top of page
Search

Part 4 - Governed from and by London

  • Writer: Sam Knight
    Sam Knight
  • Jun 1, 2019
  • 6 min read

The ‘root cause of the problem is that decisions are made in Whitehall Departments by people who are overwhelmingly from and live in the South’ (Barnett, 2016), according to Tracy Brabin MP. London has received the greatest share of rail infrastructure investment, because the people who decide where investment is allocated are based in London and overwhelmingly come from London. This means that ideas and narratives that put London at the centre of the UK economy are accepted and have become imbedded in Government thinking. Therefore, policymakers believe investing in London is the most desirable policy, leading to imbalance in investment between London and the rest of the country.

The academic Craig Berry stated that ‘senior policymakers, officials and politicians are overwhelmingly drawn from affluent groups in and among London’ and that ‘how they have lived and been brought up has instilled some biases’. Obviously not all decision makers have previously lived or worked in London, instead they have acted in a way that favours London because the shared norms and values of Government have limited their autonomy (Hay, 2006, pp.65). As decision makers spend time in an institution they become socialised, so that they adopt the shared norms and values themselves (Marsh et al, 2001, pp.14-15). The result of this is that as Amin et al (2003, pp.15) stated, Government is ‘run from and through the perspective of London and the South East. And [therefore] London and the South East benefit from that’. This continues to be the case today.



The ideas that decision makers hold is the product of their past experiences (Hay, 2002, p.211), with a large proportion living and working in London, the result is that they believe London is the centre of the economy and deserves more rail infrastructure investment than the rest of the country. Craig Berry said that although it was too simplistic to say this was the only factor leading to more rail infrastructure investment in London than in the rest of the country, it was a factor. Tom Forth (2014) gives an account of a consultation held by the Department for Transport in 2014 on the future of rail in Northern England, which shows the distance between decision makers in London and the rest of the country. He asked if any of the civil servants who were leading the session took any trains regularly in the North, none of them did.


Richard Berry (2013) has found that in terms of where MPs previously worked before they were elected, London is significantly overrepresented. Of those MPs whose past employment data was available, 45% had worked in London prior to being elected. This matters because it leads to cultural disconnect, with civil servants and politicians developing a certain view of the country which does not necessarily reflect the experiences of those outside London and the South East (King and Crewe, 2013, pp.244). This issue was raised by Dan Jarvis MP (2019), Mayor of the Sheffield City Region, who says that ‘decisions have been made in Whitehall and Westminster with very little understanding of the impact that they would have on communities’. The result of this is that the ideas decision makers hold on how the economy operates are based on their experiences of London, so ideas that place London at the centre of the economy are readily accepted. This then means that they believe investing in rail infrastructure in London and the South East is the best way to maximise national growth.



Government does include those who’s past experiences do not come from London and the Wider South East, but the ideas decision makers use to interpret the world do not come solely from personal experience, it also comes from the shared norms and values of an institution (Fierke, 2016, pp.164). This can be seen from Louise Kidney’s (2012) account of working in Government. She was a civil servant who was based in London, but originally came from the North of England. She argues that Government is not as London-centric as everyone believes, but as she acknowledged herself, when she took weekly trips back to the North she was reminded ‘sometimes gently and sometimes with a jolt, just whose lives it is that we are trying to make better’ (Kidney, 2012). This demonstrates the impact that an institution’s shared norms and values have on actors; it limits their political autonomy to challenge the status quo and shapes what is seen as being a desirable action (Hay, 2006, pp.65). Both civil servants (Marsh et al, 2001, pp.14) and Government ministers (Jones, 2011, pp.96) find themselves constrained and shaped by the ideas that exist within Government. A Manchester Councillor highlights how MPs are quickly shaped by the dominant ideas of Parliament. They say that ‘London centrism was a mindset not held by all MPs, but once they get into the Houses of Parliament, something gets into their minds that in order for this country to stand on the world stage, we have to invest everything into the capital’ (Brown, 2019, pp.60).



This is where the political, economic and media elites being centralised in a small area in the centre of London becomes an issue (John et al, 2005, pp.92). It can lead to group think, which is liable to happen when a tight group feels pressure to maintain group cohesion or sees outside groups as hostile or alien (King and Crewe, 2013, pp.255-256). Government meets this definition, it is characterised by a culture of closed government and the idea that it knows best (Marsh et al, 2001, pp.28). The result of this is that a small group reinforces each other’s views, with dissenting views struggling to be heard (King and Crewe, 2013, pp.256). As Parliament and Government are dominated by those whose personal experience come from London, their ideas and narratives come to dominate, meaning London is seen as the centre of the economy and rail infrastructure investment is used to promote economic growth in London.

By having the political institutions that make the key decisions of where to locate rail infrastructure based in London and having the key decision makers predominately coming from backgrounds in London and the South East, the political institutions are unconsciously biased towards London. This means that narratives that put London at the centre of the UK economy, and argue that to boost national growth, transport infrastructure investment should go to London, are accepted. Therefore, having all the power at the centre is now seen as a barrier to the rest of the country, even George Osborne (The Economist, 2015), accepted that the old model of running everything from London was broken. To challenge the London-centric ideas and narratives, new regional bodies, such as Transport for the North, have been established. Power has also been devolved to new city mayors (Centre for Cities, 2016). They have power over local transport and can contribute to the national debate, challenging the London-centric view of central Government. Luke Raikes says they are crucial in helping to challenge the London-centric narratives and therefore help the rest of the country get a fairer share of transport infrastructure investment. However, while decisions on where to allocate rail infrastructure investment remain with central Government in London, it will continue to be a struggle to tackle the imbalance in rail infrastructure investment. This is because ideas that put London at the centre of the economy will continue to be embedded and reinforced, as they reflect the experiences of policymakers. As Hay (2006, pp.65) states this leads to path dependency, resulting in the Government failing to tackle the imbalance in rail infrastructure investment between London and the rest of the country.


References:

Comentarios

bottom of page