权力下放对左翼的限制

Q4 Social Sciences IPPR Progressive Review Pub Date : 2024-04-12 DOI:10.1111/newe.12373
Richard Johnson
{"title":"权力下放对左翼的限制","authors":"Richard Johnson","doi":"10.1111/newe.12373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In a recent <i>Guardian</i> interview, the shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting, acknowledged that the Labour party historically had been divided between devolutionists and centralisers, “but now the whole of the shadow cabinet supports the devolution agenda”.1 Streeting went on to say that the purpose of a Labour government was to “win power to give it away”. This is a curious perspective. It surely matters <i>to whom</i> that power is given away. If Labour governments are elected, only to give power away to their political opponents – Conservatives, separatist parties and others – is localism always better for the people whom Labour is meant to serve?</p><p>The mission of a Labour government is to create a more equal society and to improve the condition of the working class. This article argues that the devolution agenda could operate contrary to those key objectives by empowering forces that work against the common good and by inhibiting the ability of a Labour government to pass transformative and redistributive national policy.</p><p>Historically, as Streeting acknowledged, the Labour party contained within it many sceptics of policy decentralisation. The ability of a House Commons majority to deliver radical, transformative change across the whole of the UK was one of the bedrock constitutional objectives of working-class reformers for decades. The British constitution offers the opportunity, rarely matched anywhere in the world, for a democratic socialist party to govern as a majority and to use that power to transform society with few legal impediments.2 Should a government wish to nationalise industry, the banks or hospitals, a simple majority in the lower chamber of parliament should suffice.</p><p>In recent years, Labour has taken a broadly uncritical approach to devolution, which sees local as always better, but this is because decentralisation has been targeted to Labour-friendly areas like London, Wales and large cities. Given the counter-cyclical nature of local and national politics, Labour in power in Westminster would likely correspond with huge Labour losses in local government. And, then, what would Labour's response be if, as a result of further devolution, regional governments start to charge residents for using NHS services? Or, very likely, what would happen when ‘local people’ refuse to deliver badly needed housing, to obey infrastructure targets or to accept immigrants and asylum seekers into their areas?</p><p>It is odd that Labour would become the champion for an arrangement that would fragment the welfare state. Yes, devolution creates space for policy experimentation but, as we see in other decentralised systems, it does so at the expense of universalism. Localism does not always serve the greater good of the country. Local control can be a more elite form of control. When devolved units are given more power, including to opt out of the welfare state and from their wider obligations to their fellow citizens, people in poverty more often than not are the losers.</p>","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12373","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The limits of devolution for the left\",\"authors\":\"Richard Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/newe.12373\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In a recent <i>Guardian</i> interview, the shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting, acknowledged that the Labour party historically had been divided between devolutionists and centralisers, “but now the whole of the shadow cabinet supports the devolution agenda”.1 Streeting went on to say that the purpose of a Labour government was to “win power to give it away”. This is a curious perspective. It surely matters <i>to whom</i> that power is given away. If Labour governments are elected, only to give power away to their political opponents – Conservatives, separatist parties and others – is localism always better for the people whom Labour is meant to serve?</p><p>The mission of a Labour government is to create a more equal society and to improve the condition of the working class. This article argues that the devolution agenda could operate contrary to those key objectives by empowering forces that work against the common good and by inhibiting the ability of a Labour government to pass transformative and redistributive national policy.</p><p>Historically, as Streeting acknowledged, the Labour party contained within it many sceptics of policy decentralisation. The ability of a House Commons majority to deliver radical, transformative change across the whole of the UK was one of the bedrock constitutional objectives of working-class reformers for decades. The British constitution offers the opportunity, rarely matched anywhere in the world, for a democratic socialist party to govern as a majority and to use that power to transform society with few legal impediments.2 Should a government wish to nationalise industry, the banks or hospitals, a simple majority in the lower chamber of parliament should suffice.</p><p>In recent years, Labour has taken a broadly uncritical approach to devolution, which sees local as always better, but this is because decentralisation has been targeted to Labour-friendly areas like London, Wales and large cities. Given the counter-cyclical nature of local and national politics, Labour in power in Westminster would likely correspond with huge Labour losses in local government. And, then, what would Labour's response be if, as a result of further devolution, regional governments start to charge residents for using NHS services? Or, very likely, what would happen when ‘local people’ refuse to deliver badly needed housing, to obey infrastructure targets or to accept immigrants and asylum seekers into their areas?</p><p>It is odd that Labour would become the champion for an arrangement that would fragment the welfare state. Yes, devolution creates space for policy experimentation but, as we see in other decentralised systems, it does so at the expense of universalism. Localism does not always serve the greater good of the country. Local control can be a more elite form of control. When devolved units are given more power, including to opt out of the welfare state and from their wider obligations to their fellow citizens, people in poverty more often than not are the losers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IPPR Progressive Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12373\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IPPR Progressive Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/newe.12373\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IPPR Progressive Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/newe.12373","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

影子卫生大臣韦斯-施泰廷(Wes Streeting)最近在接受《卫报》采访时承认,工党在历史上曾分为权力下放派和中央集权派,"但现在整个影子内阁都支持权力下放议程"。这种观点很奇怪。权力交给谁当然很重要。如果工党政府的当选只是为了将权力拱手让给其政治对手--保守党、分离主义政党和其他政党--那么地方主义对工党所要服务的人民来说是否总是更好呢?本文认为,权力下放议程可能与这些关键目标背道而驰,因为它赋予了那些与共同利益背道而驰的势力以权力,并抑制了工党政府通过具有变革性和再分配性的国家政策的能力。下议院多数党有能力在整个英国推行激进的、变革性的改革,这是几十年来工人阶级改革者的基本宪法目标之一。英国宪法为民主社会主义政党提供了世界上少有的机会,使其能够以多数党身份执政,并利用这一权力改造社会,而几乎没有法律障碍。2 如果政府希望将工业、银行或医院国有化,议会下院的简单多数票就足够了。近年来,工党对权力下放采取了一种大体上不加批判的态度,认为地方分权总是更好,但这是因为权力下放针对的是伦敦、威尔士和大城市等工党友好地区。鉴于地方和国家政治的反周期性,工党在威斯敏斯特执政很可能会导致工党在地方政府中的巨大损失。那么,如果由于进一步的权力下放,地区政府开始向使用国民医疗保健服务的居民收费,工党又会如何应对呢?或者,很有可能的是,当 "地方人民 "拒绝提供急需的住房、拒绝遵守基础设施建设目标或拒绝接受移民和寻求庇护者进入他们的地区时,工党又会如何应对?是的,权力下放为政策实验创造了空间,但正如我们在其他分权制度中所看到的那样,它是以牺牲普遍性为代价的。地方主义并不总是为国家的更大利益服务。地方控制可能是一种更加精英化的控制形式。当权力下放的单位被赋予更多的权力,包括选择退出福利国家和对同胞更广泛的义务时,贫困人口往往是输家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The limits of devolution for the left

In a recent Guardian interview, the shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting, acknowledged that the Labour party historically had been divided between devolutionists and centralisers, “but now the whole of the shadow cabinet supports the devolution agenda”.1 Streeting went on to say that the purpose of a Labour government was to “win power to give it away”. This is a curious perspective. It surely matters to whom that power is given away. If Labour governments are elected, only to give power away to their political opponents – Conservatives, separatist parties and others – is localism always better for the people whom Labour is meant to serve?

The mission of a Labour government is to create a more equal society and to improve the condition of the working class. This article argues that the devolution agenda could operate contrary to those key objectives by empowering forces that work against the common good and by inhibiting the ability of a Labour government to pass transformative and redistributive national policy.

Historically, as Streeting acknowledged, the Labour party contained within it many sceptics of policy decentralisation. The ability of a House Commons majority to deliver radical, transformative change across the whole of the UK was one of the bedrock constitutional objectives of working-class reformers for decades. The British constitution offers the opportunity, rarely matched anywhere in the world, for a democratic socialist party to govern as a majority and to use that power to transform society with few legal impediments.2 Should a government wish to nationalise industry, the banks or hospitals, a simple majority in the lower chamber of parliament should suffice.

In recent years, Labour has taken a broadly uncritical approach to devolution, which sees local as always better, but this is because decentralisation has been targeted to Labour-friendly areas like London, Wales and large cities. Given the counter-cyclical nature of local and national politics, Labour in power in Westminster would likely correspond with huge Labour losses in local government. And, then, what would Labour's response be if, as a result of further devolution, regional governments start to charge residents for using NHS services? Or, very likely, what would happen when ‘local people’ refuse to deliver badly needed housing, to obey infrastructure targets or to accept immigrants and asylum seekers into their areas?

It is odd that Labour would become the champion for an arrangement that would fragment the welfare state. Yes, devolution creates space for policy experimentation but, as we see in other decentralised systems, it does so at the expense of universalism. Localism does not always serve the greater good of the country. Local control can be a more elite form of control. When devolved units are given more power, including to opt out of the welfare state and from their wider obligations to their fellow citizens, people in poverty more often than not are the losers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
IPPR Progressive Review
IPPR Progressive Review Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: The permafrost of no alternatives has cracked; the horizon of political possibilities is expanding. IPPR Progressive Review is a pluralistic space to debate where next for progressives, examine the opportunities and challenges confronting us and ask the big questions facing our politics: transforming a failed economic model, renewing a frayed social contract, building a new relationship with Europe. Publishing the best writing in economics, politics and culture, IPPR Progressive Review explores how we can best build a more equal, humane and prosperous society.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information How to maintain public support and act quickly on climate policy Beyond ‘AI boosterism’ Editorial Are demographics destiny?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1