Radical Federalism Part 2: Questions to be answered — Richard Martin
In advance of Radical Federalism’s live event launching part two of their report (Live at 12pm, Thursday March 4th) we ask some of the questions that the panel needs to answer.
Asserting that the United Kingdom needs to reform if it is to survive is not a radical pronouncement in 2021. Apart from the hardest kind of imperial unionist (for whom progression is regression to a unitary past that never was) there is a commonly held acceptance that significant change is needed. For some this is a question of good governance while for others — particularly and primarily the Labour Party — it is a question of political viability.
It is within the Labour Party in Wales where the two causes intersect. The only national legislature where Labour have survived the cull of social democratic governing parties across Europe thus far and the only country in Western Europe where a Labour Party is likely to ‘win’ a parliamentary election this, or any foreseeable, year. With pressures mounting from the UK Government’s increasingly aggressive stance to the hemi-demi-semi autonomy that the people of Wales have within the United Kingdom and Scotland’s imminent decision on its continued membership of the state, there is a real and genuine pressure on the Welsh Labour Welsh Government to try and bulwark its own credibility against the twin threats of overrule from London and loss of a valuable partner opposing this overrule in the form of the Scottish Government.
Unfortunately for the Labour Party, it has found in itself enough internal contradictions to prevent and postpone presentation of any coherent vision of the future to the electorate (an essential element of building support for a cause and course of action), instead forever choosing a Leigh Halfpenny-esque boot into the long grass whenever the heat is lowered on the subject. In 2021 Brexit, Johnsonian Anglo-centric British Nationalism and Scottish independence have acted as a triple-action blade cutting away all residual long grass, leaving the constitutional question exposed once more.
Into this scenario comes another instalment of the ‘Radical Federalism’ pamphlet series, which intends to make a case for UK reform framed by a combination of key values and a newspaper-friendly catchphrase trotted out by a series of Labour leadership figures over the last few years.
It is, of course, a crowded field to enter. Not only do other parties and governments have a plentiful selection of proposals (we still wait for UK Gov to publish the Dunlop Review) but the Labour Party itself appears unable to coordinate its own platform across Britain. The Radical Federalism project has begun in Wales building on a Welsh Government proposal not long after Scottish Labour produced a far more coherent proposal in ‘Remaking the British State’, which itself crossed over the Starmer-commissioned project under Gordon Brown which, in the most charitable light, could be seen as a reprise of a song we’ve heard many times before.
Unfortunately the barrier to progress on the matter has often proved to be the Labour Party itself. Infamously the plans for the devolution of policing and justice to Wales being shot down by Labour’s Owen Smith in 2015 and then largely written out of the 2019 UK election manifesto after featuring clearly in the 2017 edition being such an example — managing to both damage the Welsh Labour platform in Wales and tacitly support the Conservative opposition to the proposal. There is no-one in a significant leadership role personally championing this as Blair did devolution in 1997, presenting it as both a balm to the wounds of Thatcherism and a platform for an exciting new future. Without leadership there can be no movement on this issue and without coordination there can be no coherent proposal to take to the electorate. There is no guarantee or evidence that the UK Parliamentary Labour Party wants to engage in the matter in any serious way at all. (One suspects that they would rather it disappeared off the radar again completely.)
If the first ‘Radical Federalism’ pamphlet was an outline of aims and aspirations, the second is a statement of process. It is at once an acknowledgement of what it is possible, a reflection of the limitations of ambition and, like all good consultations, seems intended more to engender support for the stated aims of those leading it than to throw up fresh or truly innovative thinking.
Its central ambition is to convene a series of ‘People’s Conventions’ within Wales to allow for public deliberation of the yet-to-be-defined terms of reference and a rejection of the ‘exclusive’ right of similar, appointed, conventions “particularly one designed, and populated according to the perspectives of the Westminster Government. Any such approach would be remote, and too far distant from the heart-beat and voices of our towns, villages and communities.” It is presumably couched thus so as not to be overly critical of Gordon Brown’s initiative and by territorially limiting its scope to Wales it also brings it within the realms of possibility, should Welsh Labour return to government. At this point it is quite realistic for the authors to accept that they will not be in a position to convince the other British countries to participate as their respective governments have their own, very different, agendas.
Aside from the sense that crowdsourcing a constitution brings its own challenges (Would you trust the public to co-design your house, let alone your country’s constitution?) we have yet to learn more about the terms of reference for these events. One would anticipate that a future pamphlet would cover this. It is unclear who will be attending these events. Surely, it is aimed at the mainstream Labour membership. The narrow scope of discussion proposed almost guarantees it. Why, for example, would Yes Cymru activists engage in events designed to lock Wales into the UK or why would the imperial-nationalist Conservative-UKIP demographic engage in a decentralisation consultation when they wish to eliminate the multi-national character of the union entirely? If this is indeed a pro-devolution Labour project, why is it not being explicitly framed that way? Why is it not being discussed in party forums? Are the membership engaged in its design? It is almost as if the party is trying to own the process but keep it at arm’s length.
For its many laudable aims and ideals, there is one glaring issue running through the core of this pamphlet and the entire project. It appears to assume that there is time and space for it to play out at its leisurely pace. The authors clearly have a vision for the future design and operation of the future UK on the assumption that it retains the same territorial footprint but by the time they have some conclusions and proposals to share, Scotland may have held its election and subsequent referendum on independence. To quote Ruth Davidson: While Labour is fiddling with its flies the Tories are enjoying a post-coital cigarette.
Under the twin time pressures of aggressive anti-devolutionism from the East and potential secession from the state in the North, one wonders how much time this group has, or thinks it has, to deliver something that may or may not become party policy in whatever remains of the United Kingdom at that point. The answer is simply, not enough. Running consultations on this scale takes months, drafting and agreeing conclusions takes months more. If this is an exercise in providing Scotland and Wales (if indeed there is any coordination between Scots and Welsh Labour on this issue) with a choice at the next election, they have 10 weeks.
This entire exercise is like a mountaineer planning the route up the mountain only after arriving at base camp, with the night already closing in.
All of which makes one wonder, ‘what is the point?’ A Radical Federalism project (thus far totalling 20 pages, including biographies) put forward by a small number of current and former Labour representatives in Wales with little hope of ever being realised is a curious beast. Notably un-championed by the leadership of Labour across Britain and comparatively underdeveloped compared to other Labour-led initiatives of recent, likely to be outpaced by external events and — fundamentally — without any credible roadmap for delivery, how should the Welsh public sphere interpret it? Is it a sop to the expanding and vocal indy-curious wing of the party in a crucial election year? Is it a tiny philosophical acorn from which a towering electoral oak may grow? Will it become the cornerstone of Scottish, Welsh and English manifestos this year? Or is a sign of a party desperately trying to find an answer to particularly thorny issue that runs counter to its post-war identity and muscle memory?
There is always a historical parallel worth reflecting on. The Liberal Party once dominated the Welsh landscape as Labour does today. Well over a century ago it, too, championed home rule to Wales and Scotland without ever making that coherent and essential proposal for England. Even now, they still have not resolved how to deliver a federalism that they, too, would likely label as ‘radical’ and that instantly negates any credibility the proposal has for the Welsh and Scots because only a party elected by English electors has the power in Westminster to enact such reform.
That is, of course, if you believe the only path for reform lies within a United Kingdom.
Richard Martin is the producer and co-host of the Hiraeth Podcast.
