As so often, Peter Mannion said it best. Goodbye, Humza Yousaf. The outgoing First Minister combines the personal inanity of someone who had never had a career outside of politics and the intellectual constipation baked into Scottish nationalism with an inability to grasp basic political realities so poor that it makes Liz Truss look like Otto von Bismarck. He will not be missed.
His brief footnote of a premiership will be remembered for little more than his own inadequacy, the cumulative failures of 17 years of SNP rule, and his colleagues’ unfortunate predilection for being arrested. Many readers will share my quiet satisfaction in watching the nationalists come plummeting down to Earth after their failures over education, drug deaths, gender woo-woo, et al.
Nonetheless, they will have also noticed Yousaf has rudely chosen to quit in the same week as the local elections. Voters across parts of England and Wales will be quaking in excitement at their coming opportunity to vote for councils, mayors, and police and crime commissioners. Rishi Sunak will be crossing his fingers for Andy Street, Ben Houchen, and hundreds of councillors.
With the wisdom of the late P. J. O’Rourke ringing in my ears, I approach these votes with some trepidation, not least due to their ability to ruin my summer. Yet coming in tandem with Yousaf’s travails, they do show up our confusing system of governance. Devolution, localism, endless tinkering: Britain’s governance is a bizarre patchwork quilt, from parliaments to parishes.
Our former Editor once described our constitutional order as “an ancient country house, constructed over time, frequently if casually renovated, run up in many different styles – and sprawling over territory it has gradually assimilated”. No four parts of the United Kingdom are governed alike. Northern Ireland has had a Parliament since 1921; Wales, technically, since 2020.
He contrasted our unwritten constitution with the “Bauhausian mansions” of other countries: rationally “designed as a single whole” as opposed to our melange of devolved parliaments, local and county councils, metro mayors, and more. Who do I call when I want to speak to London? For foreign onlookers, it isn’t entirely clear. Tom McTague advocates for a Napoleon to clear up this mess.
Without a single moment of creation, our administrative geography is the cumulative result of centuries of tinkering dating back to the Middle Ages. The last century has seen a quest for perfectionism: Heathite butchering of the counties, a Thatcherite war on councils, Blairite enthusiasm for assemblies, and the Cameroonian (and Osbornite) faith in localism.
Yet despite its myriad layers, local government remains remarkably weak. The Economist highlights that in Britain, according to the OECD, only 5 per cent of taxes are raised locally. Power is more centralised than in comparable countries. Local responsibilities and funding are decoupled. Devolution to Scotland and Wales hasn’t changed that, only creating fiefdoms in Edinburgh and Cardiff.
Unfortunately, even if central government has been enthusiastic about handing funding control to local governments, it has loaded an ever-growing number of duties onto its local equivalent and remained parsimonious in ensuring they can be met. Blame mismanagement, austerity, or an aging population: children’s services and adult social care will bankrupt more and more councils.
Leaving such duties helps for ministers wanting a quiet life. But the countervailing tendency, for Tories, a Thatcherite distrust of local government: a deep-routed (and well-founded) concerns about ‘loony leftist’ councils that can’t be trusted. Centralisation at least means standardisation, the avoidance of municipal socialism, and Ken Livingstone being employed.
Yet the Thatcherite tendency towards centralisation was at odds with the rest of her message. Decoupling funding from responsibility enables poor governance and blunts accountability. For a while, Tories understood this tension, and addressed it, aided by one of our columnists. More control over your money should be matched by more control over who spends your taxes.
But even if recent governments have seen the most decentralisation since the war, powers of funding and the shape of local governance remain routed in Whitehall. Not to decry Street and Houchen in their election weeks, but, for all their achievements, they have been acting within limited boundaries. One suspects their powers would make many foreign mayors blush.
Which is a shame. Not only because both men are eloquent local champions, but because local government provides so many opportunities for improving Britain. Local leaders can work in hock with local businesses, pilot new services, and challenge our national imbalances. Naturally, voices for our regions and municipalities know better than Whitehall what ‘levelling-up’ requires.
Whatever Keir Starmer’s current warm words, one suspects his devolutionary plans won’t survive contact with government long. Not only because they are in tension with other parts of his agenda, but because, like Cameron, he will become much less keen on decentralisation once ensconced in Whitehall. What incentive does he have to create more Sadiq Khans and Andy Burnhams?
Even so, and whatever the colours of the local government quilt after Thursday, a reform agenda presents itself. Layers of government need clear responsibilities, routes of accountability, and funding schemes. We don’t need a Napoleon, but an Alexander, willing to cut the Gordian knot. Render unto Whitehall what is Whitehall’s, and unto the parish council…
Rationalising layers of government could come alongside abolishing the nationalist fiefdoms – killing the Scottish and Welsh ‘Parliaments’ by empowering the communities beneath them. Our public services could also achieve something approaching sustainability once their funding streams are clear. We could give back to voters a sense of the power of local government.
The cases of Street and Houchen both show that if local government is taken more seriously, it can attract serious people. If future administration showed the same enthusiasm for fixing Britain’s administrative and political geography as those two mayors do for their areas, devolutionary bodies might attract more leaders of their calibre, and fewer Humza Yousafs. We live in hope.