The case for more devolution to city regions

The outgoing Bristol city mayor argues for more power to the cities.

And one of his arguments is that it is necessary to act as a counter-point against the dominance of the UK's biggest, and thus there is a good reason to re-evaluate the case for and against more regional devolution in England. A brief summary of the general arguments.

These can be considered as the arguments in favour of English regional devolution

• It is much more efficient to have the regions concerned with policy delivery involved in the formulation of policy,
• On a related note, this would additionally this would relieve the burden on central government.
• Evidence from the Celtic arenas suggests that there are clear benefits to bringing the government closer to the people since policies can be designed to fit the needs of the people in different regions
• The governmental structures we have now are in need of remodelling: local government was designed to fit the needs of the mid-nineteenth century and central government expanded in the middle of the twentieth to meet the demands of that time.
• Since the (unelected) Regional Development Agencies were scrapped in 2012 there is a lack of strategic co-ordination across many regions (except London, and Greater Manchester for example) with regards to economic development, regeneration, plans to boost employment, and so forth.
• It would provide a counter-point to London-centricism; it is difficult to think of another polity that is so dominated economically and politically by its nation’s biggest city.
• The regions in England need to have a platform that will give their area a voice enabling them to lobby central government for increased funding.

These can be considered as the arguments against English regional devolution

• If every region in England were to have some sort of devolution, then regions would be fighting amongst themselves for the same amount of money that was available before.
• Government would not be brought closer to the people unless the devolved powers assume real powers – as in Scotland.
• Any new structures would merely add an extra layer of bureaucracy.
• Regional assemblies would do little to improve economic performance within the regions.
• Claims that devolution would usher in a new form of politics have not been borne out by experiences in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

So what did Marvin Rees, whose office of city mayor is to be abolished once his term ends, actually say?

According to the Guardian:

"Marvin Rees, the outgoing mayor of Bristol, has called for more power to be put in the hands of city leaders to help tackle issues such as decaying infrastructure and the climate emergency.

Rees, who is nearing the end of an eight-year stint, argued that the concentration of power in London was a “UK disease” that was curbing progress across the country."

Based on the success of the elected mayor idea, I have written before that the time appears to have come for the extension of the directly elected mayor idea to more of Britain’s major city regions. This was an idea long championed by Tony Blair as PM (he was of a fan of what Rudy Giuliani achieved as New York Mayor), but it has taken a decade since he left office to come into effect outside London. Supporters of the idea can point to the success of the London Mayor, where Ken Livingstone’s decision to introduce the congestion charge proves that the mayor idea can bring about innovative solutions to problems that extend beyond traditional local government boundaries. Subsequently, Boris Johnson and Saddiq Khan have successfully used it as a platform to argue for London’s interests. Plus, although early days, we can also shine a torch on the success Andy Burnham has had as Mayor of Greater Manchester. The conjunction of a lack of desire for elected regional assemblies, and the success of London’s three mayors, may well mean that the time is ripe to usher in a new dawn for local democracy in the shape of a greater number of mayors of city-regions, with strategic responsibility for public policy.

Rees's idea that London is too dominant is worth considering. I don't want to go into too much detail about the pros and cons of London's size, but there is lots of evidence to suggest that the UK capital towers over the rest of the economy far more than equivalent cities do versus their respective surrounding areas. For example, the FT reported:

"It will surprise nobody that London accounts for an outsized share of Britain’s output, but the magnitude of the UK’s economic monopolarity is remarkable. Removing London’s output and headcount would shave 14 per cent off British living standards, precisely enough to slip behind the last of the US states. Britain in the aggregate may not be as poor as Mississippi, but absent its outlier capital it would be.

By comparison, amputating Amsterdam from the Netherlands would shave off 5 per cent, and removing Germany’s most productive city (Munich) would only shave off 1 per cent. Most strikingly, for all of San Francisco’s opulent output, if the whole of the bay area from the Golden Gate to Cupertino seceded tomorrow, US GDP per capita would only dip by 4 per cent."

Read the full article here.

Activities

Explain what is meant by regional devolution

Research the policies introduced by the new city mayors

Using the above and your own knowledge discuss whether more English regional devolution is desirable