º£½ÇÊÓÆµ

Oops.

Our website is temporarily unavailable in your location.

We are working hard to get it back online.

PRIVACY
Opinionopinion

We're in danger or missing the devolution ball

Miliband has said he wants cities like Birmingham and Manchester to become powerful urban dynamos, taking control of budgets for skills, housing, transport and the Work Programme so to boost their economies

Labour leader Ed Miliband during his question and answer session and speech at the Priory Rooms in Bull Street, Birmingham

Last week Labour leader Ed Miliband promised “the biggest devolution of power to England’s great towns and cities in a hundred years” in a move which shifted Labour’s focus on local economic development away from the ‘old’ administrative regions as in RDA-days towards ‘city and county regions’.

Speaking in Birmingham, Miliband said he wanted cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle and Bristol to become powerful urban dynamos, taking control of budgets for skills, housing, transport and the Work Programme so to boost their economies.

So far so good. Such a radical decentralisation is much needed as England is by far the most centralised state in western Europe even after all the recent fanfare over localism, City Deals and local growth funds. England’s second-tier cities punch well below their weight economically.

And the inspiration for the move is in large part Lord Heseltine’s ‘No Stone Unturned’ report. The Tory peer’s report came up with 89 proposals, with the goal of shifting almost £60 billion over four years from Central Government to English regions.

As Miliband said this week, Osborne’s response to Hezza was way too modest: “the best report this Government has produced has been the one that they have most ignored.”

That was in part because of a no-holds-barred ‘Yes Minister’ style turf war won by the Treasury which stymied further decentralisation (of course one wonders what Ed Balls would make of devolution if he ever became Chancellor given he is steeped in the tradition of top-down Treasury control-freakery).

That Treasury ‘win’ was no surprise, and neither is Labour’s current enthusiasm for backing Hezza. In particular Labour has been trying to figure out what to do with LEPs, recognising it couldn’t – if elected – scrap them as the current government did with RDAs, as that would cause yet more chaos and alienate businesses which have put considerable time and effort into making a go of them.

The Lib Dems of course, via Vince Cable, had tried to pour a big bucket of cold water on Hezza’s plan, arguing that LEPs simply don’t have the capacity to handle such big amounts of money (which is rather ironic given it was a Cable-Pickles double act which replaced RDAs with LEPs). But the Business Secretary was at least right in noting that giving big wads of public cash to unelected bodies wouldn’t be appropriate.