This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/02/metro-mayors-revival-englands-great-cities

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Our new metro mayors will help the revival of England’s great cities The fightback against London’s power starts here
(about 5 hours later)
The left has always been a bit cynical about George Osborne’s promise to devolve power to English cities in the form of new “metro mayors”. At the Labour party’s annual conference in October 2015, shadow communities secretary Jon Trickett warned a roomful of council leaders not to get excited, because the whole thing was a sham. “The truth is,” he said bluntly in an interview with the Guardian the following month, “the Tories are not devolving real power. They’re delegating cuts.”The left has always been a bit cynical about George Osborne’s promise to devolve power to English cities in the form of new “metro mayors”. At the Labour party’s annual conference in October 2015, shadow communities secretary Jon Trickett warned a roomful of council leaders not to get excited, because the whole thing was a sham. “The truth is,” he said bluntly in an interview with the Guardian the following month, “the Tories are not devolving real power. They’re delegating cuts.”
Well, that’s as maybe – but Osborne’s new mayors are coming anyway. On 4 May, six more or less urban English regions, including Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the West Midlands, will elect their own equivalent of London’s Sadiq Khan. And, local government geek that I am, I’m quite excited about that. More than that, I’m worried that cities such as Leeds and Newcastle – which didn’t get a deal to elect a mayor and are not now likely to, under the new, Osborne-free regime – stand to get left behind.Well, that’s as maybe – but Osborne’s new mayors are coming anyway. On 4 May, six more or less urban English regions, including Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the West Midlands, will elect their own equivalent of London’s Sadiq Khan. And, local government geek that I am, I’m quite excited about that. More than that, I’m worried that cities such as Leeds and Newcastle – which didn’t get a deal to elect a mayor and are not now likely to, under the new, Osborne-free regime – stand to get left behind.
It’s not that I think Trickett was wrong, exactly (although his suggestion that council leaders hold on for the next Labour government to make them a better offer certainly raised an eyebrow). Local government has been gutted by Osborne’s austerity, and the sums available to the new city leaders will be titchy.It’s not that I think Trickett was wrong, exactly (although his suggestion that council leaders hold on for the next Labour government to make them a better offer certainly raised an eyebrow). Local government has been gutted by Osborne’s austerity, and the sums available to the new city leaders will be titchy.
What’s more, the powers on offer are limited, to say the least. They’ll have real influence over planning, transport and economic development. But the idea of giving cities real fiscal powers – of letting them raise their own taxes, as city governments in Europe and North America often can – was never really on the table. That will place a limit on their ability to invest. London’s mayor is much weaker than his counterparts in rival cities such as Paris and New York. The new metro mayors, with the possible exception of Greater Manchester’s, will be weaker still.What’s more, the powers on offer are limited, to say the least. They’ll have real influence over planning, transport and economic development. But the idea of giving cities real fiscal powers – of letting them raise their own taxes, as city governments in Europe and North America often can – was never really on the table. That will place a limit on their ability to invest. London’s mayor is much weaker than his counterparts in rival cities such as Paris and New York. The new metro mayors, with the possible exception of Greater Manchester’s, will be weaker still.
And yet.And yet.
There are two reasons I think metro mayors will be a genuinely great thing for the English regions. One is that our cities are too fragmented. Greater Manchester is split into 10 boroughs; the West Midlands metropolitan area into seven, the Liverpool city region into six. In many cases there are historic reasons for that, and strong local identities often mean people associate with their part more than the whole. (Just try calling someone from the Black Country a “brummie”, and see how that goes down.)There are two reasons I think metro mayors will be a genuinely great thing for the English regions. One is that our cities are too fragmented. Greater Manchester is split into 10 boroughs; the West Midlands metropolitan area into seven, the Liverpool city region into six. In many cases there are historic reasons for that, and strong local identities often mean people associate with their part more than the whole. (Just try calling someone from the Black Country a “brummie”, and see how that goes down.)
But cities’ problems don’t respect historic boundaries: a housing crisis in Manchester means a housing crisis in Salford, too. The creation of metro mayors means there’ll finally be an elected politician whose job it is to think about an entire metropolitan area. What’s more, they could help to create the civic identity that’s sometimes lacking. Greater London feels much more like a single polity now it elects a single mayor than it did when it was just some suburbs that happened to lay next to one another.But cities’ problems don’t respect historic boundaries: a housing crisis in Manchester means a housing crisis in Salford, too. The creation of metro mayors means there’ll finally be an elected politician whose job it is to think about an entire metropolitan area. What’s more, they could help to create the civic identity that’s sometimes lacking. Greater London feels much more like a single polity now it elects a single mayor than it did when it was just some suburbs that happened to lay next to one another.
The other big benefit of metro mayors is visibility: someone who can travel the world hustling for investment, or pop up on the news to bang the drum for their city. Andy Burnham hasn’t always impressed at Westminster; but he’s a big enough name that, should he become mayor of Greater Manchester, he should attract more attention to that city and its needs. This, indeed, is the big argument for a mayor, over the traditional leader-and-cabinet model: putting a human face on local government means a higher profile and greater accountability.The other big benefit of metro mayors is visibility: someone who can travel the world hustling for investment, or pop up on the news to bang the drum for their city. Andy Burnham hasn’t always impressed at Westminster; but he’s a big enough name that, should he become mayor of Greater Manchester, he should attract more attention to that city and its needs. This, indeed, is the big argument for a mayor, over the traditional leader-and-cabinet model: putting a human face on local government means a higher profile and greater accountability.
If all goes well, then, metro mayors mean we should start to hear more about life outside London – about the opportunities and challenges in places such as the Midlands, the Tees Valley and the north west. And if we hear about it, so will businesses and international investors. England is about as ludicrously over-centralised as a country can be without actually slipping into dictatorship. Anything that breaks the capital’s dominance has to be a good thing.If all goes well, then, metro mayors mean we should start to hear more about life outside London – about the opportunities and challenges in places such as the Midlands, the Tees Valley and the north west. And if we hear about it, so will businesses and international investors. England is about as ludicrously over-centralised as a country can be without actually slipping into dictatorship. Anything that breaks the capital’s dominance has to be a good thing.
I’ve heard differing accounts of why Osborne wanted to devolve power to cities that were likely to elect Labour mayors. But one of the less cynical explanations I’ve been given is that he believed, rightly or wrongly, that austerity was inevitable, and would be forgiven by history. He wanted his chancellorship to be remembered for something else, something positive.I’ve heard differing accounts of why Osborne wanted to devolve power to cities that were likely to elect Labour mayors. But one of the less cynical explanations I’ve been given is that he believed, rightly or wrongly, that austerity was inevitable, and would be forgiven by history. He wanted his chancellorship to be remembered for something else, something positive.
I doubt, somehow, that’ll come off: Osborne will always be remembered as the man with the axe. But the devolution he set in train really could help with the revival of England’s great cities, and that in turn could help rebalance the economy away from London. This Thursday, voters in Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool will get to take back control. And this time, it’s not total nonsense.I doubt, somehow, that’ll come off: Osborne will always be remembered as the man with the axe. But the devolution he set in train really could help with the revival of England’s great cities, and that in turn could help rebalance the economy away from London. This Thursday, voters in Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool will get to take back control. And this time, it’s not total nonsense.