It's regional devolution, Jim, but not as we knew it

Writing last Saturday, the Newcastle Journal's regional affairs correspondent Adrian Pearson opened his column with the words: "If an elected mayor is the answer, what could possibly have been the question in North Tyneside?"

Well, allow me to have at least a stab at providing an answer.

There are plenty of cynical explanations. Elected mayors were originally the brainchild of the Tory cabinet minister Michael Heseltine in the early 1990s, and were seen by some at the time as an attempt to circumvent the power of high-spending, left-wing Labour councils.

Indeed, as Adrian pointed out in his column, this was precisely what later happened in North Tyneside, where Labour's stranglehold on local politics was finally thwarted by a succession of Conservative mayors in what became a recipe for decade-long infighting.

By the time New Labour came to enact Heseltine's proposed reforms, though, the agenda had changed somewhat. I believe Tony Blair's primary motivation for implementing elected mayors was simply to try to revive flagging voter interest in local government by, well, sexing it up.

In that sense, it was no more than a reflection of the trend towards ‘presidential’ politics that reached its apogee under Mr Blair, and which continues, though to a slightly lesser degree, under David Cameron.

The sorts of arguments that were heard then - "increased accountability through increased visibility" - are still used to promote the elected mayoral idea today - but a decade or more on, the debate has now become much more bound up with economic development and in particular with redressing regional economic disparities.

It is now very much part and parcel of the "city regions" concept that emerged from the wreckage of the regional government debate after the North East Assembly referendum debacle, with elected mayors seen as a way of giving their areas the kind of clout that properly-empowered assemblies might once have exercised.

This argument is already very much to the fore in the debate over whether there should be an elected mayor of Newcastle, for instance.

The city has yet to even make a decision on the issue - but already people such as Lewis Goodall of the regional policy think-tank IPPR North are talking openly about a directly-elected leader or 'metro mayor' not just for Newcastle but for the entire Tyneside conurbation.

"To really counterbalance the power of London, mayors need to have real powers to forge the destiny of their area," he wrote in Good Friday's Journal.

"Over time, this might mean a move towards a metro mayor for the wider city area - not just Newcastle but the surrounding conurbation too, with powers over economic development and transport."

To those of us with long memories, what is particularly interesting about that comment is that it was precisely those powers that the proponents of an elected regional assembly demanded - and failed to get - prior to the 2004 referendum.

I have always believed that had Mr Blair been more inclined to hand such powers to a regional body, the public might well have been more inclined to vote for it.

But regional government was only ever a means towards the greater end of tackling the North-South prosperity divide.

And as Lewis Goodall also pointed out in his piece, this is still very much with us, with the government planning to spend £2,700 per head on infrastructure projects in London compared to £5 a head in the North-East.

Looming over the whole debate over elected mayors is the larger-than-life figure of London Mayor Boris Johnson.

Not only has he enhanced the ‘accountability’ argument in favour of mayors by being a highly visible elected figurehead, he has also enhanced the economic argument by using his undoubted clout to further deepen that imbalance.

Mr Cameron’s own decision to axe regional development agency One NorthEast didn’t help matters either – but a gaggle of elected mayors flying the flag for the region could go some way towards filling that gap.

It isn’t regional devolution as we once knew it, Jim, but it might turn out to be the best form of regional devolution on offer.

Heir to Blair in more ways than one

Shortly after becoming leader of his party in 2005, David Cameron caused consternation among Conservative supporters by claiming that he was the true ‘heir to Blair.’

In one sense, it was a strange move, since the former Prime Minister had by then already begun the long, slow descent from the public adulation that greeted his arrival in No 10 to the public disillusionment that hastened his departure.

But Mr Cameron’s boast had a larger strategic purpose, namely to fix himself in the public mind as a politician of the centre ground and at the same time portray Mr Blair’s putative successor Gordon Brown as one who would abandon that territory.

And since entering Downing Street, he has continued in the same vein, claiming more than once that his health and education reforms are no more than a continuation of the changes initiated by Mr Blair a decade ago and thereby portraying Labour’s opposition to them as indicative as “lurch to the left.”

Mr Cameron has also found himself praised by former Blairite apologists such as John McTernan for his policy of liberal interventionism abroad, most notably in Libya.

But over the past week, much less welcome comparisons have started to be drawn between the two leaders as the government’s political fortunes took a marked turn for the worse.

At some points over the past seven days it has looked as though recent history may be repeating itself, such is the sense of déjà vu surrounding some of the government’s current crises.

Where New Labour has its 45p pension increase, the Coalition has its granny tax. Where New Labour had the fuel protests, the Coalition has the threat of a tanker drivers’ strike. And where New Labour was accused of selling honours for cash, Mr Cameron now finds himself accused of selling access.

No wonder that one of Mr Blair’s former speechwriters, Phil Collins, called it the government’s worst week in office so far, before going on to note wryly that under Mr Blair, each week was portrayed as being a worse one than the last.

Far more scathing was the verdict offered by the Conservative-leaning commentator
Peter Oborne, who saw this week’s events as signs of a shift in the political landscape.

“David Cameron’s claim that the government represents the interests of Britain as a whole now feels baseless and cynical, replaced by the growing perception that he represents nothing more than a coterie of rich and privileged men,” he wrote.

Oborne went onto to accuse Mr Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne of embracing “the worst aspects of Blairism: the obsession with very rich men; the divergence between public statements and private conduct; the preference for policy making through private cabal; and the almost demented Blairite contempt for their own party members."

This is only one example of what appears to be a deepening gulf between the government and its natural supporters, both in the press and in the country.

The Daily Telegraph was never that keen on him anyway, tending to regard him as “not really one of us” in much the same way as The Guardian once saw Mr Blair.

More worryingly for Mr Cameron, the Daily Mail now appears to have turned on him over the 'granny tax’ while The Sun has him in its sights over both the 'pasty tax' and the failure to do anything about fuel prices.

Some will say it's a good sign, showing that Mr Cameron is still occupying that fabled centre ground. Others will point out that alienating your natural allies is a political dead end, as Mr Blair eventually found to his cost.

Mr Cameron’s problems with the Tory press – and the wider party - really stem from one thing: his failure to win an outright parliamentary majority in 2010.

Had he succeeded in doing that, they would have forgiven him all his attempts to define himself in opposition to his own supporters, forgiven his portrayal of the Old Tories as a “nasty party” which he was determined to detoxify.

But he failed, even when up against an opponent whom they regarded as at best, ineffectual and, at worst, bonkers.

And until, like Mr Blair, he can prove himself a real winner, Mr Cameron will never truly capture his party’s heart.

Bad news management costs Osborne dear

There is a hoary old adage in British politics that a Budget that looks good on the day invariably looks like a turkey a few weeks later.

But there can be few Budgets in the recent past which have unravelled quite as quickly as George Osborne’s latest package unveiled to MPs on Wednesday.

Within an hour of him sitting down, #grannytax was the top trending item on Twitter and the revolt against the Chancellor’s ‘stealth tax’ raid on pensioners was under way.

Rarely have the following days’ newspapers seen such a degree of unanimity over a Budget statement – or made such depressing reading for the man from Number 11.

Part of the largely hostile press reaction can be put down down to poor presentation and rank bad news management on the part of the government.

As one Labour veteran reminded us, Gordon Brown’s modus operandi was to get all the bad news out there beforehand and hold the good stuff back for a big ‘rabbit-out-of-the-hat’ announcement on the day.

The government appears to have taken the opposite approach with this Budget, with more leaks than a St David’s Day parade as one heterographically-minded blogger put it.

Indeed one reason it has had such a bad press is that most of the more positive measures were old news by the time the Chancellor got to his feet.

There were at least some good points. Annual tax statements will be a welcome addition to the public’s right to know, while the 2p cut in corporation tax ought to help meet the desperate need for new jobs.

And the imposition of 7pc stamp duty on the purchase of homes over £2m is the nearest we are likely to come to the Lib Dems’ cherished “Mansion Tax.’

Furthermore, despite its appalling presentation, I don’t necessarily go along with all the criticisms that have been made of the so-called ‘granny tax.’

As the Institute of Fiscal Studies has pointed out, pensioners have so far done better than younger people from the government’s austerity measures, and this at least helps even things up a bit.

Inevitably, much of the ire of left-of-centre politicians and commentators has been directed at the 5p cut in the top rate of income tax, worth around £42,500 a year to someone earning £1m.

It provided Ed Miliband with the best joke of the week – and perhaps of his leadership – telling the Prime Minister he will save so much that he “will be able to afford his own horse.”

A more serious moral point was made by the commentator Martin Kettle, arguing that the top-rate tax cut highlights the different worlds inhabited by the super-rich and the rest of us.

“The vast majority of us would be prosecuted if we opted not to pay [tax.] If the rich don’t pay, the law is changed to reflect the fact that they won’t pay up,” he wrote.

The economic arguments over the efficacy of the 50p rate will doubtless run and run, but this is perhaps one area where the politics should have trumped the economics.

If the 50p rate symbolised the fact that ‘we’re all in it together,’ then the political damage to the government engendered by its removal may well outweigh any economic benefit in the longer term.

The move towards a single personal tax-free allowance of £10,000 has been widely welcomed, but - just as Mr Brown once did – Mr Osborne is recouping some of the cost through so-called ‘fiscal drag.’

It means around 300,000 middle-income earners are finding themselves dragged into the 40p tax rate at the same time as top-rate taxpayers see their own rates cut by 5p in the pound.

But saving the worst till last, for me the most pernicious of all the Budget measures – at least as far as the North-East region is concerned - is the proposed introduction of regional rates of pay in the public sector.

As has been pointed out, this will only serve to entrench existing regional economic inequalities and institutionalise low-wage economies in areas such as the North-East, Wales and South-West.

The government’s argument seems to be that as private sector pay is lower in these regions, so therefore public sector pay ought to be lower too.

To me, that sounds suspiciously like two wrongs make a right.