If Andy Burnham is to turn Labour's fortunes around, he will have to do things differently. Starmer's slogan was 'Change' and Burnham will be looking to make changes of his own - primarily changing direction from what he inherits.
In his first big speech on Monday, he drew upon his northern credentials and announced big plans to 'level up'. Yes, we've heard that before, but Burnham is plotting a radical agenda that includes opening an additional - possibly primary - residence in Manchester. He has coined this 'Number Ten North', but it is not clear if this will be his main residence or whether he will spend a similar number of working days in Downing Street.
Burnham knows he will have to rebuild the Red Wall if Labour are to stand any chance of winning another general election and wants to be seen as the 'King in the North' who went south and devolved power away from London.
There is a major problem with his plan to devolve power to 'regions' of England. We have been here before, it is nothing new and it was overwhelmingly rejected the first time around.
Tony Blair immediately set upon a path of dividing the United Kingdom into 'regions' upon his election victory in 1997. That very same year he narrowly succeeded in devolving powers to Scotland and Wales, by way of two referendums, the latter of which garnered a paper thin majority of less than 8,000 votes and 0.6 per cent. It was a double win nonetheless, followed a year later by two more successful referendums - one in Northern Ireland that delivered devolution through the Good Friday Agreement and another in London that created the Greater London Authority. The next stage in the process was always going to be a much harder sell - devolution to a further eight 'regions' of England.
Why was all this important to him? Because as a globalist Europhile, he was determined to split the UK into regions along the exact same boundaries drawn up by the European Union. These were the twelve regions that were drawn up in preparation for the 1999 European elections and thereafter - Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, South West England, South East England, London, East of England, East Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire (and the Humber), North East England and North West England.
Prior to this election, there were only two entities that returned British MEPs to Brussels - Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Selling devolution to Scotland and Wales - two distinct national entities on the island of Great Britain - was always going to be an easier sell for Blair (although barely one in four Welsh voters actually voted for devolution). However, the other main constituent nation of Great Britain would have to be divided up into nine regions. There was no national pride to which Blair could appeal, seeing as he would essentially be breaking England up into pieces.
Initially, Blair earmarked three northern regions to test the waters - the north east, north west and Yorkshire. The latter two were dropped, but the north east devolution referendum went ahead, particularly as it was deemed to have the strongest support. The result was disastrous for Blair and effectively halted his plan. On a 48 per cent turnout, the north east rejected the proposed regional assembly by a huge margin of 78 per cent against 22 per cent in favour.
The message delivered was loud and clear - the people of England did not want to be broken into pieces with yet another layer of bureaucracy, while centuries old shire counties were consigned to the history bin.
Has this sentiment changed in 22 years? Highly doubtful, as devolution to the other home nations has only increased a sense of English national identity.
The revival of this devolution plan will be problematic for Burnham, regardless of how he wants to achieve it. He has not mentioned holding any referendums, but during the same speech declared ominously: "The political direction I set will not be up for negotiation". If he means to impose devolution without a public vote, that is not going to endear himself to the electorate he desperately needs to get on board.
No comments:
Post a Comment