Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Mike Emmerich: Devo is not a fig leaf for austerity. Rejecting it will scupper social progress

Mike Emmerich
  • Comment

To paraphrase a certain politician, is no deal better than a bad deal?

That’s the question over which many in South Yorkshire will be scratching their heads following the apparent demise of the Sheffield City Region’s push for devolution. For many, the decision by Barnsley and Doncaster MBCs to walk away represents a huge lost opportunity but some may feel a certain sense of relief, coupled with a ‘told-you-so’ satisfaction.

I’m writing this having been drawn into a debate with academics Martin Jones and David Etherington concerning a recent blog post based on their report, Devolution and Disadvantage in the Sheffield City Region. The original paper is good and makes many valid points. But my concern is that in some circumstances analysis of a kind found in the subsequent blog can overcomplicate matters and play into the politics of the issue in a way we might regret if followed to its logical conclusion.

Their original research lists, in impressive detail, the various problems facing councils within the Sheffield City Region. Direct budget cuts and reduced welfare to residents totalling £1.3bn since 2010 have hampered locals’ to access skills and apprenticeships and stymied growth prospects. Few would dispute this.

But in their blog the two academics go further, concluding the cuts “undermine any attempts to regenerate the city economy and actually reinforce the ‘race to the bottom’ of low pay and skills, and economic exclusion”. This is where the point gets stretched too far: do cuts really undermine any effort?

Overall, this later analysis presents devolution as little more than a fig leaf for austerity. The South Yorkshire authorities, following their argument, were entering into a Faustian pact with the government, shackling themselves to its broader spending agenda in exchange for a woefully inadequate £900m sop over 30 years.

That austerity and devolution happened at the same time is a matter of fact but the links between them are virtually non-existent: the government ruled nearly all the key revenue budgets out of scope before the process started. Cuts happened everywhere, regardless. Attempting to make the connection risks de-legitimising the whole devolution process and maybe even local government itself, scuppering chances for city regions to pursue inclusive growth strategies even in a less-than-perfect economic climate.

What, exactly, is the alternative? Should we wait for the fiscal position to dramatically improve and abandon devolution in the interim, which will likely be a very long time? Or are sceptics advocating a return to 1980s-style illegal budgets as a symbolic but ultimately futile attempt to force the government’s hand? Hard-left politics may be back in vogue right now but older readers will remember that such tactics actually hindered progress.

Politics really is the art of the possible. That is what the devolution deals are delivering. We can argue about whether they were imperfect and watch as some of them fall apart, or we can build the way social progress generally is achieved: step by painful step.

Devolution in Yorkshire is back in limbo. Communities secretary Sajid Javid is so far sticking to the line that a pan-Yorkshire deal is not on the table. But whatever path is ultimately chosen, we must not abandon pragmatism in exchange for the perfect time for devolution that may never materialise.

Mike Emmerich, director, Metro Dynamics

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.