British Devolution and the Labour Party: How a National Party Adapts to Devolution

Abstract

In 1999 the Labour government in the UK devolved significant powers to the newly created Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. This article concludes that the British Labour party, as a national party, has not formally reorganised itself to reflect the new realities of devolution. Rather, the national ruling elite has continued to stress the importance of maintaining the valuable Labour brand to ensure the electability of the party at Westminster and retain the possibility of using party links to co-ordinate policy on devolved matters across Britain. Even so, the regional Labour elites in Scotland and Wales have acquired the freedom to make significant strategic choices in terms of policy and electoral strategy. However, these choices are ultimately constrained by tacit, intra-party understandings and ‘rules of the game’

Devolution, state restructuring and policy divergence in the UK

“…What might in retrospect be termed the first phase of UK devolution between 1999 and 2007 was characterised by common Labour Party government at the devolved and UK levels (though in coalition with the Liberal Democrats in Scotland from 1999–2007 and in Wales from 2000–2003), stable inter‐government relations and substantial increases in public expenditure. In general, Labour Party links also acted as a constraint on policy divergence, with the exception of certain high‐profile initiatives such as free care for the elderly and the abolition of upfront tuition fees (Laffin and Shaw ). At the same time, the budgets of the devolved government rose substantially between 2001/2002 and 2009/2010 (61.5% in Scotland, 60% in Wales and 62.6% in Northern Ireland) as a result of spending decisions taken by the Labour Government in London and channelled through the Barnett Formula (HM Treasury ).…”

“…Other initiatives have been the result of policies introduced by the devolved governments themselves. For instance, the issue of free personal care for the elderly has been one of the most high‐profile areas of (horizontal and vertical) policy divergence with the Scottish Government deciding in 2001 to break with the UK Government's policy by funding full care, sparking criticism from Westminster about the perceived costs and political implications of this (Laffin and Shaw ). Another significant example of policy divergence is provided by the Welsh Assembly's decision to abolish prescription charges which has subsequently been adopted by the SNP Government.…”

Devolution as Process: Institutional Structures, State Personnel and Transport Policy in the United Kingdom

“…The process of filling in can be seen as having both structural and relational dimensions (Shaw and MacKinnon, in press) terms of the effectiveness of political leaders in generating momentum (Leach and Wilson, 2004;Sweeting, 2002). The importance of key personnel in interpreting and shaping transport devolution underlines the significance of Jessop's point that the state has no power as such, only the power of the social forces acting in and through it (Jessop, 1990).…”

The New Sub-National Politics of the British Labour Party

“…The lander party organizations have assumed key roles in the vital candidate selection and policymaking functions, thereby dispersing power within the SPD along more federal lines (Gabriel, 1989: 69;Jeffrey, 1999). This article is about how British Labour has adapted to devolution and the focus is on the newly significant Scottish and Welsh Labour parties (we have elsewhere explored the national-level Labour response, Laffin, Shaw and Taylor, 2004). The rationale is that the dynamics of the regional branches of the national parties are crucial in understanding the evolution of centre-periphery tensions.…”