Tories Plan Devolution to Cities and a "Northern Powerhouse"

[Ghost Dog]

... Last year, Osborne signed a deal with the leaders of Greater Manchester, who are almost all from the opposition Labour Party, under which the city will have an elected mayor from 2017 with new powers over transport, planning, housing and policing. "My door is now open to any other major city who wants to take this bold step into the future. This is a revolution in the way we govern England," Osborne said in a speech in Manchester.

With Scotland set to get new powers under promises made by London to persuade Scots to reject independence in a referendum last year, calls for devolution within England have grown louder.

The thinking is that local leaders with detailed knowledge of their area's needs can tailor better policies than London bureaucrats.

This fits into Osborne's "Northern Powerhouse" strategy to boost the economy of northern England, which has lagged behind London and the southeast for decades since the collapse of industries like cotton, steel and coal-mining...

/... http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/05/14/uk-britain-politics-osborne-idUKKBN0NZ1HX20150514

Obvious city/connurbation candidates would include Bristol/Avonmouth, Southampton/Portsmouth, Birmingham/Wolverhampton, Leeds-Sheffield, Hull, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow,... and of course Greater London.

[non sociopath skin]

1. ... I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why Elected Mayors are such a big thing ...

... other than, of course, the fact that a Showbiz Tory like Johnson may get his grubby mitts on one of them.

The Skin

[LeftishBrit]

2. Actually not too bad an idea though probably impelled by an idea to avoid financial responsibility

But I can't help finding the Greater London possibility in particular REALLY ironic. I lived there in the 80s when Thatcher was madly trying, and eventually succeeding, in abolishing the GLC. And it was us lefties who were pointing out that we might know our needs better than Maggie et al; and that this was an undemocratic practice.

'local leaders with detailed knowledge of their area's needs can tailor better policies than London bureaucrats.'

Yes, if permitted to do so. Does this also mean that Maggie's rate-capping policies will be reversed?

[T_i_B]

3. We had referendums on elected mayors in the last parliament

With the exception of Bristol, they were rejected as the proposals people were being asked to vote on were incredibly vague.

A lot of the Tories ideas for the North in the last parliament seemed to be made by people with no knowledge of local history and culture, and worse still, no understanding of basic geography.

[Denzil_DC]

5. I watched that happen.

I'm in favour of federalism in principle, but the impression I got (and I'm far from on the ground) was that as well as being vague, the proposals (and the referendum under Prescott) were at risk of setting up just another "talking shop" layer of government, hence the lack of popular support.

In comparing the situation with Scotland, pundits seem to forget that the pressure for devolution was bottom-up, which is a far stronger basis for setting up assemblies. (Of course, when Labour set up what's become the Scottish Parliament, they didn't have many ambitions for it and saw it more as a souped-up regional council over which they'd hold sway in perpetuity; then it growed and growed ...).

[T_i_B]

6. I do remember the Sheffield referendum in 2012

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1088700

There was pretty much no campaigning on the subject one way or the other. The Tories have virtually no presence in Sheffield. Labour & the Lib Dems weren't keen and chose to concentrate on council elections instead.

But the big problem with the proposal was that it did not specify what powers an elected mayor for Sheffield might have. That I would suggest was the biggest thing that sunk the proposal. Very difficult to persuade people about the merits of such a vague scheme.

One issue I have noticed with the current proposals is that apparently the elected mayors won't just be for the cities themselves but for "city regions". So as an example, the Sheffield Mayor will also have powers over Rotherham, Barnsley, Doncaster, Chesterfield and even parts of Nottinghamshire.

Now I live just over the border from Sheffield in Derbyshire, and one of the advantages of living where I am is that we get better public services than our friends in South Yorkshire. If our libraries and bin collections are run from Sheffield instead of Chesterfield and Matlock that will not be popular round these parts.

A lot depends on what powers an elected mayor would actually have.

[Denzil_DC]

7. Thanks for the background.

I was thinking of the 2004 referendum in the North East, which overwhelmingly rejected a regional assembly: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3984991.stm

ETA: It's interesting to see that this thread already has by far the most views of any on the first page in this group apart from the, erm, lively "Who would want to be in Corbyn's Foreign Policy Shadow Cabinet?" - no idea what that might indicate!

[T_i_B]

8. Well it's an old thread, so it's had a head start

I thought it was more relevant to post a reply on this thread than start a new one.

[Denzil_DC]

9. So it is!

Didn't notice that.

[T_i_B]

4. Northern Powerhouse plan unknown to two-thirds in North

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-34787669

Two-thirds of people in the North of England have either never heard of, or know nothing about, the Northern Powerhouse, according to a BBC-commissioned survey.

The survey suggested 44% had never heard of the policy and 20% had heard of it but know nothing about it.

The Powerhouse attempts to redress the north/south divide and attract investment to the north.

The Northern Powerhouse is the brainchild of Chancellor George Osborne, who is aiming to bridge the economic gap between the north and south by attracting investment and improving transport links between its towns and cities.