascinating read. Its subtitle is ‘Towards a new basis for local democracy and the defeat of big business control’.
It details key periods of national and local governance, capitalist growth and democratic rebellions with plenty of detail about England. It shatters any myths that England is naturally conservative. It is important that communists in England know about English radical and democratic events and progressive alliances of the past.
The book looks at historic events including: the 1381 Peasants’ Revolt; the emergence of banking; creation of early boroughs, shires and counties in the 1600s; the creation of the Houses of Lords and Commons; the industrial revolution; the forming of modern councils; and people’s demands for democracy through the 1700s, 1800s and 1900s. It includes Victorian-era rebellions in Oldham, Lancashire.
Later in 1921, councillors in Poplar, in east London, challenged government arrangements for poor relief and argued that wealthier areas, such as Westminster, should contribute to poorer areas. They refused to pay council funds to outside organisations such as the London County Council and the Metropolitan Police. They said their priorities should be the poor. Poplar’s struggle was for reforms. But revolutionaries supported it.
Poplar councillors were jailed, leading to huge protests and conflicts. Government restrictions and surcharges were imposed against councillors for their defiance. However, the surcharges were later rescinded in 1924 by the first Labour government.
Later, during the 1920s and ’30s, more government action was taken against local rebellions against the Poor Law, in West Ham, Chester-le-Street, Bedwelty and Rotherham. However, local council roles and powers grew in other ways during the 1930s. This included building council houses and providing gas, electricity, transport, telephone systems, docks and entertainment. In that era, over 40% of all government expenditure was by local government.
Post-war centralisation by Westminster
Over several decades after the Second World War, local councils lost many responsibilities. Labour councils’ roles in housing, education and social care became a target of 1950s Conservative governments. Then in 1963 the Greater London Council was created, followed by local council changes in England and Wales, then Scotland, in the early 1970s. In England, new metropolitan councils were created in the West Midlands, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear. Elsewhere, new two-tier shires with county and district councils were established.
In general, council areas were made larger. Conservative politicians saw this as more efficient and also as a way of weakening Labour influence in urban areas, as Peter Latham writes.
This era also saw UK government policies to restructure British industry to compete with major US companies including mergers and using regional unemployment and inequalities to reduce wage pressures, as illustrated with the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders case.
The 1970s and ’80s saw increased financial control of local government by Westminster, though there were rebellions by councillors in Clay Cross, Derbyshire, in the 1970s and then Lambeth and Liverpool in the 1980s. Like Poplar many years earlier, central government powers were used against them, including court action, surcharges and councillors being banned from elected office.
Fewer councillors, falling democratic representation
Peter Latham states that the number of councils fell from over 1,000 before the 1974 reforms to 441 by around 1998 – a reduction of over 70 per cent. The average population served by each council rose from 29,000 to 128,000. The number of elected councillors fell by one third.
As a result, people in England, Wales and Scotland now have the lowest levels of local democratic representation in western Europe. Councillors have larger electorates and increased workloads. This trend has continued under Labour and Conservative governments with council shake-ups since the 1990s and up to the present day.
For example, North Yorkshire now has just one unitary council covering a huge geographic area and a population of over 600,000 people. Seven former district councils created in 1974 under the old two-tier county and district system were scrapped in 2023. Similarly, Cumbria County Council and six lower-level district councils below it were scrapped in 2023. They were replaced with two unitary authorities. Somerset County Council was also scrapped in 2023.
There may be arguments about efficiency, duplication, overlapping roles and bureaucracy. But our focus should be on accessibility and participation in democracy, public services and facilities, and democratic powers of economic intervention, taxation and planning.
The Cameron-Clegg era and austerity
Moving to much more recent periods, the book details how Conservative and New Labour governments enacted the penetration of the public sector by private businesses, the impact of the financial crisis of 2007-8 and the early subsequent years of austerity. Published in 2011, it chronicles the then direction of travel by the Conservative-Lib-Dem coalition government under David Cameron and Nick Clegg. That austerity has been continued by subsequent governments and has harmed our society in so many ways. It’s a startling read about how we got to where we are today.
Latham highlights early privatisation of local council services such as street cleaning and bin collections, seen as ‘low hanging fruit’ which the public perhaps felt was uncontroversial. But privatisation, outsourcing, tendering and all the rest grew hugely. Opportunities for private penetration of public services, assets and infrastructures were so great that overseas firms bid for them. But today, public services or assets which the public feel strongly about, such as care homes, health services, water and gas, have been impacted too. And the Environment Agency has been starved of finance, hitting projects such as flood defences.
Overall, Peter Latham says Britain has become a low skill, low wage, low growth and low investment economy.
Socialist decentralisation and recommendations
Peter Latham looks at alternative socialist models of decentralisation in China, Venezuela, Cuba, Kerala in India and Porto Alegre in Brazil. These have resulted in material life improvements for people and enhanced participation in decision making systems. He also considers tax and wealth distribution in Britain, and alternative tax arrangements to the current council tax and business rates (national non-domestic rates). These include the combination of a land value tax, which has been tested in Glasgow and also advocated by Andy Burnham in the past, combined with progressive taxation of income and wealth.
His recommendations include:
- Enhanced council committee systems to allow all councillors to influence policy.
- More councils, covering smaller areas.
- Moving away from elite mayors and cabinets. Theses structures (and arguably today’s regional combined authority models) reflect business models for swift decisions rather than democratic models. Also, concentration of power, especially with mayors, increases risks of corruption which has been a major problem in the United States.
- Proportional representation using the single transferrable vote for all elections
- Direct provision of local services by councils. Currently councils are among many organisations providing services
- Ending all privatisation, profiteering and marketisation of local and central government
- Ending the City of London Corporation which is undemocratic and archaic. It is effectively a tax haven established centuries ago. It should be restructured as a London borough.
From a Marxist perspective, Latham also looks at theories of the state and local government and how governance systems are never neutral. He considers some ideas of Antonio Gramsci, the Italian communist leader imprisoned by Mussolini, and famed for his Prison Notebooks. These ideas include consideration of the roles and balance of coercion and consent in politics and change.
Latham considers whether socialism can be built before or after working-class influence or power is asserted? He suggests that the use of force, or seizure of power, can be insufficient to build socialism. It can create reactions, backlashes and counter-revolutions. Genuine popular support is needed – consent – to sustain change.
Perhaps popular anti-monopoly alliances and greater left influence in local and regional affairs can shape public consent and enhance democratic structures and organisations, networks and capacity to counter reaction?
Given the above, what local and regional policies and democratic arrangements would the Communist Party propose and enact if it gained power? How could the left in general better engage with and consult the public? How can popular consent be achieved and retained over time?
Democracy and consent should be key considerations for the left. Gaining power and popular consent is one challenge. Keeping power and popular consent is another. How would the left nurture and retain popular support? Can accessible, popular democratic decision-making processes lessen the likelihood of right-wing popularist revivals or establishment reaction?
There may be key periods or events in future when power is in the balance, as forces of reaction and progress compete. These could be described as periods of ‘dual power’. In such circumstances, having popular consent combined with credible local, regional and national democratic systems and mandates may be pivotal. Establishing real local, regional and national democracy is arguably essential in achieving this: then nations and regions can consider how to progress towards socialism?
England’s patchy ‘devolution’ and democratic deficits
With the Progressive Federalism Commission, I have highlighted the inconsistent regional ‘devolution’ deals in England, and England’s democratic deficits compared with Scotland and Wales. England has no elected regional assemblies outside London, no votes for 16-year-olds and no proportional representation in any elections.
So-called devolution has been erratic and changed through different eras, such as the Northern Powerhouse, ‘levelling-up’, freeports, combined authorities, town deals, county deals, localism and the ‘Big Society’ (remember that?).
A key feature of modern Conservative-agreed English regional devolution boards and combined authorities is the small number of elected representatives. English regional combined authority boards typically have one council leader from each borough in the region and one directly-elected regional mayor (such as Andy Burnham or Ben Houchen). Outside London, there are no directly-elected regional councillors or assembly members.
London has the London Assembly where voters have three votes – one for the mayor, one for their constituency and one from a London-wide list.
Examples of very different regional English devolution deals are illustrated in the North East and the North West. In the Tees Valley, Conservative Mayor Ben Houchen has a focus on major regeneration, economic growth and infrastructure projects. In Greater Manchester, Labour Mayor Andy Burnham is associated with trams and new regulated bus services.
There are devolution deals and discussions across the country. Crucially, the public has hardly been involved in any of these. English devolution has been a conversation between elite regional and national politicians and business representatives. Furthermore, existing local democratic systems are changing with little public awareness. Elected councillors have been increasingly sidelined by elite combined regional authorities, ‘levelling-up’ bids and town boards being required by Westminster to include non-elected people, in particular business representatives.
The left needs to understand the range of ‘devolution’ deals, in order to engage with them, critique them and offer alternatives. The variations and details of each deal can affect public engagement, expectations, support or opposition.
While we may have overall criticisms of all devolution deals and Westminster government policy, we also need to understand the different circumstances and why public opinion may vary. Hopefully, this will assist the Communist Party to respond with detailed, credible alternatives and, ultimately, influence the wider progressive movement and society at large.
Other members of the Progressive Federalism Commission are considering topics including trade unions and devolution, developments in Scotland and Wales, the future of Cornwall, and reform of local government and public services. They have stressed that through time people have had to fight for democratic rights and systems. That remains the case today.
The limited role of Greater Manchester’s regional mayor
In Greater Manchester, the Combined Authority covers 10 boroughs and 2.8 million people. Its directly elected mayor, Andy Burnham, has been associated with re-regulating bus services, trying to tackle homelessness and challenging the government’s pandemic lockdown arrangements. His official remit includes police, fire and planning responsibilities but not the economy and business.
The economy and business portfolio at Greater Manchester Combined Authority is with Councillor Bev Craig, the Labour leader of Manchester City Council. So it is arguably Manchester City Council, not Burnham or the other 9 Greater Manchester council leaders on the combined authority, which dominates economic debates.
In my view, it’s hard to think of one other political leader in any other Greater Manchester borough who has ever challenged the consensus idea that everyone benefits from Manchester’s economic success. Yet, various boroughs, such as Oldham, Rochdale and Bolton, have serious problems.
Despite the national media portraying Andy Burnham as ‘king of the North’, I would argue that although his public support is generally high, it can also be superficial. It is based on factors such as his affable personality, fame from being a former MP and mainly being associated with uncontentious issues, such as helping rough sleepers on the streets.
But public support is variable. Unpopular issues, such as plans to introduce Greater Manchester motorway tolls or clean air zones, have led to some public backlashes and nervousness from Burnham or other leaders. Similar backlashes were seen in London too with Sadiq Khan and the ULEZ scheme.
Environmental and transport needs are potentially vulnerable to capture by the far right. Proposals need to be well considered and to be seen as fair. Otherwise, devolution, councils and mayors can be portrayed as enforcers, toll-collectors and bureaucrats rather than enablers of positive change.
In the wider North West, despite Manchester’s image as a progressive, cooperative city-region, there have been some complaints about a lack of public consultation by Greater Manchester leaders with neighbouring regions and authorities, such as in Lancashire.
There are arguably some good elements of devolution too. Greater Manchester trams are popular and important. And health professionals in the NHS and council-owned leisure centres say devolution has resulted in closer work between doctors, hospitals and the leisure sector, improving people’s health and physical activity, and patients’ preparation for and recovery from hospital surgery or other major medical treatments.
With Liverpool City Region Mayor Steve Rotheram, Burnham has written a book, Head North, A Rallying Cry For A More Equal Britain. Their recommendations include a written constitution, reform of the voting system, removal of the whip in party discipline, a senate for nations and regions, full devolution, a Grenfell Tower law, a Hillsborough law and net-zero activity to re-industrialise the North.
Some critics say it is cliche-ridden and superficial. Indeed, quite a lot of it is biography and anecdotes. But its criticism of Westminster politics, its general call for change and the high profiles of its authors could arguably be used for further activities, debate and progress.
Tees Valley – big economic interventions
In north-east England, the Tees Valley Combined Authority was launched in 2016. It represents five boroughs of Middlesbrough, Darlington, Stockton on Tees, Hartlepool and Redcar & Cleveland, with a population of around 700,000.
Previously, Teesside had been without a single region-wide authority since 1996, when the old Cleveland County Council was abolished. Earlier, the short-lived Teesside County Borough operated there in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The region needed a regional body for a co-ordinated regional overview, rather than individual smaller boroughs acting alone. But it also needed regional democratic representation and accountability through directly-elected members. But that was not included under Conservative government terms, as with other combined authorities.
Tees Valley Conservative mayor Ben Houchen was first elected in 2017 then re-elected in 2021 and 2024. He is closely associated with major economic, regeneration and infrastructure interventions. These have included buying Teesside Airport near Darlington for £40m and redeveloping the former Redcar steelworks site, including creating a Freeport. Freeports have been established elsewhere too, such as in the Liverpool City Region.
For clarity, this is not an endorsement of Ben Houchen. His projects have captured the public desire for big economic intervention, which explains his popularity. But the processes involved have been controversial.
In the past, Teesside Airport was threatened with closure and there were claims that a northern property developer, Peel Group, wanted to build housing there. After years of controversy, Houchen bought the airport with public money, which has since seen airlines and services returning, and investment in facilities such as freight.
At the former Redcar steelworks site, the new Teesworks industrial site is being developed. This is described as the UK’s largest industrial zone at 4,500 acres. It is located next to the North Sea and River Tees estuary with ports, railways and roads. Plans include establishing a mix of industries including carbon capture, low carbon and green energy developments such as wind turbine manufacturing.
Deals with local land developers and regeneration contractors have raised accusations of corruption, poor governance and a lack of transparency against Houchen and of poor scrutiny at the combined authority, both of which have been strongly denied. Questions have also been raised about the balance between private and public sector risks and rewards, and there have been accusations of huge gains for developers with minimum private investment.
There has been serious environmental controversy too. Dredging of the River Tees near Teesworks has been blamed by some for the deaths of thousands of crabs and other crustaceans along the north-east coast. The issue raised alarm, debate and some protests, by groups including Extinction Rebellion and another called Teesside Resistance. In the 2024 mayoral election campaign, Teesside Resistance, which had links to a fishermen’s collective, ran a ‘Bin Ben’ campaign.
An investigation by government agency DEFRA found, that the cause of the crab deaths was an algal bloom. This has been disputed: levels of chemicals found in dead crabs in the north-east were reportedly much higher than in crabs from other coasts around England. DEFRA closed its investigations, saying the North Sea problem was over and the crustaceans had returned.
In the past, Houchen has criticised Conservative Party leadership contestants for failing to discuss regional policy and levelling-up. He was re-elected in May, promising to invest £1 bn in transport infrastructure. He is associated with current upgrades of Middlesbrough and Darlington railway stations, and improvements to others. He is also talking about hospital upgrades.
In contrast, the Labour Party’s Tees Valley mayoral campaign was criticised as lacklustre. The candidate, Chris McEwan, had a manifesto including free car parking in town centres, guaranteed skills and employment reviews for people of certain ages, CCTV cameras and better street lighting to tackle crime.
And the Green Party Tees Valley mayor candidate pulled out, saying she did not want to split the anti-Houchen vote. A strong Green campaign could have presented some awkward environmental questions for Ben Houchen and Freeports across the country.
Houchen has survived controversy and scrutiny from local and national media, including Private Eye and the Financial Times. Middlesbrough and Stockton Labour MPs and the chairman of Middlesbrough Football Club. His vote was down this year but the big economic projects he is linked to still command a lot of interest.
New industries earmarked for the River Tees Freeport area include wind turbines. So, environmental issues, regeneration and employment are all entwined on Teesside – from fishermen’s jobs to new green energy jobs. These many themes show the scale and complexity of some devolution deals and the potential multiple considerations for radical politics and alliances.
Other regions have experienced controversies too, such as in South Yorkshire with the closure of Doncaster Sheffield Airport, where the Peel Group has also been involved. Trade unions, civic leaders and the public have protested about closure threat. Over 70,000 people signed a petition, and Ben Houchen also spoke out, criticising Peel too. This was a Conservative regional mayor criticising a major northern business. This saga illustrates many questions, including defending regional economic assets and local economies, and tackling monopolies in airport, airline or property sectors.
How can the left engage in situations like these? What will the new Labour government do regarding existing devolution deals with arguably unresolved democratic, financial and environmental controversies? There are potential alliances in these complex situations – including with the public, MPs, councillors, political parties, local businesses and environmental groups.
Other regions and political opportunities
Across the country, there are many examples of scenarios where the Communist Party could get involved. Housing, town and country planning system and public influence in the planning system are key areas for the new Labour government. This could present opportunities to connect, build alliances and highlight the pros, cons and alternatives.
Transport is another key need. In the North, better and new rail links are wanted in Yorkshire (Bradford), Lancashire (Morecambe, Lancaster, Pendle, Burnley and Hyndburn), Merseyside (Skelmersdale) and the North East (Teesside, County Durham, Sunderland and Washington). Port and harbour infrastructure, freeports, governance, accountability, investment and environmental issues are topics on Teesside, Merseyside and, to a lesser degree, Glasson near Lancaster.
Airport ownership, vulnerability and monopolies are issues in Teesside, South Yorkshire and Blackpool. Privatised water, energy and utilities are issues everywhere. But there are also local debates and opportunities for new green energy and council-owned green energy generation.
County and district council restructures and public access to democracy and services are topical in North Yorkshire, Lancashire and what was Cumbria.
Regarding some positives, local economy development projects, local supply chains, local ownership, wealth retention, co-operative models, in-sourcing of council staff and services, and community wealth-building projects are emerging. Councils are often key partners in these. These are potential alternatives to outsourcing, privatisation, monopolies and big-city trickle-down wealth theories.
The TUC and devolution
Trade unions have historically played key roles in democratic calls for powers and institutions, in England, Scotland and Wales. In recent times, the TUC has published some reports on devolution considerations. It wants devolution deals to support working people, reduce inequalities and deliver quality public services. Its devolution principles include:
1. Solidarity between regions and nations of Britain.
2: Tripartite working in devolved authorities, so workers’ interests are regarded with at least equal weighting to employers.
3: That devolution should support all workers and deliver decent work, including through trade union recognition and collective bargaining in any new devolved authority.
Furthermore, the TUC advocates ‘co-production’ in devolution – where citizens, trade unions, business, politicians and officials work together to design and deliver local development and industrial strategies.
Regional voices reduced
Capitalist centralisation, monopolisation and globalisation harms diversity, communities and human culture at all levels. In Britain, local, regional and national media and cultural infrastructure have been cut financially, merged, centralised and restructured in recent decades. We have fewer regional voices.
Examples are widespread. In journalism, ITV in particular has lost much of its regional identity, content and structure, while local radio is increasingly owned by major national and international media companies with minimum local identity and production.
Theatre, arts centres, music venues, libraries, museums and galleries have all suffered. Arts councils have had financial cuts – the recent fight to save Oldham Coliseum theatre was a consequence.
Furthermore, we have seen commercialisation and privatisation of public spaces, parks and squares, sports, leisure facilities and football clubs. The public realm, high streets, villages, towns and cities, buildings, architecture and amenities need investment for people.
Labour’s new Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Lisa Nandy MP has already spoken about football clubs in her early days in the post. There are plenty of other pressing needs too. She has written a book, All In, How We Build a Country that Works. Time will tell.
Progressive federalism should consider all this. Politics is everything to do with people.
If the public really does value local, regional and national life, in all its diversity, which I don’t doubt, they need to understand how capitalism undermines it. We need to communicate how new politics can support what people really value.
What next? Thoughts for the Communist Party
Policies
Does the Party need to develop more-detailed policies for what it advocates in a progressive, federal Britain? For example: democratic decision-making systems and institutions; tax and economic measures; powers and relationships for local, regional and national governance?
Can some existing institutions be reformed? Should some be scrapped?
Can physical, in-person democracy and decision-making be complemented by technology? Could online and remote participation enhance democracy?
Can local and regional geographic experiences of capitalism and people’s individual and collective geographic and civic identities be better used to unite people and end divisive identity politics? Can progressive politics be better aligned to local and regional English identities, adding a socialist/Marxist understanding?
Party visibility and connections
Branches must be visible. Every branch should have a regular public presence on social media, providing, as a minimum, local contact info, shares of local and national news and information, including central Party and Morning Star posts.
Every branch should also engage somehow with local news media, such as by sending letters to newspapers and engaging constructively with website comments. Party branches and individual members should become better informed on local and regional issues on their doorsteps.
The Morning Star should be asked to join the free Local Democracy Reporting Service news service. This provides council-focused news reports free of charge to media across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It includes the BBC, ITV and local and national newspapers. The Morning Star could designate a regular feature to local democracy news. The Service is free to all media including small publishers. It is an important new development following massive news media and technology changes.
Branches, probably using individual members, should consider engaging with local councillors and council meetings for public debate, eg taking petitions on local affairs to council meetings. The public have formal rights to raise questions at councils, and full council meetings are good opportunities. Such approaches can, in turn, appear in local news media, raising wider awareness. Groups such as tenants’ unions, residents’ groups and environmental campaigners use these rights. Council meetings are local democratic chambers.
Within trade unions and trades councils, members should promote discussion of devolution and raise awareness of topics.
Culture matters
Culture and recreation can articulate many issues and aspirations. Culture in the broadest sense makes up key parts of civic life where we can engage – events, discussions, festivals, journalism, literature, songs and music, news media, social media, arts, language and dialect, food and drink, pubs and clubs, gardening, allotments, parks and playing fields, the built environment, conservation, statues and memorials, local history, outdoor culture, leisure centres, gyms, sport and games.
Mainstream political links
Labour is in office. Are there people, ideas, events or campaigns that the left should consider? Politicians such as Andy Burnham, Steve Rotheram, Lisa Nandy and Preston Council’s Matthew Brown have all written books on local and regional issues. Maybe they would be willing to join a debate or event? Perhaps Morning Star readers’ groups could be asked to promote such events?
Leave a reply