History never repeats itself, either as tragedy or farce. Delve deeper and the differences between one era and another are overwhelming.

It’s not the 1980s. Labour must unite to fight the Tories | Polly Toynbee Read more

Currently, comparisons with the 1980s erupt on an almost hourly basis. I am writing this at the Edinburgh festival, where, you will not be surprised to read, there seem to a be a lot of non-Conservatives. When it comes to politics, quite a lot of them are depressed non-Conservatives. Will it be worse than the 1980s or merely as bad in terms of one-party rule from Westminster? The questions reflect the themes that accompany Labour’s second leadership contest within a year. Will there be a split? Help! There cannot be a split, look what happened to the SDP. But then again, Labour is doomed to defeat, look what happened in 1983!

My advice is not to look at what happened in 1983 or to the experiences of the SDP as a wholly dependable guide. Context is vital to an understanding of politics and for an appreciation of any current situation, but awareness of the past is different from taking it as a route map to the future. Some of the differences are obvious. Margaret Thatcher won two landslides in the 1980s. The current government has a majority of 12 with Brexit still to navigate. Labour is virtually nowhere to be seen in Scotland, whereas it was still dominant in that decade to which we are supposedly returning. Party politics is more fractured even without an equivalent to the SDP.

Above all, we are currently living through an accidental constitutional revolution, the dispersal of power away from Westminster. The 1997 Labour government was as fearfully cautious in its intentions towards devolution as it was on every other front. But inadvertently it unleashed change on a scale that we have hardly started to come to terms with. Nearly two decades later, the trend continues to be in one direction – giving away more powers from the centre.

This is the precise opposite of what was happening in the 1980s. At her lofty peak, Thatcher abolished the Greater London Council and other metropolitan authorities around England partly because they gave her Labour opponents an alternative platform. As a result she ruled the entire UK without challenge. There was no significant counter anywhere. Local government was hollowed out. There was no Scottish parliament. Crucially there were no alternative platforms for political figures to thrive on, where alternative policy agendas could be tested.

In the past, no one in their right minds would have left Westminster for the powerless desert of local government

Fast forward to now, and the Labour mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, makes waves. If he had been a Labour MP either in the shadow cabinet or as one of the dissenting rebels, he would hardly have been noticed when he announced his opposition to Jeremy Corbyn. As the newly elected mayor of London his declaration is front page news. Last week, Khan got the prime 8.10am slot on the Today programme to put forward radical ideas in relation to the capital’s air pollution and ongoing massive transport challenges. This is a Labour figure in a position of power.

Moving to Scotland, its first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, made a powerful left-of-centre case for remaining in the EU earlier this year. She could make it because she has a significant platform. The Scottish government’s powers are far greater than in the early years of devolution, and likely to get greater still.

Back in England, during last year’s Conservative party conference in Manchester, I attended a fringe event at the Granada studios at which the then chancellor, George Osborne, was the key speaker. Counterintuitively, Osborne welcomed Labour council leaders who formed part of his northern powerhouse to the conference event. That plan was partly a crude political device, but one that also gave the likes of the Labour-dominated Manchester council significant additional powers. Andy Burnham, who hoped to be leader of the Labour party this time a year ago, is standing to be Manchester’s mayor. In the 1980s, no one in their right minds would have left Westminster for the powerless desert of local government.

The redistribution of power, likely to continue under Theresa May and in a more balanced manner, must not be a lazy alternative to deeper thinking about policy. In opposition, David Cameron argued that this was to be his party’s big idea, but he did not know fully what he meant by the phrase or whether he really believed in it. Ed Miliband also became an enthusiast, knowing that few voters in their anti-Westminster mood would oppose it. Some of the anti-Corbyn Labour MPs claim devolution to be their big idea partly because they are not sure what they would do with power were they ever to get it. But on the whole, this accidental revolution has led to greater accountability and better policies.

If we must relive the 1980s, at least we get Stranger Things | Hannah Jane Parkinson Read more

The other consequence is that non-Conservative forces away from Westminster have no choice but to flourish and remain robust as they acquire new roles and responsibilities. Their voices are the difference between now and then. Labour’s circuitous death dance may continue at Westminster, but unlike the 1980s there is space for more than one set of moves on the political stage. If Labour is to rule again at Westminster, it will partly be on the back of the alternative dances across the UK.

• Steve Richards presents Rock N Roll Politics at the Edinburgh Festival