Skip to main content
Category

Politics

Miles Bassett: Tory Mayor Candidate Susan Hall should champion Heathrow

By Centre Write, Politics, Transport

It’s become fashionable in the Conservative party over the last few years to view London as an afterthought. However, the party is forgetting what an asset London is to the country as one of the most globally connected places on Earth. This connectivity, however, is not a given and will quickly slip away without the right infrastructure in place to handle the international passage of millions of Londoners. This infrastructure, of course, is air capacity.

When Boris Johnson was London Mayor in 2011, he raised the fear that without an increase in airport capacity, London would become a destination on the end of a branch line” – and he was absolutely right. Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt, he warned, all had at least twice as many runways to Heathrow’s two, and were thus primed to handle extra traffic to developing economies – like China and India. Twelve years later, the situation hasn’t changed. London’s air passenger capacity has not increased, so it’s time Conservative Mayoral candidates beat the drum for expansion at Heathrow and put London on the mainline, not the branch line.

It’s easy for London’s elected representatives to curl their toes at the thought of expanding Heathrow and reach for an alternative solution. Many of which were rejected by the 2015 Airports Commission, such as building the impractical Thames Estuary Airport or expanding Gatwick, who recently submitted its plans for bringing its second runway into full operation. This might seem like a tempting alternative to expanding Heathrow, but suppressed demand at Heathrow is far higher than at Gatwick. Meaning new passenger and cargo links will develop far more quickly at Heathrow than waiting for the demand to shift to elsewhere. This leaves London’s future Mayor with a simple choice; expand Heathrow or risk London’s growth.

It seems impossible for any Mayoral candidate to laud London as a successful, global city and let its economy, the size of Sweden, settle for second rate international connectivity. For instance, Heathrow only serves six destinations in Latin America, whilst Amsterdam serves 12. Building a third runway won’t just give London a fighting chance to continue to compete with other global cities in today’s challenging economic environment, but will also provide a boon for boroughs like Hounslow and Hillingdon, where Heathrow is a massive driver to the local economy. 

Just look at the evidence by trade-body Airlines UK, who found that, as of 2021, West London constituencies like Hayes & Harlington and Brentford & Isleworth were home to over 6000 and over 8000 aviation related jobs respectively. By releasing the pent-up demand at Heathrow, a Conservative Mayor could revitalise support for the Conservatives across West London, by spreading wealth and prosperity across these somewhat undervalued working-class West London boroughs. Plus, with a £61 billion boost to the UK economy over 60 years, the wealth generated from expansion will help the Conservatives to deliver on levelling-up nationwide.

There are of course plenty in London who would be more than happy to see a total reduction of flights, but if we are to remain a global city of culture, business and values, then having an extensive international travel system is paramount. London cannot be left to wither on the vine, it needs its global connections. So expanding Heathrow remains London’s only option for growth.

Miles Bassett is former Chair of Wandsworth and Merton Young Conservatives. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Ricahrd Bell]

Taylor Ross: A mental health crisis is breaking the NHS

By Centre Write, Health & Social Care, Politics

For all the clapping we did, after the pandemic, healthcare workers, who had to bear the brunt of it, showed extreme signs of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. In June and July 2020, 45% of critical care workers, including doctors and nurses, reported having symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of severe depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder.

To address this, in 2020, the government invested £15 million to set up 40 mental health service hubs for the healthcare workers who worked on the frontline during the pandemic. The Mental Health Director of the NHS, Claire Murdough stated that “it is crucial that the NHS staff working tirelessly to protect the health of the nation throughout this pandemic are given the support they deserve.” Yet the funding for those ended on March 31 of this year, placing high-risk NHS staff at even greater risk of exacerbating their mental health symptoms.

In a study done by Neil Greenberg, Professor at King’s College London, one-in-seven intensive care unit staff and one-in-five nurses expressed thoughts of suicide or self-harm. And yet data from 11 of the 40 hubs showed 2,800 staff will be left without rapid access to mental health services after March, even though the demand for the hubs has risen by 72% between October 2021 and 2022.

This discontinuation of funding has left thousands of healthcare workers without adequate access to mental health services. The mental health hubs helped reduce symptoms of depression, anxiety and PTSD and contributed to the overall wellbeing of NHS staff. Indeed, the British Psychological Society (BPS) and Association of Clinical Psychologists – UK (ACP-UK) launched the campaign, #FundNHSHubs, to encourage the government to continue funding for a minimum of one extra year to allow the hubs to keep supporting NHS staff and allow them time to find an alternative treatment.

The closing of the mental health hubs has now resulted in NHS staff being forced to go through the standard NHS mental health system, where it can take over a year to receive just the initial appointment. This could lead to NHS staff taking more sick leave and will exacerbate suicide risk and burnout. In January 2023, anxiety, depression and other psychiatric illnesses were the most reported reasons for sickness absence in the NHS. Over 520,470 full-time equivalent days were lost, and mental health-related absences rose as a percentage of all absences from 20.8% in December 2022 to 23.3% in January 2023. Indeed, research from the British Medical Journal in 2021-22 estimated £8.9 billion was spent on temporary staffing because of sickness absence. Therefore, cutting the funding to the mental health hubs is likely to be more expensive – costing as much as £213 million if the increase in mental health-related absences between 2022 and 2023 is due to the lack of mental health hubs – than funding them. More than that, the cut in funding could ultimately put staff and patient care in jeopardy.  

Access to timely mental health resources resulted in more NHS staff returning to work, effectively alleviating the strain on the healthcare worker shortage. To save money and improve the quality of service, the government should continue funding extra mental health resources for healthcare professionals. Mental health support for healthcare workers should not just be seen as a short-term solution to the effects of the pandemic, but as a necessity to ensure the continued sustainability and efficiency of the NHS and the wellbeing of its staff.

Taylor Ross is a Research Assistant at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Nicolas J Leclercq]

Thomas Nurcombe: Chinese exploitation is rife in the Caribbean – where is Britain?

By Centre Write, Foreign, Politics, Thomas Nurcombe

The Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly MP, has been on a mission to bolster ties between Britain and the Latin American and Caribbean region, visiting Jamaica, Colombia, Chile and Brazil. After meeting Jamaican Prime Minister, Andrew Holness, the Foreign Secretary stated that “the UK and Jamaica are fighting for a better future for both our great nations.”

The relationship between the Caribbean and Britain is rooted in a complex history. It has evolved from colonialism to cooperation within the Commonwealth. Currently, Jamaica is following in the footsteps of Barbados by aiming to become a Commonwealth Republic by 2025. Despite the move away from a monarchy, Cleverly must try and show that Britain still can have a positive presence in Jamaica and the wider Caribbean.

The Caribbean is no longer a region dominated by Anglo-American influence; now, China has emerged as a significant player in the area. Several Caribbean countries, including Jamaica and Barbados, have signed up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Security Minister Tom Tugendhat MP has highlighted China’s use of infrastructure investment and debt diplomacy as a means of exercising control – a strategy now evident in the Caribbean.

Claims of Chinese neo-colonialism and exploitation are not unfounded. While Chinese loans have facilitated much-needed infrastructure repairs in the region, there are concealed realities that amount to exploitation. First, contracting arrangements have been structured to favour Chinese state-owned firms, placing Caribbean contractors at a disadvantage. This has led to the domination of the construction sector in Jamaica by Chinese firms, with up to 50% of the sector under their control

Second, as part of these arrangements, a significant portion of the equipment and manpower used in infrastructure projects must be sourced from China, exempt from import duties and quotas. This gives Chinese firms a cost advantage in developing infrastructure in Jamaica, while local firms still bear the burden of paying duties for imported machinery and equipment. Consequently, China enjoys an unfair advantage, leading to accusations from Jamaican trade unions of China having “near-monopolistic” control. Fundamentally, the conditions set forth in these arrangements create a cycle where the capital provided by Beijing for infrastructure projects ultimately revolves back to China, mirroring the exploitative capital accumulation seen in the past.

Another issue of concern is that of land concessions. In Sri Lanka, when the country failed to repay a loan for the Hambantota Port, China acquired a 99-year lease on the strategically significant port, raising fears of it becoming a Chinese naval facility in the future. Similar parallels can now be drawn to the situation in Jamaica, where, as repayment for a loan for a highway spanning the island, China acquired concessions on some lands in Mammee Bay in the parish of Saint Ann; concessions that exceed the value of the loan itself.

Lastly, China’s expanding economic presence in the Caribbean has had a detrimental impact on local workers. Unemployment levels in Jamaica have remained persistently high for over a decade, and China’s infrastructure loans have exacerbated the situation. Beijing imported over a thousand workers to develop the Jamaican highway, depriving Jamaicans in desperate need of work. Locals were left with only low-paid jobs, such as clean-up work. Even where work is provided, Chinese state-owned firms frequently disregard local health and safety regulations and labour standards.

Several nations see the supposed beneficial nature of no-policy-strings-attached Chinese loans. This, coupled with developing nations’ long-standing debt obligations, entices them to seek and accept loans from Beijing. However, this Trojan Horse hides China’s mercantile interests and the exploitation those involve.

In light of these concerns, James Cleverly MP must take bold and comprehensive action to ensure that the UK upholds liberal, international values and prevents Caribbean countries from falling under China’s illiberal and exploitative influence. Merely visiting capitals without substantive action is futile. Britain must establish a rival and positive economic presence in the region, offering truly beneficial loans for infrastructure development. The loan conditions should be kept to a minimum, as imposing policy prescriptions on loans, which are often met with disdain in developing nations, would only push these countries further into the arms of Beijing.

Considering that Britain does not possess similar capital resources as China, Westminster should exert pressure on multilateral lending institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank, to reduce policy prescriptions and lower the interest rates on loans to Caribbean nations. If the West fails to provide suitable loans and investments there, we may witness more and more governments succumbing to Beijing’s influence.

Britain stands in a prime position to rebuild relations with the Commonwealth. The first step is to prevent Commonwealth Caribbean countries from being exploited by China by offering mutually beneficial loans and investments. As questions linger about Britain’s future role in the world, it should strive to be a beacon of international liberalism, providing support to those in need, promoting and safeguarding democracy, and rebuilding global institutions that prioritise liberalism, democracy and development. To achieve this, it must counter China’s exploitative presence in the Caribbean.

Thomas Nurcome is a Research Assistant at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Andy Carne]

Will Prescott: Clean air schemes can’t forget those who are disabled

By Centre Write, Energy & Environment, Law & Justice, Politics, Will Prescott

Labelled the ‘invisible killer’, air pollution causes health problems throughout people’s lifetimes and is responsible for between 26,000-38,000 deaths in England each year. Unfortunately, recent measures to tackle the problem, such as the expansion of charging clean air zones (CAZs) and low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs), have disproportionately burdened disabled people.

The upcoming expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), the London equivalent of a CAZ, to all boroughs in the city, risks leaving some disabled residents in the lurch. Intended to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions in outer London, it will force owners of non-compliant vehicles (typically post-2005 petrol cars and post-2015 diesel cars), either to upgrade their cars or be charged £12.50 per day to continue using them. For context, up to 30,000 blue badge holders drive non-compliant vehicles in the capital.

In response to concerns raised by disability groups, the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has made changes to the ULEZ, but these do not go far enough. He created a £110 million scrappage scheme, providing grants of up to £5,000 for disabled Londoners to upgrade non-compliant wheelchair-accessible vehicles, and exempted some, but not all, Blue Badge holders from paying the daily charge until 2027. 

While the ULEZ changes were welcomed by disability groups, the scrappage scheme is still not enough to cover the full cost of upgrading a vehicle, and the average wheelchair-accessible vehicle costs £30,000. While costs vary from vehicle to vehicle, the starting price for a retrofit is usually £6,000. Further, many Blue Badge holders will still have to pay the charge. 

The London scheme is not the only CAZ that insufficiently protects the disabled — Birmingham offers just £2,000 under its scrappage scheme while Bristol only entitles residents to a £1,500 grant plus a £500 loan. Bristol’s CAZ exemptions, which previously applied to Blue Badge holders, have already expired, prompting fears that many disabled residents will be “trapped in their homes”.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), many of which were introduced following the Covid-19 pandemic, are another instance where disabled people’s needs have been overlooked. Intended to reduce car dependency by incentivising walking and cycling, LTNs involve the placement of bollards, planters and cameras to get rid of ‘through’ traffic on residential streets.

Unfortunately, the speedy implementation of LTNs has created problems. The bollards, for instance, are not always wide enough to fit in the non-standard cycles that some disabled people use. Additionally, some LTNs have greatly extended the travel times for disabled residents dependent on car transport and there have been concerns about insufficient consultation before rolling out new LTNs. 

Charities and campaigners have put forward several ideas to make clean air schemes more equitable. For instance, Asthma + Lung UK has recently called for nationally consistent and centrally funded scrappage scheme for all cities introducing charging CAZs, to cover the full cost of upgrading any wheelchair-accessible vehicle would help to reduce the financial strain of compliance. Disability campaigners have also pushed for all Blue Badge holders to be granted exemptions from ULEZ charges. 

Similarly, there may be low-cost measures to make public transport more accessible to at least some of those with disabilities, thus reducing car dependency for disabled people. Allowing disabled people to take on disabled-friendly vehicles like tricycles, as is being considered in Manchester, as well as equipping busses to fit more than one wheelchair user at a time, could in theory make a real difference and prevent families from having to split up every time they make a journey. Both these proposals warrant further exploration.   

Finally, as the charity Wheels for Wellbeing has argued, some problems associated with LTNs could be overcome with better consultation to ensure that planters are spaced widely enough apart, that pavements are fully accessible for all types of cycles and the needs of car-dependent residents are accommodated. 

This piece does not dispute the potential benefits of both clean air zones and low traffic neighbourhoods both in terms of reducing air pollution and in boosting levels of physical activity. However, unless relatively small steps are taken, we risk leaving disabled Britons behind.

Will Prescott is a Researcher at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Andy Carne]

Douglas Ross: Scotland needs a skills revolution

By Centre Write, Economy & Finance, Education, Politics, Towns & Devolution

With Scotland’s ageing population and stagnating economy we need far more focus in our politics on our skills strategy, if we are to boost productivity and provide the growth of the future. Without that, we will struggle to fund good public services.

Indeed, the sluggish growth under the SNP’s watch is one of the factors behind their swingeing cuts, particularly in local services.

But far too often, when we talk about skills and education we concentrate on young people’s access to university or see the issue in terms of ensuring adults have the basic skills they need. And there is clearly more that we need to do to ensure that Scottish young people can get access to university if they have the ability and choose to go there.

In 2020, it was found that just over half of Scottish based applications to Scottish universities won a place, whereas almost three quarters of applications from students based in England were granted one. This is a direct consequence of the SNP Government’s funding model, which provides universities with a strong financial incentive to prioritise students who don’t live in Scotland.

But the barriers to access go much wider than universities.

The SNP Government’s own adult leaning strategy found that over 300,000 Scottish adults have low or no qualifications and almost 2 million Scottish adults have low numeracy skills.

However, thinking of skills purely in the terms of university education or in ensuring the provision of basic adult learning is an increasingly redundant approach that will not deliver the workforce our economy needs.

Our education system is still built around the outdated notion that a university degree is the universal golden ticket to success in the modern Scottish economy. That is what pupils are told in schools and where public money goes.

For every £1 the Scottish Government spends on skills and training, £10 is spent on supporting higher education institutes and the students who study there. And government funding per college student was more than a quarter lower than support for an average university student.

Inevitably it is the wealthy who benefit most from this focus on university education.

The most deprived Scottish school leavers are seven times more likely to go into training, two and a half times as likely to go to college, 25% more likely to go into a job or apprenticeship and half as likely to go to university as the least deprived school leavers. The SNP Government, which said that closing the attainment gap was its first priority, has instead left it yawning as wide as ever.

Yet for all this focus on university education we do not have the skills our economy needs. A Scottish Government survey found that over a fifth of all job vacancies in Scotland were related to skills shortages. Also, the Institute of Directors found that 44% of business leaders do not believe that they have a workforce with the right skills and a similar number do not believe that they will be able to recruit the right people to fill vacancies.

With an ageing Scottish population, we need to be much smarter about how and where we invest public money to get the workforce Scottish employers need.

We need to look at the over-emphasis on university degrees that exists in our current education system and encourage more young people to take alternative approaches to what is essentially four years of study with no guarantee of good employment at the end.

As someone who never went to university, I can confidently say that there are other routes to success.

Delivering the skills, we need starts by establishing parity of esteem. There is a reason that almost two thirds of young people from the most affluent backgrounds go on to university.

We need to remove the stigma that surrounds colleges and apprenticeships and instead promote and celebrate the life chances they can offer.

As Scottish Conservative Leader, I have been privileged to see exciting apprenticeship opportunities up and down the country – from defence to renewables energy to financial services.

The more we can work with attractive employers to create exciting opportunities, the more we can encourage Scots into apprenticeships.

However, the SNP have repeatedly missed their 30,000 modern apprenticeship target. They managed just over 25,000 in 2021/22 and are on track to fall short again in the last financial year.

So the Scottish Conservatives would reverse the current funding structure for apprenticeships from one where funded places are set by the government to one where the employers decide how many good apprenticeships they need, which the government then delivers support for. This would create potentially unlimited apprenticeship opportunities for Scotland’s young people.

But ultimately the prestige will follow the funding.

Scotland has world class universities, yet the current model means that they are being increasingly shut off from Scottish students. That is why the Scottish Conservatives are committed to working with the sector to reduce the length of degrees, where appropriate, from four to three years. This would reflect the reality that fewer Scots each year leave school in S5, would create more places for Scots and get students into the workforce a year earlier.

But it would also allow us to invest more in alternatives. Since 2007, the number of college students has fallen by over 140,000 – and just at the start of this month, the SNP cut £46 million from college and university funding.

An underfunded college system, starved of the cash that it needs, is hardly an attractive choice for our best and brightest young people. If we believe in equality of opportunity, then why is it that vocational courses through college receive less government support than academic courses through university?

If we want to deliver parity of esteem between vocational and academic education then over time we need to move towards parity of funding and if we want more young people to enter the workforce with the skills our economy needs then we need to give employers more involvement in their education.

Yet we cannot just change course for the next generation. We must also look at upskilling Scotland’s workforce today. Because we need a step change in how we approach adult skills, and to end the attitude that the end of school, or even college or university, is the end of learning. More and more of us will have multiple careers throughout our lives.

One of the biggest barriers to adult learning is access. That is why the Scottish Conservatives would set up a National College for Scotland which would work with all of Scotland’s higher and further education institutes to deliver high quality remote courses and learning. That means that wherever you live or whenever you can learn you have access to educational materials that you need.

Yet, as I said, the biggest barrier is our national mindset. We need to create an incentive for more people to think about the need for continuous upskilling. That is why we believe in offering every Scottish adult who is not already in funded education or training, access to use-it-or-lose-it skills funding through a Right to Retrain.

Taken together this would provoke an essential shift in encouraging more adults across Scotland to update and upgrade the skills and qualifications they can offer so that employers have access to the workforce they need.

The SNP argue for greater powers over immigration as a way to deal with the labour shortages many employers face. Yet Scotland already doesn’t attract its share of current migration to the UK. Even among those who do come north of the border, the lion’s share go to Edinburgh and Glasgow, not the Highland and Islands where they are greatly needed.

While immigration has its part to play, it is far too often used by the SNP Government as an easy answer to avoid a more difficult discussion about how the Scottish workforce does not have the skills that Scottish businesses and our economy needs and what they are going to do about it.

But it is a national debate that we need to have because if we don’t then productivity and our economy will continue to stagnate, and we will continue to lag behind our international competitors. Then it simply becomes a matter of time before Scotland is no longer an attractive place even for hardworking migrant workers to come to. And the SNP’s policy of making Scotland the highest-taxed part of the UK has the potential to render living and working here even less appealing.

Our demographics require a sizeable influx of skilled workers just to avoid decaying public services. But we should want to go further, and to make Scotland an engine for productivity and growth.

Scotland needs a skills revolution to drive the economic growth of the future and the Scottish Conservatives have the ideas and vision to deliver it.

Douglas Ross MP MSP is the Leader of the Scottish Conservative Party. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Adam Wilson]

Max Jablonowski: The House of Lords Appointments Commission needs reform now

By Centre Write, Max Jablonowski, Politics

Keir Starmer has boldly promised to reform the House of Lords to “restore trust in politics” and to filter out the “lackeys and donors.” Starmer’s calls for reform come after a number of concerning appointments and nominations by Boris Johnson. Starmer’s solution is to have an elected chamber to replace the House of Lords, as outlined at the launch of Labour’s new report on constitutional reform last week.

Although the House of Lords is ripe for reform, Starmer should be cautious of creating an elected upper chamber. Instead, Starmer should look to expand the power of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The Commission – established in 2000 – currently holds two functions: recommending the appointments of non-party-political peers and vetting the nominations of all peers, but these functions are simply not extensive enough. 

Widening the power of the House of Lords Appointments Commission so that they can block recommendations of appointments would help achieve Starmer’s goal to reform the House of Lords, adding accountability to the appointments process. The Commission should be given the power to block nominations made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister would be able to make recommendations, but not direct appointments to the upper chamber of Parliament as current convention dictates. 

The House of Lords Appointments Commission should therefore play a similar role to other vetting procedures, such as the Advisory Commission on Business Appointments. This would ensure that individuals appointed to the House of Lords do not compromise national security, tilt legislation to benefit their own interests and are appointed on merit.

There will be concerns that the Chair of the Commission should be neutral and cannot be affiliated with any political party. But, the House of Lords Appointments Commission already consists of seven members including a representative from every major political party, and therefore is well-balanced and politically neutral. 

Starmer must make sure he plays his cards right. If he wants to pull off such a major constitutional reform, he would do well to offer a compromise along these lines, which will help restore trust in politics and stop unearned peerages being handed out.

Max Jablonowski is an Events and Communications Officer for Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Parliament.uk]

Darren Hughes: Levelling up by devolving down

By Centre Write, Politics

England is the poor relation of the UK when it comes to democracy. Despite a decade that has had a raft of elected mayors, metro mayors, and police and crime commissioners created, large areas of the country still have no real political agency to truly shape their future.

Meanwhile, people across large swathes of England have watched as their counterparts in Scotland and Wales, London too, have been offered a choice over how they wish to be governed and then seen Westminster devolve meaningful powers, as well as billions in budget responsibilities, to regional and national assemblies.

This is not a sustainable situation as it has created a yawning inequality at the heart of Britain’s constitutional settlement.

This inequality is not just an esoteric concern for academics. It is a fundamental question for one of the most pressing issues of British politics: levelling up. Devolution is central to that debate as it asks: how can communities that have been left behind rebuild themselves?

The 2019 election was a cri de coeur from dozens of communities who felt neglected and let down by the centralised Westminster system. The causes of decline are complex and longstanding, from the Beeching rail cuts of the 1960s severing transport arteries to small towns, to the withering of legacy industries resulting in thousands of lost jobs that have never been replaced.

An exacerbating factor in this story of decline has been the lack of agency that the affected areas have had to better their situation.

A recent report by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) on the state of English devolution, entitled Democracy Made in England, highlighted how the areas outside of London have been held back by an underpowered system of local government that was built for the nineteenth century rather than the twenty-first.

The theme of this system for the last two centuries has been that ‘Westminster knows best,’ with local authorities treated as little more than the delivery arm for central government policies. A survey for the report of almost 800 local councillors found that over two-thirds (68%) feel they do not have sufficient powers to represent the needs of their local community.

Yet, while the consensus is that parts of England need to be urgently levelled up, the question is now how this Herculean task can be achieved. Levelling up cannot simply be writing a cheque. Communities know best and know what they need in order to rejuvenate their areas – they need powers to act for themselves. What is required to level-up areas in Yorkshire will be very different to parts of Devon.

This is a fundamentally conservative principle: decisions are best made by those most affected by them, rather than remote centres of power.

Over the last decade, the Coalition and then successive Conservative Governments have recognised this and created a host of elected mayors and devolved bodies in England. However, this has resulted in an uneven patchwork of devolved powers, with many areas of England still having no real means of regional development bar a distant central government or small local authorities.

The Johnson Government had already committed to going much further on devolution. In 2019, Boris Johnson was explicit in the need for radical devolution in England, pledging “to give greater powers to council leaders and to communities.”

The Levelling up white paper reaffirmed this commitment, stating its intent to “extend, deepen and simplify devolution across England.” These are steps in the right direction, but to succeed, there needs to be a fundamental refit so local authorities, not Whitehall, steer levelling up.

The ERS’ Democracy Made in England report lays out some of the fundamental principles that are required to shape English devolution and ensure English communities have the same autonomy as other parts of the UK.

The first is subsidiarity: decisions should be made at, as well as power and resources devolved to, the lowest level of local government possible. The closer to the communities these decisions are made, the better they will be.

Next, local representatives need to be given genuine autonomy to act in the best interests for their residents. Central government will always set up the framework and the overall plan for levelling up, but local councillors will know where a new bus route can regenerate a town’s economy or where a new school is most badly needed.

Devolution also needs to be grounded in communities’ sense of place. It needs to reflect and represent the areas that people identify with. One reason voters rejected New Labour’s plans for a North East England Regional Assembly in the early 2000s is that very few people see themselves as North East Englanders.

Lastly, devolution needs to be done in an accountable and transparent way. That means deals should not be done in backrooms over new powers and voters need to be asked about what forms of devolution would serve them best.

In a similar vein, local authorities themselves need to be made more accountable. The ERS argues that a key way to do this would be through introducing proportional representation in local elections to avoid the stagnant one-party states that First Past the Post produces. For instance, last May’s local elections saw results such as Camden, where Labour took 85% of the seats with just 51% of the vote. First Past the Post has also led to absurd situations such as in Newcastle where no Conservative councillors have been elected for thirty years.

Results like these create town halls that do not fully represent the range of views in the local community, and also ones where decisions are not properly scrutinised. However, a proportional system such as the Single Transferable Vote (STV) used in Scotland’s local elections would create more competitive, responsive, and representative town halls.

Devolution, as a broad policy, is built on the conservative principle that people know what is best for their own communities. Yet, centuries of over-centralisation has contributed to the decline of large areas of England by enfeebling local democracy. Levelling up needs to right this historic wrong with a radical devolution settlement that makes local areas masters of their own destiny again. For levelling up to work, it cannot be top down.

Darren Hughes is the Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society. This article first appeared in our Centre Write magazine State shifting?. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Jonny Gios]

Good Things Foundation: How much does it pay to be “tech savvy” now?

By Centre Write, Coronavirus, Data & Tech, Economy & Finance, Education, Politics, Towns & Devolution

Last time we were here, we were battling the first wave of Omicron. Since then the world around us has dramatically changed: a war, an economic crisis, unprecedented political upheaval – just to name a few.

However, the undisputable role of digital remains. From accessing essential services to booking a holiday, being able to confidently and safely operate the digital world is vital. And now we have updated evidence of its economic significance too – making the case for investment into digital inclusion as a result.

Having a basic level of digital skills impacts our economy in all sorts of ways. Take productivity as an example. There is a wage premium associated with having digital skills, and employee earnings are mostly related to their productivity. Employers will therefore pay more for productive staff and benefit from their increased output. Ensuring all UK adults learn basic digital skills therefore leads to a positive macroeconomic impact for productivity, employability and earnings.

Given society’s continued digitisation, it’s unsurprising that the economic impacts of digital inclusion make for a long list – from the advantages of online retail to more easily accessing online services. Understanding the scale of these benefits should be critical for those making decisions about policy and investment, at a national, regional and local level.

That’s why Good Things Foundation – the UK’s leading digital inclusion charity – partnered with Capita and Cebr to assess the economic impact of digital inclusion, in their report The Economic Impact of Digital Inclusion in the UK launched earlier this year.

So, what does the report find? What are these so-called economic gains? 

The headline is that for every £1 invested in interventions to help digitally excluded people to build their basic digital skills, a return of £9.48 is gained throughout the economy. 

Savings to the public purse are significant. Through efficiency savings alone, the Government is estimated to benefit by £1.4 billion over the next ten years, plus £483 million in increased tax revenue. The NHS is expected to save £899 million in addition.

A proportion of working-age adults still need digital skills support to gain work or better work. Meeting this need is estimated to generate £2.7 billion for organisations through filling basic digital skills vacancies over the coming decade. Furthermore, an estimated £586 million in increased earnings, £179 million in additional earnings from finding work, and £76 million in environmental benefits.

The cross-cutting, complex nature of digital inclusion requires a co-ordinated, well-funded and holistic approach to meaningful help those most excluded and to invigorate our economy. The most challenging stretch of the country’s digital inclusion journey lies ahead, and Good Things Foundation’s new strategic offer is ready to tackle it alongside others: working across sectors on our National Databank, National Device Bank and National Digital Inclusion Network initiatives.

If we are to achieve an inclusive recovery to Covid-19, combat the cost-of-living crisis, level up and ensure everyone can make the most of the digital world – we have to comprehend the economic advantages, step up, and invest in it.

The Good Things Foundation is a charity with the goal of fixing the digital divide. . Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: John Schnobrich]

Hannah White OBE: Pushing the political boundaries?

By Centre Write, Politics

The British constitution divides opinion. While some laud its gradualism, stability, and flexibility as having served the country well over centuries, others criticise it as both outdated excessively malleable, and now creaking at the edges as it is tested by those in power.

Like many Governments before them, most members of Boris Johnson’s administration are firmly in the first camp, equally happy to appeal to the historic basis of constitutional principle to defend the status quo where it works to their advantage. Just think of Jacob Rees Mogg’s approach to the role of Leader of the House, and to exploit the constitution’s flexibilities where it suits them to explore its limits; think of Boris Johnson’s willingness to test the duty of ministers to uphold national and international law.

But a growing and increasingly vocal number of people outside government, and even some – privately – within, allege that the Government has eroded previously established norms and principles – lacking a supply of ‘good chaps’ inclined to respect those principles, to the point where the constitution is under serious threat. Do such concerns about the health of the constitution reflect an alarmist overreaction by those opposed to the Government’s policy agenda or are they legitimate and well-founded concerns?

There is no absolute answer to this question, but it is worth reminding ourselves of the purpose of a constitution. A constitution is a set of rules which deals with where power lies within a state, who can exercise it, and under what conditions. Some see the fundamental purpose of a constitution as placing limits on the power of the state and protecting citizens from the exercise of arbitrary power. Others tend to emphasise the way in which constitutions empower the state to act on behalf of citizens. These ideas are not mutually exclusive – proponents of either would agree on the main objectives of the UK constitution, as enshrining the role of the UK parliament as the key source of power, embedding key rights and principles, and maintaining checks and balances to prevent power from accumulating in any single institution.

What is the evidence that these objectives are no longer being met? Critics point to the Government’s attempts to sideline parliament – a theme I examine in my new book Held in Contempt: what’s wrong with the House of Commons?- and Ministers’ revealed preference to avoid scrutiny – the latest symptoms being a series of yelps from peers about the inadequacies of secondary legislation and from Commons Select Committees about the Government’s casual attitude to accountability. They highlight attempts to stretch or disregard previously established principles: the Prime Minister’s attempt to prorogue Parliament for an extended period, his willingness to ignore his adviser on the ministerial code, and his removal of the references to the Nolan Principles from the most recent edition of the Ministerial Code. They question whether the Government – through a programme of legislation, for example increasing government control over the Electoral Commission, and more-than-usually-partisan appointments to public bodies – is attempting to weaken the checks and balances that constrain executive power. Supporters of the Government would argue that this approach is not only legitimate but necessary to enable it to deliver on its agenda. Ministers might suggest that their actions have been no different from those of previous Governments. Tony Blair, for example, was happy to transform the role of Lord Chancellor practically overnight and eject the Law Lords from the House of Lords while defending a high degree of executive control over Parliament.

Today’s critics, however, discern a qualitative difference between previous Governments’ willingness to abruptly change the rules of the constitution, as is the right of any Government with a Commons majority, and the current Government’s readiness to contest the legitimacy of any rules and conventions that constrain government action. As the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, told a parliamentary committee at the end of June 2022, this is a Government which “believes it has a mandate to test established boundaries.”

One useful test of whether you believe the current Government has gone too far in challenging the boundaries set by the constitution is to imagine a scenario where the flexibilities that Ministers have made much use of were put in the hands of their political opponents. Historically, a consciousness of how new powers, mechanisms, or precedents might be deployed by a Government of a different hue had proved a powerful constraint on constitutional adventurism by the governing party. But under the Johnson Government, elation at having won a substantial majority for the first time in a decade appears to have dissolved any concern about how their changes to the rules of the game might come back to bite them under a future Labour administration. This is not a Conservative Government that is worrying too hard about the long-term conservation of the constitution.

Hannah White OBE is the Director of the Institute for Government. This article first appeared in our Centre Write magazine State shifting? Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Francais a Londres]

Bartlomiej Staniszewski: A true blue should always go green

By Centre Write, Energy & Environment, Politics

Despite the progress made on net zero by past Conservative governments, there lingers a danger that right-wing voters and politicians are abandoning their environmental commitments. According to YouGov, 70% of Tory voters want net zero policies paused, as opposed to 37% of Labour and 33% of Liberal Democrat supporters – when ‘don’t knows’ are excluded. The previous Government gave in to those pressures, and was looking to reverse the ban on fracking that was instituted in 2019, in spite of the fact that an expansion of fracking is harmful to the target of achieving net zero by 2050 and is unlikely to meaningfully reduce energy prices.

Planning guidance was also under threat to be amended to make it more difficult to build solar farms, notwithstanding solar energy’s importance as a green source of energy and at a time of limited energy supply. But this abandonment by Liz Truss of her campaign pledge to double down on the drive to net zero by 2050 in the name of anti-environmental sentiments made little sense for conservatives. Despite Liz Truss being heralded as the more right-wing candidate, it is Rishi Sunak’s 2019 Manifesto-inspired policy that has been more faithful to conservative principles, given the conservative commitment to community and the obligations we have towards it.

Commitment to one’s community forms a cornerstone of conservative thought. Community is the source of the very traditions and values that conservatives seek to conserve, and conservatives often stress the importance of one’s nation, local community, and family, and the special obligations we have towards them.

This should be reflected in a concern for our climate. After all, community obligations are inter-generational. Our nations and communities outlive us, having been there before us and remaining long after we die; while conservatives often emphasise the former, they are at risk of forgetting the latter. Our obligations towards our communities are also obligations towards future generations.

But, unless we meet our net zero targets, the welfare of future generations is at threat from climate change. This will be catastrophic for communities across the UK. Flooding from increased rainfall and rising sea levels, will, at best, demand billions invested in flood defences, and, at worst, destroy people’s livelihoods and homes; there are already around 5.2 million homes and businesses at risk of flooding in England and this number is set to double in the next 50 years. Droughts have the potential to spell the end for Britain’s struggling agriculture and will damage Britain’s food supply. Climate change is already resulting in £150 million of yearly losses due to soil and water degradation, while in the dry summer of 2018, vegetable yields in the UK decreased by up to 40% – those summers will become worse and more common. Non-native species, and diseases, will become invasive as they move from climates that have become too warm for them, and native species will be pushed out, not adapted to higher temperatures.

More poignantly, climate change can destroy some of the things that make us most attached to our nations. Vera Lynn sang that “there’ll always be an England, while there’s a country lane, wherever there’s a cottage small beside a field of grain.” England’s green and pleasant land is an intrinsic part of English identity, and the unionist Rule Britannia! speaks of Britain’s “countless beauty places.” But this summer, when my friend’s mother came to visit us in Oxfordshire, she lamented that “It looks just like California!” as lawns, parks, and fields turned yellow, vegetation died, and bodies of water dried up; green and pleasant land was nowhere to be seen. Unless the British climate is protected, there will be no British community, because what Britain means will have been destroyed. Our community obligations will have been abrogated, but the Britain we love alongside them. 

To prevent that – something every conservative should wish to prevent – delivering net zero is imperative. Only by reducing our emissions to a sustainable level can we handle the impact of climate change.

Despite this, even before the previous Government came into power, the Climate Change Committee wrote in 2022 that the Government’s Net Zero Strategy “contained warm words on many of the cross-cutting enablers of the transition, but there has been little concrete progress” and that “[t]angible progress is lagging the policy ambition”. There was a real threat of further setbacks through the reversal of the aforementioned ban on fracking and the Government obstructing the development of solar farms. Natural gas extracted by means of fracking, due to its main component, methane, has a global warming potential (the amount of heat absorbed by a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere) up to 28 times higher than CO2 on a 100-year timespan, while solar power plays a key role in the aforementioned Net Zero Strategy, which promises to fully decarbonise the UK’s power system by 2035. The danger for now has been rightly avoided by the new Government, but principled conservatives need to remain dedicated to net zero in the future.

The repercussions of failing to meet the target of net zero would be drastic. Unless we succeed in reducing the impact of climate change, rising temperatures will devastate Britain’s future generations, burdening them with floods and droughts while permanently changing the British landscape as we know it. A lack of commitment to net zero runs afoul of conservatism and consists in a failure to fulfil our community obligations towards those that come after us. To conserve Britain, we must remain committed to delivering net zero.

Bartomiej Staniszewski is a Research and Communications Assistant at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Margot RICHARD]