Blogs and Briefings
What next for decentralisation?
Connect’s Steve Barwick looks at the prospects for decentralisation and elected mayors.
25 January
In those cities that vote to hold elections for mayors, polling day will be on the same ‘Super Thursday’ as those for Elected Police Commissioners – 15th November. But first there must be positive referendums in May.
Given that just 19 individual members of the public - and 39 organisations, including only five local authorities – responded to the Coalition's consultation on 'what can a mayor do for your city', Connect’s Steve Barwick looks at the prospects for decentralisation and elected mayors.
When I last blogged about the Government’s mayoral consultation back in November I wrote that following a successful referendum, the Government would expect individual cities to come forward with proposals on how to decentralise powers, after which the Government would adopt a "bespoke approach". In other words - no transparency, detail or promises.
The result - as predicted – has been extremely little interest. Whilst it might be easy to lampoon such wasteful processes, it may be more productive to ask where this lack of engagement, despite all the talk of empowerment through localism, leaves the future of decentralisation.
Firstly, it has now become clear that the reason why new mayors could not be offered an explicit range of powers is because the coalition knows that, in all likelihood, most cities will vote no. In that case - let's take Greater Manchester, from where 10% of all organisations' responses came and where the capacity to accept greater responsibility, as well as the likely benefits, is arguably the greatest - it will not be tenable, certainly in an era of localism rhetoric, to sustain the argument of "no mayor, no decentralisation."
Hence Greg Clark's cities unit will ensure - rightly in my own opinion - that decentralisation should continue irrespective of mayoral referendum results. In fact, the authors of the Government response to the mayoral consultation acknowledged that "there was wide support in favour of devolving powers to councils". In other words, local authorities, and others, actually want to get on with increased powers but don’t believe that these need to be exercised though an elected mayor. This mood for practical progress is one that the Conservatives used to tap into and was very much to the fore in their criticism of regional arrangements: too much process, not enough results.
Those who did respond stated a pretty comprehensive (albeit unsurprising) longlist of the powers they would like to have - planning, transport, employment, economic development, health and policing are all highlighted - but, as I blogged last time, the reality of Government is that it is always easier to talk decentralisation than deliver it. There is also a risk that the Government’s desire to keep their hands on the levers of power in areas which they see as key to delivering growth may reduce the Government’s appetite for letting cities go their own way.
Secondly, if most will say no, who will say yes? Well there was a high - comparatively - response rate from Birmingham (also 10%) and Bristol which at least indicates some interest - but there were none or very few responses from any organisation at all in the other cities being offered referenda and by implication bespoke powers. Astonishingly, there were zero responses from Sheffield, Bradford and Wakefield, just one each from Nottingham and Coventry and only two each from Newcastle and Leeds. These are all cities where referendums will happen this May.
Liverpool seems on the verge of bypassing the referendum by the council simply voting for the Mayoral system itself instead. That would be very interesting for three reasons. One: where does that leave localism, given that for years people tried to collect the required percentage of signatures to trigger a referendum on a mayor but could never get the requisite amount? Two: will the Coalition really want to negotiate, and devolve, a meaningful package of powers that would benefit a Labour Party recipient? With Heseltine on side - at least for Merseyside - the answer is maybe, but Eric Pickles and Conservative local government leaders are known to be concerned about the political impact of high profile Labour Mayors in our big cities. Three: how will Greater Manchester react to their 'noisy neighbours' stealing a march on them and getting extra levers first? Not well - hence we can expect parrallel negotiations via the cities unit.
Thirdly - this is not the end of decentralisation by any means. However, it is clear that the Coalition's mayoral referendum policy is becoming rather messy. In effect, referendums are going to be imposed - and lost - in May in many cities that do not want them. These will come at cost to the taxpayer, and to Mr Pickles, as CLG will have to run 'public information campaigns'. There is much potential embarrassment ahead, although if there are three or four positive votes for a mayor out of 12 I suspect this will be spun as a good job, well done. But even then all - certainly most - will be Labour and the question is how much this will impact on "the bespoke package" eventually agreed. So at best, we will get decentralisation diluted.
How much better it may all have been if, rather than dismissing city region - or metro – mayors, the Coalition had taken a more considered and consensual approach in the first place. If they had offered the eight city regions the powers that London already have, I am sure there would not have been 58 responses but hundreds if not thousands more. Perhaps it is not too optiomistic to think that following May's referendum results there will be a policy review and a more ambitious proposal might re-emerge.
