The UK Prime Minister is seeking a reset of relationships between the four nations, aiming for greater collaboration and respect between administrations. The focus is on fostering mutual learning, improving policy outcomes, and supporting the proposed Council for the Nations & Regions, which could promote meaningful cooperation and stronger inter-governmental relations.
Dewi Knight is the Director of PolicyWISE, and a former government specialist policy adviser.
PolicyWISE is the UK and Ireland comparative policy, research and knowledge exchange initiative. Hosted by The Open University it works to bring people and research together to identify solutions to cross-nation issues facing policymakers. You can contact Dewi at dewi.knight@open.ac.uk and follow PolicyWISE on X, Instagram and LinkedIn.
“How did things ever get so far? I don't know. It was so unfortunate, so unnecessary.”
(Don Vito Corleone, to the heads of the ‘Five Families,’ The Godfather)
As head of the UK’s ‘four families’, the Prime Minister is seeking his own “reset” of familial relations. His commitment to new inter-governmental relations and structures must be an offer we can’t refuse, so that there is greater cross-nation policy learning, more respect between administrations and improved outcomes for citizens.
At PolicyWISE we are running a series of UK wide roundtables examining the successes – and challenges – of cross-nation networks, policy innovation, and comparative research. To date, we have held events in Edinburgh and Cardiff asking attendees what do the first 25 years of devolution tell us about the future of inter-governmental exchanges and relations?
There is already optimism for the proposed new Council for the Nations & Regions. This forum could help achieve the “meaningful cooperation centred on respect” sought by the Prime Minister.
To help ensure meaningful co-operation, we have identified three working issues for the Council, and for refreshed inter-governmental relations:
- Inter-governmental relations should formally emphasise collaboration and learning, rather than competition.
- The need for multi-lateral learning – avoiding England as the “norm” but also guarding against policy “Anglophobia.”
- The importance of data comparability, whilst recognising differences – and a shared understanding of policy definitions and language.
How did things get so far?
Before we take these recommendations in turn, let us briefly look at how things got so far that we need a cross-administration relationship “reset.”
Current and past First Ministers have highlighted recent Westminster political culture and leadership as the main barrier to meaningful co-operation.
John Swinney has contrasted the positive working relationships that the SNP Government enjoyed with both the Gordon Brown and David Cameron UK Governments, as compared to the later Conservative governments.
The pandemic saw good examples of cross-administration working, but also exposed and exacerbated tensions in relationships.
At our roundtables, we heard the frustrations of devolved decisions and policies being “justified” if different to UK Government policy for England. Rather than being respected (and analysed) as policy created in its own distinct way, for its own context.
Boris Johnson was uncomfortable with his government’s dual role as UK-wide convener, but also as authority for England, during the pandemic.
In his evidence to the Covid Inquiry, Mr Johnson said that it was “optically wrong for the UK prime minister to hold regular meetings” with devolved government first ministers. This reflects the English “imaginary” in British politics and policymaking as noted by Prof Michael Kenny and Prof John Denham (and others).
At PolicyWISE conferences and events, a consistent theme is the (perceived) reluctance of ministers and policymakers to use the words England or English when presenting policies that only directly apply to England.
This has implications not only in who represents the citizens of England in inter-governmental relations, but also for societal understanding in England and across the UK, and how we approach policy co-operation.
Collaboration and Learning
We encourage refreshed inter-governmental structures and relations to move away from an overly “competitive” approach to one of collaboration, policy learning and exchanges. This can help the move to a more positive policy and political culture.
The Council’s terms of reference could make policy learning and collaboration an official objective. It could draw on the wording in Labour’s manifesto and the Australian National Cabinet’s “principles based” approach.
The Australian model is a Covid-era development, its effectiveness and future are discussed here. There are lessons to be learned for the UK, and how might new structures nurture a shared appreciation for “national missions”.
A major difference with the Australian model is the role of the convening government (the UK Government in this case), as also being the domestic government for the largest constituent part.
The role of English regional leadership will be important for genuine multi-lateral learning and exchanges. The Westminster Government will also need to better define itself as both national government for England, and for all four nations.
Avoiding Policy Anglophobia
We also recommend that policymakers elsewhere in the UK avoid policy “Anglophobia” in cross-nation learning. We have heard in our roundtables that there can be a devolved reticence to study and learn from English policy approaches.
We described this in our report as Scottish “exceptionalism”. This is when policy learning is considered not relevant or not needed if the philosophical approaches are thought to be fundamentally different.
The “reset” in policy relationships needs to go two-ways. We also recommend that UK Government colleagues should seek to avoid seeing English policy developments as the “norm” and appreciate that devolved policy is developed for its own context, not as a divergence.
Data Comparability
In all our roundtables, and in our other work, there is a consensus on the importance of data comparability for policy learning, analysis, and comparative research.
This should not be at the expense of devolved policy priorities and context. Comparability is different from each administration using the exact same definitions, measures, or outputs.
Improved inter-governmental relations and structures is an opportunity for increased shared understanding, and appreciation, of how different governments define and term their own policies, interventions, and outputs. We are contributing with a series of Mind Your Policy Language videos setting out the contexts, language and policy differences between the nations.
ONS Local is already doing excellent work to provide analysis, address data gaps and build capability. We encourage anyone interested in comparative policy and research to engage with them. Chief Statisticians across UK Governments are also co-operating to improve “coherence and comparability”.
Identifying cross-administration shared data and analysis priorities should be an essential element of improved inter-governmental working, allowing administrations to share policy where they have most to learn, and those where they can share learning across the UK.
The commitment from the Prime Minister – and warm response from devolved leaders - for improved relations between our governments (and parliaments) is an opportunity for all of us engaged in policy research to collaborate on cross-nation learning and inform policy exchanges and co-operation.
And even if our governments continue to differ in their philosophies and political objectives, it is still always better to keep your friends close, but your enemies closer…
We are continuing our series of roundtables, with events in Northern Ireland and England to follow. Civil service and parliamentary colleagues tell us that they want more comparative and cross-nation research and analysis, as they develop or scrutinise policy. Do get in touch if you would like to hear more, or work with us across the UK and Ireland.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the IPR, nor of the University of Bath.
Respond
