The new politics of regeneration

I recently took a belated look at Regeneration to Enable Growth, CLG’s attempt to capture ‘what government is doing in support of community-led regeneration’.

That the document contains little more than three pages of text, padded out with tables listing everything departments do that is remotely relevant, warns us that the answer is ‘not a lot’.

This comes as no surprise. For one thing, civil servants have long responded to ministerial concerns that the government is perceived not to be doing enough for England’s most deprived areas and communities by throwing the kitchen sink at somewhat flimsy policy statements. Equally, it has been apparent for some time that the kitchen sink was turning into a soap dish.

Regeneration funding was being lined up by the previous administration as a soft target for cuts. In de-ringfencing multifarious ‘special’ programmes focused on the poorest areas and grouping them into one area-based grant, Labour made it easy for the coalition to discontinue them in the name of freedom of choice for local authorities.

‘The last time we faced remotely similar economic and political circumstances was in the early to mid-1980s. On that occasion, the result was protracted mass unemployment, a series of urban riots and a bitter stand-off between national and local government.’ Whitehall documentation notwithstanding, there is no serious national regeneration strategy beyond what ‘local civic and business leaders, voluntary and community sector organisations and social enterprises’ decide to do for themselves, with whatever resources they can muster. That is the very essence of the new localism. What is less predictable is how localism will play, with what regenerative effect, in different parts of the country.

The last time we faced remotely similar economic and political circumstances was in the early to mid-1980s. On that occasion, the result was protracted mass unemployment, a series of urban riots and a bitter stand-off between national and local government (then a much more significant service provider) on the issue of finance.

However, the same period produced levels of innovation with respect to local economic development and regeneration, driven by necessity and a new generation of (largely Labour) local politicians, whose influence within and beyond local government proved much more profound and longer-lasting than any number of short-term, experimental top-down initiatives.

The recent local elections suggest that voters won’t allow the Liberal Democrats to sustain their hard-won position as a credible alternative to Labour in the north and the Conservatives in the south while they remain a partner in government. In all likelihood, the results therefore mark the beginning of a return to the two-party political polarisation of the 1980s.

In terms of economic development and regeneration, the coalition will face the perennial problem of forcing Tory-dominated areas in the south to accept more development in their back-yards. The financial incentives on offer might appeal to local authority leaderships but are unlikely to appease their electorates, some of whom may claim new community planning powers for Nimbyist ends.

In the north and midlands, much will depend upon a new generation of local Labour leaderships of whom we know relatively little so far. If the 1980s are anything to go by, though, we might be in for some interesting times.