Alex Thomson in The MJ: Never mind the devolution guff
Author: Alex Thomson, Localis |
Writing comment columns isn’t as easy as it looks. The mechanics aren’t too tricky but, as the election made abundantly clear, having an opinion doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about.
And I note that many of the small band of commentators who went against national media-received opinion and called the election right (think Dan Hodges, Phil Collins and Danny Finkelstein) have one thing in common ? they have directly relevant personal experience, having lived and breathed political campaigns. Knowledge trumped intuition.
I have always tried to write by this rule; only commenting assertively on subjects in which I have direct personal experience. I’ve worked in government departments, I’ve worked for a political party (including doing election campaigns), and I’ve created, developed and costed policies which have come to fruition.
So there a number of things I can talk about with authority. What I haven’t done is work in local government, so I have striven to never tell council leaders and chief executives what they should do.
Why do I raise this? Because devolution is a hot topic. And while it is great news that local government is being discussed as a key player in delivering economic growth and reformed public services, the corollary of this high profile is that there will be lots of guff written about the subject.
So unless the author actually knows whereof they write, treat everything you read with caution. In the absence of relevant experience, commentators all too often fall back on hearsay from ‘well placed sources’ with their own agendas. Or worse still, they rely (perhaps unwittingly) on their prejudices, retrofitted to the supposed ‘facts’. I read a piece recently arguing ‘austerity is bad, devolution won’t solve austerity, therefore devolution is bad’.
We are entering a hugely challenging period for local government. I’m a localist and so while I am aware of the colossal pressure on Greater Manchester to deliver and vindicate the chancellor’s gamble, I’m optimistic and confident that they will do so.
But there will doubtless be stumbles along the way, and some will herald those stumbles as the failure of localism (don’t underestimate the scale of the challenge that genuine devolution poses to a commentariat largely rooted in the salons of inner London). But as the last few months have shown, received opinion is often more groupthink than meaningful insight.