Britain needs localism | thearticle

Governing during a pandemic involves balancing emotion with reason. Emotion involves saying we will do “whatever it takes” to “stay safe” and that “we will not put lives at risk.” Reason

tells us that such comforting sentiments are nonsense. That risks are balanced. Even if we decided that maximising life expectancy would be our only consideration — a pretty grim notion when

you consider it — that would still leave all sorts of difficult decisions. There would clearly be more to it than minimising the loss of life from the coronavirus. The logic of that would

be a far stricter lockdown. How would we then feed ourselves? But it is also nonsense to imagine that emotion could be removed. For instance, it has been pointed out that the current

response will cause indirect loss of life. Economic deprivation has the consequence of shortening lives. The NHS decision to prioritise treatment for coronavirus has meant that other

life-saving work, such as on cancer, has been neglected. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence which allocates funding for new drugs and medical procedures, puts a value of up to

£30,000 on each “quality-adjusted life year”. It follows that the moral imperative, so widely shared, that each life is equal and that each life is infinitely precious, is not the basis for

general public policy. For instance, saving a 95-year-old is not treated as such a high priority as saving a 15-year-old. During the current crisis, such a brutal application of priorities

has been suspended. The focus has been on the urgent, visible, direct saving of lives. There might be philosophical and practical objections but it is hard to see how it could have been

otherwise in political terms. Political leaders need to maintain public consent. The anger bubbling away over the Dominic Cummings affair shows how fragile that is. Part of the emotional

response involves solidarity: that “we are all in this together”, that everyone should be restricted in the same way. This powerful demand drowns out logic. Of course, the risk varies in all

sorts of ways. Men are more at risk than women, the fat more than the thin, the old more than the young and so on. But the risk also varies significantly according to geography. It follows

that taking a proportionate response to that risk should mean that our actions vary too. Would that not be an argument for devolution? If Mark Drakeford, the First Minister of Wales or

Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, wish to make different decisions to Boris Johnson why shouldn’t they? Some suggest that the Welsh and Scots would find it “confusing” to

operate under different rules from the English. This strikes me as to underestimate Celtic intelligence. In any case, it would not make sense to keep the people of one country captive,

despite the risk being negligible, just because the risk was higher elsewhere. Conversely, it would be unreasonable to put one area at serious health risk just because the economy in the

rest of the UK needed to crank up to avert bankruptcy. Nick Timothy wrote recently in the _Daily Telegrap_h about the “chaotic nature” of the current devolution settlement. But, quite

rightly, he adds that the answer is to increase accountability by handing down more power. This would also apply to local government in England. The health system is over-centralised. There

also needs to be financial responsibility. If one region keeps its economy shut down for longer then it is unreasonable to expect the rest of us to pick up the cost. Not that resolving

matters is straightforward. For instance, should not the guidance vary within Scotland? The death rate from coronavirus is more than twice as high in Dundee as it is in Aberdeen. Why not

have real devolution so that those local areas decide on arrangements that suit them, rather than being dictated to from Holyrood or Westminster. Local government has very little power in

Northern Ireland, while Arlene Foster, the First Minister, can’t do a thing without the approval of Sinn Fein. Then we have London. Apparently, the capital contributes nearly a quarter of

the UK’s GDP. It would not be reasonable to let the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, spend it all. Some of the other regional Mayors might complicate matters. What if the Mayor of Greater

Manchester differs with the Leader of Manchester City Council? Or the Mayor of the West Midlands differs with the Leader of Birmingham City Council? We should probably get rid of the Metro

Mayors if they can’t be given a clearer role. The way forward is to have greater power handed down to the local authority level. A few weeks ago I was told that in Gloucestershire there was

an abundance of ICU beds sitting empty in the NHS. It was quite implausible that lifting the lockdown in that county — for instance, opening shops and schools — would have led to the NHS

being overwhelmed. In other counties the figures were different and the risk might reasonably have been considered more acute. Other countries are used to greater variation within their

boundaries. The US has seen big differences in the policies adopted to cope with the coronavirus in different states and sharp variations in outcome. But the US is not the only example. We

have the Länder in Germany, the cantons in Switzerland. The UK is exceptionally centralised. The Health Secretary Matt Hancock has announced that the “test and trace” system could mean we

have local lockdowns in the coming weeks even while most of us are getting out and about more freely. Even if the communications for this more sophisticated approach are confused, it still

makes sense. Proper localism though would mean local decision making. Here an emotional motive (not wishing to be bossed around by outsiders) — would be aligned with one of reason

(proceeding on the basis of the relevant evidence.) Our dysfunctional constitutional arrangements mean it might be messy at present. But the aim should be the publication, in full of the

scientific and medical data and analysis. The local leaders make a decision on how far and how fast to lift the lockdown and what other measures to undertake. They can consult their chambers

of commerce, police chiefs, local NHS managers. Some councils will be bold, others cautious. There will be experiments and mistakes. We can vote out those who get it wrong at the council

elections which will eventually take place next year. At least it would be harder to say that those elections don’t matter.