The solution to Britain's productivity problem? Bulldoze our second tier cities
Article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...tivity-problem-bulldoze-second-tier/#comments
Jeremy Warner
Response:
Brian Harrison 25 Nov 2017 2:25PM
NO, Mr Warner, you are part of the Westminster village, therefore part of the problem, and you are looking down the wrong end of the telescope. The problem is Westminster. It's dysfunctional.
First, the Westminster FPTP 2 party system, far from giving strong government, is inherently unstable when is comes to anything that requires long term constancy of purpose - E.G. infrastructure investment and the organisation of basic services.
Marginal seats are in a minority as are the number of swing voters, so party discipline and the management of the news cycle is necessary for victory. There must be one narrative and little dissent. This gives the extreme, or ideological, wings of the major parties disproportionate influence. These theory-driven hardliners would be separate parties in a multi party system (cf Gert Wilders in Holland or AfD and Die Linke in Germany). In a multi party system the more central parties work with different minor parties in coalitions and there is constancy of purpose on the organisation of basic services and the role of the state. By contrast anything run by Westminster is liable to endless re-organisations and swings - cf the UK's health and educational systems.
Brexit itself, an off the cuff, unplanned for result with complex economic ramifications, is classic Westminster. (Similarly Westminster may, or may not, one day make decisions that drive the Scots to vote for Independence.) This weakness is made worse by struggling newspapers desperate for "stories".
Second the UK's unwritten constitution has resulted in over centralised* government. Prime Ministers are able, for short term party advantage, to make long term radical change. The temptation to suppress alternative power bases is overwhelming - (what would Mrs May now give to deprive George Osborne of his platform at the Evening Standard?). Between them the 2 most successful Westminster politicians of recent times, Mrs Thatcher and Mr Blair**, emasculated local Government. Unable to raise significant taxes or alter tax rates without Westminster's agreement, local government is shackled to whatever theory is currently in vogue at Westminster. Yet, Westminster is incapable*** of having the local knowledge or interest to create, define or lead the kind of projects needed to revitalise a particular town or region. Hence, as one example, the nonsense of HS2 when the rail systems of the North require massive investment. The great Victorian age of infrastructure investment from schools to housing to sewers was local and municipal.
(* As an aside, the more power is concentrated the more corrupted it becomes - cf Westminster's "revolving door")
{** Because of pressure from the EU, Labour under Mr Blair created the regional governments of Scotland & Wales, while doing its best to ensure that they would be mere debating shops for the branch offices of Westminster parties}
(*** The most important thing in the 1974 suppressed McCrone report was not that it said how rich and independent, oil rich Scotland would be (very), but it clearly pointed out that centrally directed regional policies can never work).
Third, the one consistent, accidental and never on the manifesto, policy of all Westminster governments is to increase the concentration of power in the SE of England.
By their nature (cf the maths of connectedness) large successful hubs will always grow. London has a long history as a successful hub, and, in the past, having the government of a global empire in London made sense. Now it is a global financial centre, close to the economic heartlands of Europe. For the UK to have so great a financial centre in the same city as the seat of over centralised government, plus all the media, throttles a medium sized nation state. To continually improve infrastructure in, and connections to, the SE of England puts the hub on steroids.
Fourth, the UK has a great history within living memory, as an Empire and as one of the victors of a global war. An ageing but still numerous generation finds it hard to admit that there is much wrong either with the shape of their democracy, or with their entitled sense of "Britain's" place in the world. Despite decades of steadily accumulating evidence.
Imagine if the UK were a business and outside advice were to be asked? The recommendation would likely be radical structural reform to generate plurality of power, something along the lines of:
1) give Westminster and its flummery over to the tourists,
2) move the HOC to Manchester, elect its MPs with PR,
3) abolish / reform / relocate the unelected 2nd house,
4) Put real governmental tax and legislative powers in the hands of regional and local authorities.
Neither Westminster, its home counties village, the London media nor the rich will do this: radical change comes from the margins.