What devolution isn't...

First let me tell you what devolution is:

Of course, certain responsibilities, such as enforcing and interpreting the Constitution, conducting foreign relations, providing national security, monetary and fiscal policy, and regulating inter-state commerce must remain at the assigned federal level. States also retain critical responsibilities under their own constitutions and must deal with some issues on a multi-community basis. But, Constitutional Localism argues for a system which prefers that decision making be as close to the citizens as possible. That is where consensus and effective solutions are most likely to emerge.

I know, I know, it's America and they've a federal system and it's different over there. But the principle is absolutely clear - as many decisions as is possible should be made as close as you can get to the people affected, at a level where those people not only know who the decision makers are but, as Tim Worstall once put it, know where they go for a beer on a Friday night (Tim called it Bjorn's Beer Effect).

Devolution is not about directing some national government funding through some sort of regional or city-regional polity overseen by a grand and self-important mayor (whose eye is as likely to be on national power as it is on the interests of the millions his mayoralty serves).

Devolution is not about a grand committee of council leaders administering, with a nod to unelected business representatives, some sort of national government provided fund intended to promote local growth (even local growth badged as "inclusive").

Devolution is not about allowing local councils to keep local taxes but not to set the level of those taxes or having that level capped. Or for that matter not letting them set rents for their houses, charges for their services or fees for their functions.

Devolution is not having a system of local government where a National Government Minister can, almost on a whim, intervene or impose on the local council simply because of some negative press coverage.

Devolution is not having local government as, essentially, a mere agent of national government policy (and a convenient scapegoat for when that national policy turns out not to work very well).

Devolution is not a system where the policies of services local councils are providing get determined by unelected national inspectorates and QUANGOs.

And devolution isn't scrapping small, locally-focused councils and creating huge, less accountable, less transparent and less accessible authorities.


Instead of arguing for actual devolution back to local councils, what we have is an unseemly scramble to get one of those there mayors (a painful and, as yet inconclusive, process here in Yorkshire). Not because having a mayor is a good idea, improves democracy, extends accountability, and increases public participation. Nope, we want a mayor because, without one, we might miss out on some crumbs of investment from national government - cash for shiny new trains, subsidies for our pet (and valueless) 'green economy' schemes and money for us to carry on pretending that there's any relationship between universities and business innovation. This is not devolution, it's just a pretty pathetic game of 'chase the money'.

We could do so much better.

....

Postcode lotteries (or why England is the most centralised large country in the world)

I don't know about you, but the term 'postcode lottery' makes my blood boil. We hear it all the time with its implication that everything should be the same everywhere or else things aren't fair. I get emails lobbying me to propose changes (usually expensive changes) because "it's a postcode lottery".

Here's a typical example:

'Our extensive new report highlights the bizarre situation where charity shops from the same chain, delivering exactly the same services and performing in exactly the same way, can get a completely different package of support in terms of rate relief and waste disposal charges simply because they are located on different sides of an authority boundary,’ said Robin Osterley, the chief executive of the Charity Retail Association.

Yes folks, these charities aren't getting the same deal from every local council because different councils exercise their discretion differently on business rates and waste collections. And therefore something should be done (by implication to make everywhere the same, to remove Council discretion).

There's a reason for much of this - national media and politics. I remember Anne Widdecombe explaining how, regardless of devolution, the national media expected a minister to appear on TV to explain why something or other was a postcode lottery (or failing, or underfunded, or inefficient). So long as this is the case, national government will tell local government what it has to do and how to do it while probably not providing 100% of the necessary resources.

I guess this explains comedian Geoff Norcott's observation (following his appearance on Question Time) that the politicians on the panel end up answering incredibly minor concerns ('dog poo in the paddling pool') that would be better addressed to the Parish Council.

My modest proposal - for when, by acclaim, you make me God Emperor for a week - is that we should ban the term 'postcode lottery' because it is helping destroy flexibility, creativity and innovation by local councils. Not that councils are all that good at this stuff (although we are massively better at it that national government) but, if councils have more discretion, people would be a lot closer to the people - elected people - making decisions about their lives.

And while we're about this business (and I'm still God Emperor) I would stop MPs having huge well-funded constituency offices full of people that go around doing things that really should be done by local councillors - and, yes, I'd devolve the benefits system, immigration administration and much else too. Frankly, we elect MPs to go down to London because we've got better things to do with our lives and, anyway, can't all fit into that fancy faux-gothic pile they've got to work in. And when those MPs have all got there, maybe they can stop fussing about postcode lotteries and let local councils get on with their job of running local services.

.....

The case for Devo (Akron, Ohio version) - can we get satisfaction?

Aaron Renn headlines his commentary "Their Problems are not Your Problems" by which he means that basing our economic policies on the needs of superstar cities (New York, London, San Francisco and so on) rather ignores what's going on elsewhere. Renn cites an article by David Zipper:

If you live in a place like San Francisco or New York where urban tech startups (and, ahem, national media) are concentrated, these conflicts seem to be reshaping cities throughout the country. But if you dig a little deeper, it’s clear that’s hardly the case. With fewer than twenty new homes built in a city of 200,000 last year, Akron recently abated property taxes for new housing as a way to prop up the construction market. Many of Akron’s leaders would love to have the problem of excessive housing demand that Airbnb has allegedly created.

There are probably more places more like Akron than like San Francisco yet our discussion about public policy is still dominated by the problems of the latter (housing costs, transport investment, disruption and the gig economy, etc.) except for vague references to other places being 'left behind' with their people being unsuited to the shiny and exciting new economy being forged in the Superstar Cities. And when (as Trump did by unpicking some of the energy greenery policies promoted by his predecessor) policies do lean towards a place like Akron, they are attacked by politicians based in those superstar cities.

Right now in the UK we're in the throes of another somewhat occult but rather important debate linked to our planning system. The national government is consulting on a standardised methodology for the 'objective assessment of (housing) need' or OAN. For the layman this is the way in which the planners (backed up by lucrative consultancies selling macroeconomic models) decide on the number of houses that need building in a given 'local planning authority' or LPA. The reason for this new system is pretty straightforward - without a great big stick lots of those LPAs won't be allocating anything close to the amounts of land needed to meet housing need in their area. We're solving a problem for San Francisco (or London) rather than a problem for Akron (or Burnley if you'd rather).

The case for devolution - appropriate because the splendid 1970s semi-punk band, Devo came from Akron - is very clear when you realise the extent to which near every policy in England is determined by the needs of London and a few other over-heating places. It's not just the obvious stuff about housing and transport but also things like health systems, benefits and policing that get policies designed for London, Cambridge and Brighton rather than Bradford, Oldham and Stoke. Despite this case, the English programme of devolution is ridiculous consisting as it does of 'coalitions of the willing' competing through 'asks' for the few crumbs of power central government is prepared to give up.

I guess this brings us to the real deal in devolution - taxes, benefits and regulation. There's a debate in the UK about returning business rates to local councils (note this is the cash not the ability to set the rate) but no-one has raised the question as to whether local councils should get other taxes devolved - stamp duty, for example - or whether things such as planning and licensing policies should be locally determined rather than constrained within a tightly drawn national framework. Akron could zero property taxes to incentivise development but such an option isn't available to Burnley. In the 1960s, Singapore could use corporation taxes and investment exemptions as a way to attract business investment - Leeds and Manchester can't. We talk about the 'Celtic Tiger' but fail to notice that it was low taxes and business-friendly regulation that made those big tech companies head to Ireland (the EU noticed as they're busy trying to clobber the Emerald Isle for having the audacity to be creative in order to develop its economy). None of these policies are available to the North of England (even the bits with Heseltine's mayors) - we don't even get to decide which roads get improved first, we just get a promise of a meeting with the national agency responsible. Same goes for flood defences, for health services and for education investment.

For the North of England - or for it's constituent regions - the case for devo rests with the fact that, without real devolved powers, policy will always be determined by the demands of England's superstar city, London. And, right now, the devo deals on offer involve elected mayors with limited (now officially termed "soft") power and not much else. It may be that the Two Andys will transform Birmingham and Manchester by sheer force of personality but I suspect that real devolved power - even what Wales has got would do, we needn't go full Scots - would be a deal more effective as a way of transforming the economy and society of England's provinces.

.....

Creating a Yorkshire Powerhouse - it's down to us not the government in London

My eponymous great-grandfather was born in East London. Tragically he died young - in his thirties - leaving a widow and young children. He died in Wakefield.

This isn't some terrible story of loss or tragedy and nor was my great-grandfather one of those victims of industrial capitalism. He was a wine merchant. Not only is this a noble calling but it explains why he ended up in Wakefield. Put in simple terms there was better business to be had (and perhaps less competition) in Yorkshire than there was in London. As my boss, Judith Donovan, said to me when I arrived in Bradford on 27 July 1987 - "A hundred years ago, Bradford was the richest city in the richest county in the richest country in the world."

How things have changed. Now, too often, Yorkshire paints itself as a victim, bashed and battered by the tides of globalisation, ignored or patronised by the powers down in London. It is a theme we hear again and again from 'leaders' in Yorkshire - that somehow the economic gap between England's greatest county and those southern nancies is down to the perfidy of national government. London is rich because, as if by a dark magic, all the good stuff in England is sucked away from places like Yorkshire for the folk living in that huge city to spend on fancy bus tickets, overpriced coffee and criminally-priced one-bed apartments in Stockwell.

Here's the Yorkshire Post:

Yet the frustration is that Yorkshire has so much more to offer and that this region’s limitless potential will not be maximised until the Government invests sufficient sums in this county’s human capital – school standards have lagged behind the rest of the country for an unacceptable number of years and are having a detrimental impact on job prospects – as well as the area’s transport and business infrastructure so more world-leading companies can be persuaded to invest here.

Today is Yorkshire Day and it is worth giving the Yorkshire Post its due for setting out an agenda for the county that genuinely reflects much of the debate going on up here. But it's a shame that the habit of holding out the cap and fluttering those Yorkshire eye-lashes still remains. No-one's denying that Yorkshire - and the North for that matter - needs investment but when all they hear is the regional politics version of "got some spare change for a coffee" is it really a surprise that government doesn't rush to help out?

Take education. The Yorkshire Post rightly highlights how Yorkshire's levels of educational attainment lag behind those elsewhere in England and in many ways this is a scandal. But what's the bigger scandal - that politicians in London aren't throwing cash at the problem or that the leaders in Yorkshire haven't got any plan, policy or strategy to address the problem? Where's the education 'summit' bringing together political and business leaders from across the county? Why haven't local education authorities - along with schools - pooled their investment in educational development and improvement?

The same goes for transport. Again the Yorkshire Post reminds us that Leeds is the only big city in England without a tram system or metro. And that - quite rightly - the government pulled the plug on that city's latest wheeze, a new 'bus-on-a-string'. I recall sitting in a meeting - in some slightly tatty, anonymous office block in Leeds - and formally giving Bradford's support for what was dubbed 'supertram'. And I remember adding, at the end of the presentation, that it was a great shame said 'supertram' wasn't going to Bradford or, indeed, anywhere near Bradford. The single busiest inter-city commuter route - Leeds-Bradford and vice versa - didn't register.

So - again - where's Yorkshire's transport plan? Have the transport great and good gathered to set out how we'll respond to 21st century challenges in transport? Or have we just sat mithering about ticketing and real-time information as if they're the answer to the question? Why should - other than for reasons of political calculation (hence Cameron launching the 'Northern Powerhouse' in Shipley) - central government do anything for Yorkshire when Yorkshire's not doing much for itself?

Even on devolution, political calculations - both sub-regional and by the political parties - has meant deadlock. Yorkshire - after London itself - is the only English region with a genuine identity. Yorkshire Day really is a thing (my friend Keith Madeley and the Yorkshire Society deserve a lot of credit for this). We really did showcase the glories of the county through the Tour de France and its child, Tour de Yorkshire. And the county really does have everything - except, that is, the leadership to get on with devising responses to our challenges without waiting on someone in London first giving us the thumbs up.

I learnt a couple of important lessons recently. The first was during a meeting with Lord Adonis following the National Infrastructure Commission publishing reports on Crossrail 2 and Transport in the North. The lesson was that London had prepared, done the legwork, written a plan and set out how that city would fund half the cost in the time Northern leaders had drawn up a scope for a possible plan the content of which wasn't set. London will get the money because London knows what it wants. Here in Yorkshire we just ask for more transport investment - we have no plan.

The second lesson is that London's planning is far deeper - more granular as the trendies put it - than any spatial or urban planning anywhere else in England. In part this just reflects the fact that London is a city and has a coherence (and obvious centre) that Yorkshire doesn't have but it also demonstrates that our fragmented systems of government, business leadership and administration won't allow for that level of planning. Here's what I wrote in June about New London Architecture's exhibition:

During a brief visit to London, we called in to the New London Architecture exhibition at The Building Centre - it's just round the corner from the British Museum and well worth an hour of your time not least for the splendid model of central London at the heart of the exhibition. The NLA uses this magnificent visual to present a vision of the new London emerging through investment, initiative and development and is accompanied by a series of short films featuring NLA's urbane chairman, Peter Murray, talking through the challenges - homes, transport, place-making, environment - and setting out what's already happening and how built environment professionals including architects, masterplanners, designers, engineers and builders can deliver a better city.

What comes across in these films is the scale of engagement between public and private sectors - the projects highlighted on the grand model or featured on the wall around the space are mostly private sector projects. For sure there are the great transport schemes sponsored by London's government and supported by national governments but we also see investment in public realm, privately or in partnership with boroughs, by the great estates - Cadogan, Bedford, Grosvenor and the Crown - that enhance the City's character and variety.

Above all there is both a sense of vision - one shared by mayor, boroughs, transport chiefs and developers - and an intense granularity to that vision. We're so familiar with vision being just that - grand sweeping words accompanied with carefully touched up pictures. But this London vision comes with hundreds of individual projects, with emerging plans across the 32 boroughs (all pictured on the walls around the huge model), with examples of individual masterplans for smaller places and with specific project plans ranging from hospitals and university facilities through housing schemes to pocket parks or street markets.

The Yorkshire Post is right to make the case for the county and to present it to the Prime Minister. But we also need to make the case for bringing the county together, for a new agreement - with or without devolution deals - to work together on planning for Yorkshire's future. If - in some few years - we can take people to an exhibition put together by a private organisation demonstrating how Yorkshire's people, businesses, charities and landowners share a clear, radical and creative plan that is being put in place then we will be changing the county for the better.

I fear that, after a brief flurry of excitement and a modicum of political grandstanding, the Yorkshire Post's welcome initiative will be lost. Not because folk in Yorkshire don't want their county to be better but because we've not made our own plans for making the county once again, the richest place in the richest country. So long as we wait for handouts from London this won't happen.

....

'Growth for The North' - taking local ownership of the Northern Powerhouse

At a recent LGA meeting we heard from Lord Adonis, chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission and former transport minister. It was interesting, not just from the insight he gave into the work published on Crossrail Two, Northern transport connectivity and energy connections but for the context he have for decision-making. It is that context that is relevent to any discussion about the 'Northern Powerhouse'.

Much of the debate around the Northern Powerhouse is characterised by either negativity (witty statements like 'Northern Poorhouse' or 'Northern Powersham', for example) or else by an emphasis on devolution to 'metro-mayors' in the 'core cities'. It seems to me that this misses the point and worse reinforces two unwanted images of The North - as supplicants arriving cap in hand at national government's doors asking for more, and as a bunch of rivalrous, squabbling places unable to get their act together on priorities for economic growth. I would add that the capture of the agenda in some of those cities - Manchester especially - by the idea of 'inclusive growth' drags The North still further away from the place it needs to be to deliver on a Northern Powerhouse.

Lord Adonis made the observation that Crossrail Two got the green light for two reasons - the planning, costing and economic impact work was undertaken and sound, and Transport for London (TfL) as well as the London Mayor were committed to provide 50% of the scheme's funding. The result is that a £16 billion scheme will actually cost central government less than half that amount releasing the economic benefits (that show up in GDP figures and growth) to the whole nation. This is the sort of deal any national government wants to see - regardless of politics.

Right now there is not only no agreement or consensus in The North about infrastructure investment priorities but there is no mechanism for business in The North to do what's happening in London and fund 50% of that investment. There are any number of schemes and projects - ranging from the lunatic (a trans-Pennine tunnel under the High Peak) through to the sensible (reducing rail travel times east to west). And although Transport for the North has made a start with sifting these options and alternatives, it has made only a little progress and it isn't clear how its governance or administration functions. Crucially there is no means for The North to capture business contribution (for example via a business rates supplement) as national government is reserving this supplement for those places who take George Osborne's shilling off the drum and accept a 'metro-mayor'.

If, to use an eminently sensible idea, Transport for the North were to propose a new motorway linking the M56 to the A1(M) North of Bradford and Leeds, the expectation is that central government - through its agencies - would stump up all the cash. And the same would go for HS3, widening the A64, a rail link to Leed-Bradford International Airport and an upgraded Pennine crossing from Newcastle to the M6. We have to find a mechanism for local contribution and pooling that potential business rate supplement should be the best approach - assuming national government can set aside its obsession with Heseltine's rewarmed core city focus and the idea of 'metro-mayors'.

The essential requirement if we are to deliver the infrastructure elements of a Northern Powerhouse is cooperation between Merseyside, Manchester, Leeds-Bradford, Teeside and Tyneside (and the rest of The North) rather than the creation of competing entities based on travel-to-work geography in regional cities. This isn't to reject city devolution or even the idea of mayors but rather is to say that a Northern Powerhouse is best served by a bigger vision encompassing the whole of The North rather than a set of visions focused on the challenges of city government.

We're talking here about infrastructure - indeed specifically transport infrastructure - but there are other areas where The North needs to collaborate rather than compete - our education system underperforms compared to London and the South East, our urban mass transit (where it exists at all) is limited and not focused on economic growth, our cultural sectors lack bite, arts funding is London-centred, and we still experience a steady trickle of the bright and best to elsewhere in the world.

The problem, however, is compounded by the approach of city leaders and Northern Labour politicians to the problem - the Northern Powerhouse may not be a reality as yet but it's only going to become one if you get behind the idea and make it work. Simply shouting a lot about The North's problems and blaming all of this on central government isn't especially conducive to getting any commitment - let alone momentum - behind the idea of working together with that government to improve The North's economic performance. If the only approach is to stick a begging bowl under the treasury's nose and say 'fill it up please' then we will never have the growing, self-reliant and powerful North of England that surely everyone up here wants.

It is possible for leaders in The North to make this work but we won't get there if all our time is spent waiting for someone else to jump, fussing about how too much of it is about Manchester (or Leeds, or Newcastle), or making sad noises about how badly done to we all are. The work of Transport for the North, albeit quite tentative, suggests that wider collaboration on a similar basis around the whole economy not just transport is far more important than the geography of a 'combined authority' in Yorkshire or the list of 'asks' in a city devolution scheme. We need to take the idea of Transport for the North - cooperation, collaboration - and create something like 'Growth for the North' that's prepared to fund the feasibility and prepare the ground for more central government investment in The North alongside similar investment in growth from The North's businesses and residents.

....

This is it? Seriously? Devolution should be about a whole lot more than buses and new taxes

****

Some chap from IPPR North has bunged his challenge to 'metro mayors', you know the powerful folk who'll be elected once all these devolution deals are done. And Luke tells us these mayors should "shake up" their cities.

So what exactly does this shaking up involve for our Luke? Well firstly there's buses - yes folks, buses:

Mayors could connect their more deprived citizens with the jobs they need with new bus routes;

That's right, this IPPR chap puts creating new bus routes (something that existing public transport authorities can already do) as a great win for our new elected mega-mayors.

Next Luke says mayors can raise lots of new taxes - that's right, the economic underperformance of Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds and Bradford is because the citizens of those cities don't pay enough tax;

To do so they will need to invest, and that means raising revenue from the right sources. Each city is different and will require a different approach. But the candidates should first look at the powers they're already set to have: workplace parking levies, congestion charges and the 2p business rate premium.

But central government should enable them to go further. Whitehall should make implementing these charges far easier, and lift the cap on the business rate premium. It should allow mayors to spend this money on whatever mix of transport investments their city needs.

Forgive me for being completely underwhelmed here and frankly a bit concerned that, given all the things that could be done, this clever bloke can only come up with more buses and more taxes.

....

"We weren't elected to make cuts!" The case for independent local government (and elected mayors)

My grandfather as Chairman of Penge UDC in its final year - 1964

A while ago I wrote asking what local councillors are for. The article was written in response to the idea of councillors being 'mini-mayors' in their wards and I concluded:

Much though I see merit in the mini-mayor idea, it is a reminder that the 2000 Local Government Act emasculated local councillors and created the situation where many ended up flapping around wondering what their role and purpose might be.

And I remain of the view that Blair and Prescott's wholesale changes to the governance of local authorities did untold damage to the idea of local representation. It is also striking that, despite the more recent Localism Act allowing councils of any size to return to the old committee system, this has only happened where political circumstances made it something one or other of the two big parties could sign up to.

As a consequence of the 2000 Act (which introduced a system designed for a directly elected mayor but, in most cases, applied without such a beast), we have a governance system at local level that excludes all but a tiny minority of councillors. Moreover, the system places leaders of councils in a special position - in effect treated as de facto executive mayors. I've witnessed this problem - and it is a problem - in discussions and debates about the creation of new sub-regional structures to harbour decentralised powers and cash from central government.

Regardless of the political balance or make-up of local authorities, it is leaders that central government wishes to deal with, leaders that sit on decision-making panels, and leaders that define the position of the particular local authority. What we have is indistinguishable - except in its lack of democratic mandate, transparency and accountability - from a directly elected mayor.

At the same time as the granting of special position to leaders, councils have been faced with the necessity of reducing their spending. This has led to much hand-wringing while the prosaic job of getting savings made without doing too much damage to front line services was undertaken - largely successfully. it is this process of reducing local spending that often gets dubbed austerity. And has resulted in a further round of worries about the role of local councillors - along the lines of "we weren't elected to make cuts!"

Despite this, it is clear that austerity has led to a further undermining of the influence of most Councillors, who now find themselves open to range of practical and more wide-ranging challenges. There are now fewer Councillors- financial pressure is leading to a ‘Councillor cull’ as Councils are merged, if not statutorily, then for all practical purposes via sharing services. They have much less financial discretion, leaving doubts about whether even statutory services can be maintained. 95% of Councils in England are now sharing a total of 383 shared service arrangements, leading to a dilution of Councillor influence. ‘Backbench’ Councillors not involved in the strategic decision making find themselves increasingly in the dark re. the details of contractual arrangements which directly impact on their wards and which may be in place for 25 years.

Once again this suggests that the role and purpose of the local councillor is worthy of review. If you take the 'community leader' model of councillor where people are elected to champion a given place (and to act as a de facto gatekeeper to the local bureaucracy) then there's a good case for having a lot more councillors. There's quite a contrast between me representing 13,500 electors in Bingley Rural and the fortunate councillor for Tamarside in Torridge District with only 1300 or so voters. The problem is that, on this ratio, Bradford would have 300 councillors which is perhaps a few too many!

As you all know, I'm not a big fan of councillors as community leaders - the sort of view that Clive Betts MP, chairman of the local government select committee, holds:

Councillors are spending less time in council chambers and more time out and about in their communities. In future, they will increasingly need to be on the frontline, working with constituents and external organisations such as GPs, schools, police, local businesses and voluntary organisations to ensure their communities make the most of all the opportunities available to them.

This is the councillor as an agent of the state rather than as a representative of the people - turning our role around from decision-making to being part of implementing decisions made by others. This negation of the councillor's representative role is, in truth, the central failing of the system created under the 2000 Act. That Act sought to deny - in most circumstances - councillors their historic role of being the representatives of a given group of electors, charged with voting of their behalf. Today, your local councillor - unless you happen to live in the leader of a council's ward - no longer has that role when it comes to most decisions that affect where you live.

Understandably, leaders (and those who aspire to that role) make common cause with the councillors who like the community leadership role to resist reforms to the system that might allow for councillors to take on that historic representative role again. These leaders will point to places and times when the councillor does have a say - on the setting of the council tax, on planning decisions, on area committees. But they never mention the restraints on those decisions - the 'Section 151 Officers Report', the 'National Planning Policy Framework', or the council's own Constitution.

None of these things are the consequence of austerity (defined in this case as cuts to local council budgets) it's just that the need to reduce spending has led to difficult decisions being made. And for many local councillors the sudden realisation that they have precious little say over any of those decisions affecting their wards.

For all its flaws and failings, local government is almost always better managed and more effective than centrally-directed government. This is what Tim Worstall called Bjorn's Beer Effect:

You’re in a society of 10,000 people. You know the guy who raises the local tax money and allocates that local tax money. You also know where he has a beer on a Friday night. More importantly Bjorn knows that everyone knows he collects and spends the money: and also where he has a beer on a Friday. That money is going to be rather better spent than if it travels off possibly 3,000 miles into some faceless bureaucracy.

The point (and we in England need to recognise this) is that Bjorn, like his counterparts in France and Germany, is a directly-elected mayor. If UK local government is to realise the sort of autonomy and fiscal control that places eleswhere enjoy, it has to start by acknowledging its present governance is opaque, undemocratic and unaccountable. And it is the governance at fault not the quality of councillor or the complexity of the decisions that are being made. It's certainly nothing to do with austerity.

For a hundred years or so the UK - well, England really - had a local government system that worked pretty well. It had limited powers (although this being England it could always do things so long as they weren't expressly forbidden) but exercised those powers using the funds it raised locally. As a result things like water supplies, sewers, houses, museums, art galleries, parks and swimming pools were built and places - even the smallest of places - developed their own identity and sense of value.

All this changed over the years from the 1960s to today's position where local councils are lost, struggling to know whether they are a community-focused urban or rural district or a grand and powerful city region authority demanding of attention (and loads of cash from central government). We behave like the former and demand powers like the latter, we reject elected mayors in favour of powerful leaders pretending the two are somehow different, and we get together and demand loudly that Westminster gives us more attention.

If we want to make the case for decentralising our over-centralised state - 'devolution' as it's popularly called - we have to start with making the case for a system of governance better than the one imposed on us (but gleefully snatched up) by the 2000 Local Government Act. Mayors are part of that better system but so are stronger parish councils and a thorough debate about the role of the local councillor. Above all - and we know this - the great years of local government were when local councils didn't have to get either permission or cash from Whitehall to do what they felt was right.

...

The case for democracy under devolution is simple...

****

I wrote this under the ancien regime - it still applies:

So, dear readers, you need to stop with the 'we don't need more politicians' nonsense and understand that unless you elect people directly to make decisions on your behalf, you make it harder to hold the decision-makers to account. And you need to tell your councillor and your MP that devolution is all fine and dandy, an absolutely spiffing idea, but only if the spending of that public money is subject to your accountability through the tried and tested method of having the chance to vote the bastards out if you don't like them.

You've a choice between devolution managed by bureaucrasts and government appointees or devolution under the control of people you elect. Having a mayor and assembly works for London - I've no doubt it will work for Yorkshire too.

....

How to save The Union - if we want to

****

I was going to tell you all why you should vote Conservative. You should of course - not just because the prospect of a Labour government is terrifying but because the Conservative Party appears to be the only party that actually understands the situation of our public administration.

However, I'm going to write instead about The Union. Partly because there are now strong voices wanting to destroy that union and partly because the entire debate is couched in terms of Scottish nationalism rather than in terms of what the union means. The prospect of the Labour Party losing all its seats in Scotland this coming Thursday is real and reflects the inevitable conclusion of the process of unbalanced devolution begun by Tony Blair.

The Union is important. Not for touching historical reasons or for babble about shared heritage but because we are stronger collectively - the benefits Scotland and Wales get from working with a much larger England vastly outweigh the downsides of that relationship. And England gains too from the shared arrangement. So muttering nonsense about 'throwing money over Hadrian's Wall' as a cheap way to garner a few English votes is not the way forward.

If we think the Union important then we have to start talking about England. Not about chopping the country up into a bunch of meaningless chunks that, Yorkshire aside, have no meaning beyond administrative convenience. And not by saying that the issue of English devolution is resolved either by 'English Votes for English Laws' or through giving Leeds City Region control over further education funding. For a system of devolution to work it needs to be seen as fair by all sides and to be balanced.

Right now, without a settlement that meets these conditions, the break up of the Union is inevitable. That bloc of maybe fifty Scottish National Party MPs will make the gradual erosion of 'Westminster' influence in Scotland their mission. And if they have the balance of power they will get what they want. Indeed they will get what they want despite half their fellow Scots opposing independence.

We do not save the union by shouting ever more loudly about how important it is. We don't save the union by painting Nicola Sturgeon as the 'bogiewoman'. And we don't save the union by allowing Scottish nationalists - and pompous Guardian opinionators - to describe the same nationalism in England as a bad thing simply because it's English.

Nor should we allow people to say that England is too big for devolution. It's true that England contains most of the UK's population. But it's not true to say that allowing an English parliament to make decisions about the government of England is somehow unbalanced next to the much smaller devolved governments in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The answer, for me, is very straightforward. We've a choice between the break up of the union and the creation of a four nation federal system with a UK government responsible solely for defence, international relations, borders and trade paid for via a precept on taxes set by the four national parliaments. Everything else - health, education, welfare - would fall to the four national parliaments. And if those parliaments chose to devolve further to local governments that would be just fine.

Sadly we are not going to do this but instead will either create an endless row over Scottish MPs voting on English matters or else pretend that devolution to occult groups of English local council leaders meeting in secret is somehow equivalent to Scotland having a parliament elected by the people of Scotland. And the end will be Scotland departing to the sound of a loud raspberry from English voters who, a decade ago, would have been adamant that the union was not negotiable.

...

No Devolution devolution - the case of the Leeds City Region

****

I have a draft of the "Leeds City Region Agreement on Devolution". Those of you listening carefully to the Budget Speech today will have heard the Chancellor mention said 'deal'.

I am here, armed with a very large bucket of cold water, to explain the detail. But first we should note that, because the four Labour leaders in West Yorkshire don't want direct and democratic accountability there isn't any further devolution of powers.

Here are the headlines.

Joint commissioning of a "forward-looking FE system" and the devolution of the Apprenticeship Grant for Employers "working within the Government's reform agenda for apprenticeships in which funding will be routed directly to employers."

Consultation "about the possibility of joint commissioning for the next phase of the Work Programme beginning in 2017"

The Government "will work with LCR to develop a devolved approach to the delivery of business support from 2017 onwards, subject to the outcome of future spending reviews"

The Government will "explore options" on control of local transport schemes, tell Rail North and Network Rail to "align" with LCR's investment strategy, allow "improved liaison" with the Highways Agency on road investment, and actively engage with LCR on long-term rail planning

Changes to structures for the existing Joint Assets Board with Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) plus a new Joint Asset and Investment Plan

Promises of further talks about devolution with the observation that West Yorkshire Combined Authority will "consult of options for enhanced governance, decision-making and delivery arrangements that will be mutually agreed with Government

So many high level meetings. So much talk. Such a lot of shouting. And, because West Yorkshire's Labour leaders aren't prepared to consider some sort of directly-elected solution - either a mayor or an assembly - we haven't got any devolution. Just a deal for the sake of a deal.

....

Devolution without democratic accountability isn't devolution...

****

This morning I was at the West Yorkshire Combined Authority Scrutiny Panel (I bet you didn't know this thing existed, did you) meeting. It was not edifying and, besides meeting a candidate for Britain's rudest councillor, I also found myself making common cause with a Green councillor from Huddersfield on the issue of democratic accountability.

This matters. It really does matter. And the system local leaders want (even the ones in Greater Manchester who reluctantly accepted an elected mayor so long has he was so hogtied as to be effectively powerless) is, as Green Cllr Andrew Cooper observed, 'a authority of the elected not an elected authority'. What these leaders (and all but two in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire are Labour leaders) are arguing for is the devolution of 'powers' - unspecified powers - to 'combined authorities' made up of those same leaders meeting together.

At the same meeting the chair - who is the Conservative leader of Calderdale Council - made the observation that he wasn't party to discussions at the Labour leaders' meeting prior to the main Combined Authority Board. In simple terms the decisions about millions of pounds of public money are being made in private by four men. For sure us scrutineers can look at what those four men have decided - we did that today with the 'Budget and Business Plan' for the Combined Authority - but it is essentially futile.

Everywhere I look there are meetings, workshops, gatherings and high profile boondoggles looking at 'devolving power to cities'. My in-box is stuffed (OK I exaggerate a tad here) with the brain-numbing output of think-tanks, conferences, academics and the grander sort of politician - all sreaming for devolving powers to cities. The excitement is palpable, almost sexual in its intensity. Dear reader you need to know why these folk are excited and you really couldn't give a toss - it is important. And you should give a toss.

Firstly these people - business 'leaders', senior council officers, management consultants, leaders of 'city' authorities and so forth - can see the opportunity to get their mitts on a whole pile of government cash without having those annoying, interfering local councillors asking difficult questions about what it's spent on or how it will help the people who elect those pesky councillors. I know, I know, the grand folk pushing city 'devolution' tell us it's accountable because of those four Labour leaders meeting in private somewhere in Leeds. I mean they're elected aren't they?

Well yes. Those leaders are elected. But they aren't elected to decide on policy and strategy for the whole of West Yorkshire (or Greater Manchester or South Yorkshire). There is nothing in the mandate given to those leaders by the electorates of Wibsey, Castleford, Heckmondwike and Kippax that creates sufficient authority or accountability to justify the devolution of further powers to a 'combined authority'. To create such an authority with the powers that leaders - and that circling flock of vultures I described above eyeing up a slice of the cash - want is to build even less democratic accountability into local government.

So, dear readers, you need to stop with the 'we don't need more politicians' nonsense and understand that unless you elect people directly to make decisions on your behalf, you make it harder to hold the decision-makers to account. And you need to tell your councillor and your MP that devolution is all fine and dandy, an absolutely spiffing idea, but only if the spending of that public money is subject to your accountability through the tried and tested method of having the chance to vote the bastards out if you don't like them.

Put simply, devolution without democratic accountability - without a directly elected mayor or council or assembly - isn't devolution but business as usual for the people who have sucked the nation dry over the past couple of decades. This isn't devolution but the great and good ramming their arms up to the elbow into the lucky dip of public funds - not for your benefit but for theirs.

....

Devolution and the price of fish...

****

Yesterday along with fellow Conservatives from West Yorkshire (well, a couple of them) I headed to London to talk with the Treasury about devolution to West Yorkshire. We went there with the desire to explore the political, possible and practical knowing that our opposite numbers in Labour had already submitted some suggestions - I commented on the secrecy surrounding these proposals the other day.

Rest assured dear reader that the conversations we had down in London didn't come to any conclusions - we aren't about to rush through some secret deal for devolution. But there were some interesting aspects to the discussion.

Firstly, while there's an appetite for devolution in West Yorkshire and in London, there's a bit of a bother about the changes not being seen somehow as a 'new tier of government'. This echoes a familiar observation - "if the answer to your question is more politicians, then you're asking the wrong question!" But the reality of course is that there is already a 'sub-regional' tier of government, it's just that you don't notice it much. We have the new and shiny 'combined authority' that has swept together what used to be the 'public transport authority' with some limited powers around regeneration and planning. This adds to some other West Yorkshire government bodies - the police authority (now with its 'Police and Crime Commissioner'), the fire and civil defence authority and West Yorkshire Joint Services.

At the moment the democratic cost of these bodies (i.e. how much cash it takes to have politicians sitting on committees and boards) is somewhere near £700,000 - to say that setting up a new body (or mayor or whatever) is creating a new tier of government is incorrect. If we replaced all that West Yorkshire stuff with a single body it probably wouldn't cost that much - even before we take account of all the other duplicated bureaucracy.

Secondly, however much we might be twitchy about elected mayors, the ability of a Boris with a big mandate and big boots to bully central government can't be underestimated. This isn't to say that a West Yorkshire mayor would carry the oomph of Boris but it is to explain that the big mandate matters nearly as much as the personality. For sure there are political considerations (we did talk about these) but the fact remains that a high profile individual elected by 2.5 million has much more impact that an indirectly elected council leader - even one with the grand title of 'Chair of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority'.

The deal presented as a revelation in Greater Manchester is something of a fudge - you get a mayor but that person's chained down by the regions council leaders making it hard to deliver real direction (especially if the City's residents decide to elect an independent or Conservative while all but one or two of the leaders are Labour). Even with the most likely outcome - a Labour mayor leading a 'cabinet' of mostly Labour leaders - the 'boot down the doors of Whitehall' factor is limited by local political consideration. And the mayor and cabinet's actions aren't subject to effective, independent scrutiny but rather to scrutiny by councillors appointed by those same leaders who sit on the mayor's cabinet.

Finally, the deals on offer aren't about - nor do they resolve - England's democratic deficit. For all that groups like Centre for Cities want to pretend that city and city-region devolution answers this problem, it remains the case that the devolution offer is limited (it doesn't include education and health beyond some administrative changes, for example). And the deals don't make much difference to the dilemma of financing capital infrastructure investment. What is offered is the chance to strengthen the delivery of current transport, regeneration and housing investment plus the ability to get plans drawn up, give them political backing and thwack them down on the Treasury table saying 'this is what we want funding'.

There's a long way to go - the best we can expect this side of a general election is some proposals. And the wider devolution debate - the one about England - moves on (unresolved so far). If we do move to a West Yorkshire (or perhaps a wider West Riding) model, I'm sure it will involve an elected mayor. The real question isn't this one but the rest of the governance - do we need a directly elected assembly as London has or will some sort of appointed system via existing local councils be good enough to hold a powerful mayor to account?

A long way to go yet but I know one thing - saying 'no, we don't want that sort of thing' really doesn't help the argument. The price of fish is simple - do you want a mayor plus elected assembly, a mayor plus appointed combined authority or nothing (and the joy of watching mayors from Manchester, Merseyside, Sheffield and Newcastle thwacking down their schemes and sucking up the infrastructure funding). Interesting times!

....

West Yorkshire's political leaders don't want to tell you about their plans for devolution

****

I'm a member of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority's Overview & Scrutiny Committee and this morning (through the post rather than by electronic means) I received a document that you good folk don't even know exists. It's entitled:

Northern Devolution: West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Leeds City Region Enterprise Partnership Joint Response

You don't know about this document or the proposals it contains because, for reasons that entirely escape me, the covering letter accompanying the report is headed:

Private and Confidential - Not for Public Circulation

I'm assuming that the proposals are marked as confidential because of the words 'negotiating document'. This is the pitch from our politicians up here in Yorkshire to those politicians down there in London. Now it's true that Calderdale Council at least had a debate about devolution but other than this there has been no public discussion of the issues involved - what the geography should be, what powers might be devolved, what it means for the broader issue of England's democratic deficit and how any devolved arrangements should be governed.

What we have here is a summation of the problems we face with politics and why so many people are so fed up with us politicians. These are proposals for a very substantial change to government in West Yorkshire yet it hasn't be subject to consultation, let alone any recognisable process to secure a democratic mandate. The proposals are significant but have been agreed by a small group of Councillors meeting in secret plus a few select business folk who have been appointed (by those same councillors) to the board of the local economic partnership.

You the public are not to be trusted with any role or say in this matter. These leaders want to determine the governance themselves (in which case it will be a cosy secondary body that isn't directly elected or noticeably accountable) and through this to secure control of several billion pounds a year of public funding in West Yorkshire. All done in secret.

....