Andy Burnham’s major speech today contained a message that deserves to resonate well beyond Labour politics. His call to put place at the heart of government, to deliver “good growth in every postcode” and to devolve power away from Westminster is one of the most compelling ideas to emerge from British politics in recent years… likely because it echoes much of what we Lib Dems have been saying/calling for for years now. For too long, Britain has been governed as though every problem can be solved from Whitehall. The result has been an increasingly centralised State that often fails to appreciate the distinct challenges and opportunities facing different parts of our country.
Whether it is the East Midlands (from where your columnist writes), Cornwall, rural Wales, the Highlands, Northern Ireland or our great northern cities, communities want more than warm words about “levelling up.” – they want the power, investment and trust to shape their own futures.
As Liberal Democrats, this should not simply be an attractive idea; it should feel instinctively familiar. Our belief in localism has always recognised that those closest to a problem are often best placed to solve it. Empowering councils and local communities is not just more democratic, it usually produces better policy too.
Burnham’s proposal for a “No 10 North” is deliberately symbolic, but the principle behind it is sound. It reflects his wider ambition to “rewire Britain” by shifting decision-making away from Westminster and embedding government more firmly in the places it serves.
Of course, devolution cannot simply mean moving responsibilities without resources. Local leaders need meaningful fiscal powers, long-term funding settlements and genuine freedom to innovate. Otherwise, decentralisation becomes little more than Whitehall passing the buck.
Equally, a politics of place must not become a politics of grievance. This is not about London versus the North, cities versus towns or one nation of the UK against another. London’s prosperity benefits the whole country, just as thriving regions strengthen the national economy. The objective must a Britain where every community is equipped to succeed, not one where different places beg for scraps at the Treasury table.
Politics ultimately succeeds or fails where people live. It is experienced through the buses we catch, the high streets we use, the jobs that are available, the homes that are affordable and the public services on which we all rely. If those places flourish, confidence in politics grows. If they decline, cynicism inevitably follows.
Burnham is right to argue that place should become one of the organising principles of domestic policymaking. Every region and nation of the United Kingdom must be told that it matters; it should be given the powers, investment and respect that proves it does. For we liberals, that is not simply good economics. It is good democracy.
Our Party Doesn’t Have a Problem with Christians
Former leader Tim Farron has argued this past weekend that our party has a problem with Christians. I respectfully disagree.
I say that not only as a Bible-reading, church-attending Christian, but as someone actively involved in Church leadership. I serve on my local Deanery Synod, part of the Church of England’s local governing structures, and have never felt unwelcome in our party because of my faith.
But, then, there is no divide between my politics and my religion. I am a social liberal in both. And herein lies the real issue.
What our party does sometimes understandably struggle with is not Christianity itself, but with the social conservatism that some Christians in our party seem to peddle. The Liberal Democrats are, and must remain, a socially liberal party. We champion LGBT+ equality, women’s rights, bodily autonomy and individual liberty because those values sit at the heart of modern liberalism.
None of that is in any way incompatible with Christianity. Indeed, many Christians-including me-see those same values reflected in the Gospel’s call to love our neighbour, uphold human dignity and stand alongside those who are marginalised.
Our party should always be a home for people of faith (and, indeed, for those without). But it must never compromise its commitment to social liberalism. The challenge is not whether someone is a Christian, it is whether they are prepared to embrace the liberal values that define who we are.
Play On!
Forget the football. For the next fortnight, I’ll be glued to Wimbledon.
There’s nothing quite like the world’s greatest tennis tournament, and I’ll be cheering on the British players every step of the way. Here’s to thrilling rallies, Centre Court drama and two weeks of superb sport.
Play on!
* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
After Dark podcast on the R101 airship disaster
After the murder of Ann Widdecombe, we must all be more careful of the language we use in political life
Burnham starts with the low-hanging fruit
Political history points against early general elections
Working 9 to 5
Pawel Urbanski
Jana
Alex Macfie
Jenny Barnes
Rupinder Singh
9 Comments
Matthew’s response to Tim is very welcome. For myself I see my Christianity challenging my Liberal politics and the Liberal politics challenging my Christianity. I would not dream of prioritising the one over the other! Unfortunately certain forms of conservative Christianity can be quite destructive. Some christians of an evangelical bent manage to come through the negative emphases and I have enjoyed working with them – I speak as a one-time Secretary of the Alliance of Radical Methodists! God preserve us from christians perceiving themselves as victims when we need to be better versions of our best selves whatever our understanding of life together.
“ What our party does sometimes understandably struggle with is not Christianity itself, but with the social conservatism that some Christians in our party seem to peddle”
I usually vote Liberal Democrat (apart from the occasional tactical vote) but I have never joined the Party because my Christian beliefs (being different from yours) mean that all the other beliefs I share with most Liberal Democrats count for nothing, and I realise I would not be welcome. That is really sad. My offence?…I believe that unborn life is human life that should cherished. I particularly disagree with those who believe that the disabled unborn deserve less protection than afforded to other unborn.
I have posted on this site on maybe a dozen times or so and never once have I mentioned this before. I have commented on other matters where I share Liberal Democrat beliefs with most of the others posting. However, since you have raised the issue of whether Christians feel welcome or not, I had to be honest and share my position.
@Jana. I am a lifelong Liberal Democrat and a Quaker. I am a believer in the Quaker Peace testimony and this means that I differ from the party on ways to achieve peace and harmony in the world. I have never thought that war solves anything and that ultimately people who disagree, even violently, eventually have to sit down together and make peace.
People in the party – and after 62 years membership I do knopw a lot of people – have never given me a hard time over my views and respect my right not to be enslaved by conformity. No-one in our party is ever expected to conform with every policy that the party adopts. Debate, argument and disagreement are the lifeblood of democracy.
Where there is a problem is when people try to force their views on others. This is not a problem with just Christianity, it applies equally to any other religion. If you did join us, your views would be understood and accepted, though not always agreed with. That’s the joy of Liberalism.
I think I became a Liberal from listening to sermons of the social gospel when I was a choirboy. But the social gospel of the New Testament is a very long way from the surge of ‘Christian Nationalism’ being pushed across the Atlantic into Britain from the US South. As for radical Methodists – I met and admired many of them, benefitted from their support and campaigning skills, and only wish there were more of them!
“Of course, devolution cannot simply mean moving responsibilities without resources. Local leaders need meaningful fiscal powers, long-term funding settlements and genuine freedom to innovate. Otherwise, decentralisation becomes little more than Whitehall passing the buck.”
This!
Outside of general elections most voters are not political. They do not engage fully in local elections, PCC, or mayoral elections. Not because they feel disempowererd – they are just not that interested. 2012 mayoral election referendum were littered with poor turnouts.
Where the power lies regional or central, it doesn’t really matter to many
” Britain has been governed as though every problem can be solved from Whitehall. ”
Possibly, but do the people of Wales think that moving much their government to Cardiff has worked any better?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yz4x9ew49o
“I’ll be cheering on the British {tennis} players every step of the way.”
Fair enough, but why just the Brits? If LibDems are really as “European”, or “EU-opean”, as you claim shouldn’t you be cheering on a wider group?
But, how many of us shed a tear that Germany and the Netherlands were eliminated from the World Cup last night? I was genuinely sorry that Scotland didn’t make it through and I’ll be even sorrier if England lose their next match.
Some may think this is a trivial point, but support for sporting individuals and teams is indicative of our sense of national identity. It’s really not there, in anything like a significant amount, when it comes to the EU.
@ Peter Martin, Well, Peter, whilst I have no time whatsoever for Trump in any shape or form, I’ll be cheering on the Williams sisters in their return to Wimbledon.
Normally I skip Matthew’s article but today I am in agreement except for his extreme views about tennis. The point Peter Martin makes about Wales is a fair one. Labour’s approach to devolution is to take a few powers from Westminster and concentrate them in Cardiff. This is subsidiarity rather than devolution. This debate was avoided in the recent Welsh election. A binary option of Welsh versus British nationalism or Unionism has provided none of the answers.