Over the past week or so there have been a number of newspaper reports about Labour planning to bring back regional Government Ministers if it becomes part of a new Government next year.
Though some have attacked this idea, I believe there is a liberal case for regional Ministers. A progressive Government of Labour and Liberal Democrats could work on such a project together, building up the various regions of the UK to ensure that all of our regions can compete in the global economy, as well as making sure that all of our people have a chance to make the most of their talents, wherever they find themselves.
Regional Ministers were first introduced by the last Labour Government under Gordon Brown, but don’t let that put you off. We, as liberals, believe in devolving power both within the various nations of the United Kingdom and, further still, down to regions of those nations and down to Cities, Boroughs and Parishes.
You may well ask, well how does having more Ministers in Whitehall help this to be the case?
I answer that by saying that regional Ministers have the power to convene in their own regions and to represent their regions within Government, to seek to ensure that none are left behind, bringing together business leaders with local government, trade unionists, environmentalists, educationalists, civic society and so on.
Regional Ministers can help set a strategy for their regions and be accountable, as well as hold others accountable, to ensure that the skills our people need in order to be able to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace are readily on offer.
Such strategies would also look at health, science, education, transport, sport and leisure, and other policy areas and would work from the bottom up, properly consulting with civic society and listening to the views of people in the various communities that make up our regions.
I certainly think such an initiative would benefit my own region, the East Midlands, of which I’m so proud. It is a part of the world which has a strong industrial heritage and has a proud current and future as a strong, multi-culturally diverse, and economically robust region.
So, this isn’t about power being within the grasp of those in Whitehall, this is about having someone in Government who can both lead in their regions and be held to account by those regions and can be measured on the success or otherwise that has taken place during their period of office.
So, I back the idea of regional ministers and I hope this is something a future progressive government will introduce.
* Mathew Hulbert is a parish Councillor in Leicestershire.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dem campaign staff gather to counter the threat of Edmania
Latest general election voting intention opinion polls
Being bold: Lib Dems election strategy
A big West End Christmas Fortnight Saturday! #dundeewestend
Whither the Welsh Liberal Democrats
Hello Yellow Brick Road
Martin
Martin Gray
Peter Watson
Mark Valladares
12 Comments
I don’t think there is any liberal case for regional ministers. There’s a liberal case for devolution – but moving to a system of regional prefects certainly isn’t devolution. It’s the worst kind of Labour boss politics.
Mathew would have us believe that a regional minister, who owes his appointment to a Prime Minister, and presumably has now department of his/her own, is going to be able to wield significant clout on behalf of a region within that government. He or she won’t – you need a mandate from the people to do that, not a part-time patronage appointment. Looking back at the Brown scheme, what mandate did the Labour regional ministers for the South East and South West have? What right do they have to set strategies for a region covering the wide range of policy areas Mathew outlines? We elect councillors (and *should* elect regional assemblies) to do that.
Mathew’s right to be proud of the East Midlands, but he should be channelling that pride into campaigning for the region to manage it’s own affairs, not a shuffling of deckchairs in Whitehall.
Coming after the vote in York, I really do wonder what’s happened to this party’s commitment to federalism and regional governance.
The major problem with any case for regional ministers is it assumes that a minister is the best person as a single figure to champion regions.
Quite frankly, that assumption to me is utter tosh. Whilst I’m a big proponent of England as a political entity, if you want regional strength, then you need regional assemblies, with regional mayors. Boris and Ken have been huge for London and done London a lot of good. That’s exactly what regions need. Someone with a big personality to champion the cause in the media, not just another flunky who’s only there because of patronage, and whose job relies on not rocking the boat.
Central appointment of ministerial office can never approach genuine devolution in addressing the concerns of the people in the regions.
Regional concerns will never be addressed through the appointment of regional ministers (thereby further strengthening the Executive in parliament too). We either need to endorse full and equal devolution to all entities of the United Kingdom, however it is subdivided, or not bother.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mathew that the East Midlands is somewhere which deserves a champion, particularly in view of our relatively disappointing statistics in employment, house prices etc. But that legitimate voice will only come through a regional government and legislature speaking with the authority and legitimacy endowed by its electors.
Dead right.
The previous ministers for the regions under New Labour were a complete waste of time. What the woman inthe North West ever usefully did was a mystery.
Tony
Just a thought: how about new structures that bring together all the MPs in a region? They could elect a single representative (or committee), hold the government to account, and be a focus point for stakeholders. These regional groups could have dedicated parliamentary resources to help them do research and get their arguments across (like how Northern Lib Dem MPs did a joint Budget submission).
Adam Corlett – I believe that proposal was first discussed by the Liberal Party as an alternative to introducing county councils (?) in the 1870s or 1880s.
“A progressive Government of Labour and Liberal Democrats could work on such a project together”
If you want it to happen, why don’t you just propose it as a Lib Dem party policy rather than tying it to either of the two bigger parties?
I think there is a case for regional ministers! However, as always, I am worried about a complete non-mention of the importance of single markets. Political unions are not just about defence and foreign policy.
“Central appointment of ministerial office can never approach genuine devolution in addressing the concerns of the people in the regions.” Correct. And devolution, such as we have in place currently, can never approach genuine federalism in delivering the same aims.
Mathew at least has tried to apply the localist principle in the absence of any kind of devolutionist arrangement for England. His idea is not entirely without merit. There is a case for regional leaders, and while not specifically liberal there should be a shift away from centralising influence in Westminster. The question is whether this measure would achieve what Mathew appears to want: namely, increased accountability and subsidiarity.
I would suggest not.
I agree with Andrew Emmerson that what is needed are English assemblies. Such a measure that would assuredly increase accountability and more effective regional representation. Whether this would be something supported by the Labour and Conservative parties is highly questionable, but it is something that liberals should be speaking for. Why the timidity?Where is the dynamic localism we preach with such gusto in our Focus newsletters?
Brian asks “what’s happened to this party’s commitment to federalism and regional governance?” As someone who’s been labelled an “ultra-federalist” I’ve suggested before that if it was a crime to be a federalist party, there would not be sufficient evidence with which to convict the Lib Dems. When have we dared to answer the all-important “English question”, without which any “federalist” settlement can be nothing of the sort? We have abandoned it to the likes of the English Democrats!
It is against this reluctance to fully embrace a federalist agenda, and Labour’s failure to deliver regional parliaments, that Mathew is writing. I see the appeal of regional ministers. I also see that the proposal itself simply underlines our failure to put forward any cohesive, pragmatic federalist proposals.
I cannot believe that this country has the sort of people in parliament who could achieve what is being suggested by Mathew. The suggestion could only work if the ministers were free from government dictat and allowed to fuse together the many branches of society. Can we see that happening in this country where everything in government is top down – as in the case of our own leader – who controls instead of listening. Great idea and I wish I lived in such a country.
This is really not going to be a step toward devolution, it is all top down. I can hear it now ” well I would like to support / do xyz for this region but the Cabinet / PM / coalition partner won’t let it happen”.
Also I am instinctively against one person having power, especially if that person is appointed by those further up.
there was a regional grouping of MPs, I went to the one meeting of it to observe. It was embarrassingly bad and utterly useless.
A long haul, but we need to focus on real devolution