Labour's political reform plan risks being seen as rearranging deckchairs on Titanic: David Blunkett

As I was reading it, I couldn’t help but reflect on the priorities of those facing the greatest hardship at this present time, and where, in the scheme of things, this well-researched and comprehensive Commission report might find a place.

There is much in this report with which I wholeheartedly agree. Proposals to devolve much greater power to the regions and localities in England, as well as greater clarification of devolved powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, make, for me, both good common sense and would renew our democracy.

But does anyone think – with the enormous challenges facing an incoming government in just about every economic and social front – wholesale constitutional change would either be possible, or for that matter, politically credible?

Instead, sensible, incremental change with an overarching framework which would see a clear set of goals and a doable timetable, could lead to real and lasting improvement in the way that we “do” our politics.

Change is certainly needed.

Statistics produced by Professor Phillip McCann for the Commission make the point very clearly in demonstrating imbalance – not just of economic outcome, but of how this reflects where political power lies.

For instance: “Half the UK population live in areas no better off than the poorer parts of the former East Germany, poorer than parts of Central and Eastern Europe.”

The work that I chaired for Keir Starmer, published back in October, reinforces what shines through in Gordon Brown’s work on the need to decentralise policy and implementation, and that we have a massively overcentralised State.

But power always lies with those holding the purse strings.

It is all well and good to talk about bringing together existing initiatives into a “British Regional Investment Bank”, but not to keep it as a “top-down” rather than a “bottom-up” initiative.

The great success of Germany since the Second World War has been achieved, in part at least, because of their regional banking system which is, of course, local, not national.

For there to be a massive shift in regeneration and renewal in those parts of our nation which need it most, we cannot rely on largesse from the centre, no matter how benign.

It is surely access to investment potential, which is sufficiently localised to understand and share in the proposals for significant change, which would really make the difference between success and failure.

Equally, revitalising local government and making elected Mayoral and Combined Authorities work for the people they serve also requires the reinforcement and therefore development of local leadership.

If local government is to be given both additional powers and greater responsibility, then skilling those with leadership potential is a vital pre-requisite.

One of the reasons local government and democracy has been so diminished over the last decade is not just the denial of resource, but of powers and the capacity to respond.

One of my greatest concerns about the recommended constitutional changes is in respect of the abolition of the House of Lords. I know, I would say I was concerned, wouldn’t I?

After all, I spend a good part of my week engaged in the activity of the Second Chamber. So let me put on record, straight away, that I am in favour of reform.

Reflecting, more effectively, the regions and nations of the UK with a much smaller membership, and clearer powers and relationship with the House of Commons make sense.

Yet, the paradox is that the House of Commons is supposed to “reflect” the regions and nations in a world where if we are frank, any system that sought to provide greater representation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be at the expense of representation from England.

Even if you do feel strongly about the Lords being elected, you can hardly blame them for the mess created both within the House of Commons over recent months, or for the absurdity of the last two Prime Ministers seeking to stuff their friends and colleagues into the place.

The House of Lords is not responsible for those arriving in ever increasing numbers, or for the failure to strengthen the Appointments Commission.

It is the House of Lords that have been demanding reform, and the Conservative Government that has been blocking it.

And, if anyone wants a system like the United States, then they need their heads examining.

The US constitution, established at the end of the 18th Century, is way past its “sell-by” date. The Senate, representing the States, gives the same representation to a tiny state like Vermont with a population of just over 600,000, as to that of California with nearly 40 million.

So, let’s have the debate, but also recognise that the last thing on the minds of men and women endeavouring to make ends meet is the prospect of a parliament bogged down in the minutiae on where to place the deckchairs on the Titanic. After all, we are holed under the water, but not by our constitution. It is poor decision-making, bad politics and a failure of vision and clarity of purpose which has brought Britain, over almost 13 years, to its knees.

Lord David Blunkett is a former Home Secretary and Sheffield MP.