Is this the week that begins a new cities revolution across the North? For Deputy Prime Minister and Sheffield MP, Nick Clegg and Cities Minister, Greg Clark, that is exactly what they will be hoping for.
As he formally published details of the Government's City Deal, giving the country's eight largest cities, including Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester and Sheffield much greater opportunities and freedoms to raise and spend money locally, promote and support the skills and jobs agenda and encourage and support infrastructure projects. Nick Clegg's message was simple – it's time for Whitehall to get out of the way and enable our cities to gain the powers needed to become engines of economic growth.
Addressing the IPPR North's cities conference in Leeds on Thursday, Deputy Prime Minister used words and phrases such as the need to "unleash city power". His talk of councils being "patronised by an over centralised politics" and calls for a "bonfire of Whitehall control" were tantamount to a rallying call, dubbing himself and Greg Clark as the champions of localism against the machinery of central government control.
This came following a week of announcements designed to enhance the Government's localism credentials, particularly across the North with Tuesday seeing Clegg using a visit to the North West to announce new opportunities for companies and organisations to bid for funding under the Regional Growth Fund, designed, he argued to re-address the imbalance in UK PLC which he said had become "too focused on the City of London." This as the Department for Communities and Local Government announced that on 3rd May, voters in Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and Wakefield will get the chance to decide if they want to see the creation of a new Boris Johnson-style Mayor for their cities.
Yet for all the warm words and the excitement that the Government has sought to engender over its proposals, the initiative is not without its cynics, with many particularly on the opposition benches sceptical about why localism and why now? In the week for example that it was reported that Leeds City Council faced the prospect of 600 members of staff being made redundant, Labour's Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary and a Leeds MP himself, Hilary Benn said of Nick Clegg's speech to the IPPR:
This speech is a smokescreen for further big cuts to council funding being announced today by the Tory-led Government. These will particularly hit the most disadvantaged communities in England, which have already seen bigger cuts than less deprived areas. With local council jobs going – affecting twice as many women as men - cutting too far and too fast is forcing local authorities around the country to cut frontline services on which both residents and business depend. With all this happening, Nick Clegg's out of touch claim to be giving our big cities the key to their future is so hollow as to be meaningless.
And even the Yorkshire Post, the official media partner for the conference at which the Deputy Prime Minister and Cities Minister spoke had its doubts about the changes being suggested, concluding in an editorial:
New powers to commission rail and bus services, the creation of City Apprenticeship Hubs to access national funding and the possibility of local authorities taking over the running of Job Centre Plus, the Government's belated City Deal for Leeds and Sheffield appears, at face value, to be a meritorious one.
Yet, when the details of this "bold new offer to England's cities" are examined in closer detail, the strategy could disappoint many. Far from being a blueprint to stimulate investment, today's announcement only paves the way for councils from eight metropolitan areas to "pitch for new freedoms.
And while, for example, the prospect of commissioning rail services might appease commuters in these parts if councils do enjoy a greater say over franchises, the reality is that it is a lack of track capacity, and shortage of rolling stock, which is preventing the railways from fulfilling their potential, even when the electrification of the TransPennine line is completed.
The concerns do not end here. Even if local councils do seize the opportunity on transport, and it must be remembered that neighbouring authorities have conflicting priorities, this does not mask the Government's failure to put in place proper structures following the winding up of regional development agencies like Yorkshire Forward. Indeed, one reason why Scotland is withstanding the slump is because its devolved powers are substantial, effective and were in place before the public sector cuts began to be implemented.
Governments since the dawn of time have long argued for the need to devolve powers to local councils, but almost always have been reluctant to actual give up levers on power. it is unsurprising therefore that for many the proof of the pudding will very much be in the eating. But if economic growth is to be secured, our cities are going to have to play a major part in achieving it. As Sam Sims, a researcher at the Institute for Government concluded in a blog post for the Guardian last week:
In May next year, eleven of our largest cities will go to the polls to decide if they want to be run by directly elected mayors. Yet there is still uncertainty over the powers these mayors will have. By making an offer of additional powers now, the government could increase the chances of a yes vote. Perhaps then our provincial cities could take up the mayor of London's challenge to begin really competing with the capital on the economic stage. Cities taking control of their own futures is an essential element of any truly comprehensive growth strategy.
What do you think? Are the Government's plans for cities a major boost for the North or smokescreen to devolve powers for making cuts to local councils rather than by Whitehall?
Greg Clark guest blogs for the Guardian Northerner here.
Ed Jacobs is a political consultant at the Leeds based Public Affairs Company and devolution correspondent for the centre-left political and policy blog, Left Foot Forward.
Comments
9 December 2011 10:10AM
It's cuts. This Govt has developed a highly-effective way of out-sourcing the shit, so that it's core cities, local govt, GP commissioners, you name it who are going to be those in the firing line. What must be recognised is that power isn't really being devolved as much as blame. They're being brought centre stage not to be able to do things, and certainly not to be able to deviate from central Govt line, but solely to carry the can.
9 December 2011 10:39AM
Otherwise known as abrogating responsibility . . .
9 December 2011 11:20AM
When there is money, government wants to spend it itself; when there are cuts, government wants to shift the blame.
It is a good idea to foster a more local autonomy but to do it now is an obvious smokescreen. Power to increase local revenue is being capped even as allowing local authorities to keep more of their own business rates, benefits the prosperous, mainly southern, areas at the expense of the rest.
The Leader of Leeds City Council Keith Wakefield is quoted as saying that the 600 job cuts mean that the Council will have to work even more closely with partners in the voluntary sector, NHS etc. This is whistling in the wind, since these sectors are being savaged as well.
9 December 2011 3:48PM
Devolving transport to cities is a nonsense. The city region transport authorities (GMPTE - formerly SELNEC, Metro, Nexus etc) were established in 1968 for the very good reason that city transport problems can only be solved on a regional scale. They predated the creation of the Metroplitan Counties, and survived their abolition, for this reason. The Mayor for London has acquired regional authority over rail services relatively recently for the same reason. It will only work for the other cities now mentioned if they take over the powers of the existing Integrated Transport Authorites, thereby totally disenfranchising the other partners in each.
Now that isn't devolving power - that is seizing the powers of existing local councils - including Bradford, Salford or Sunderland - to give it to their neighbours. Is the Mayor of Leeds really to become the sole transport authority for Bradford?
Or is it in fact set up to fail by giving the new Mayors responsibility but not the means to achieve anything?