Burnham’s Devolution Revolution: A Step Forward or a False Promise?

The recent announcement by Prime Minister Andy Burnham to allow mayors to keep a share of taxes collected in their area has been hailed as a significant step towards decentralizing power and giving local leaders more autonomy. However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that this policy is more of a compromise than a bold revolution.

Burnham’s emphasis on devolving power from Westminster to local leaders echoes his time as mayor of Greater Manchester, where he championed the cause of devolution. But what does this really mean for those who will be impacted by these changes? The devil lies in the details, and it appears that the Prime Minister’s plans fall short of truly empowering regional authorities.

The policy to allow mayors to keep a share of income tax and business rates is seen as an attempt to incentivize local leaders to promote economic growth. However, this approach raises questions about the potential for unequal distribution of resources across different regions. The government will retain an equalization system, ensuring areas with less tax collection continue to receive financial support.

This suggests that ministers are aware of concerns about unequal distribution of resources. Nevertheless, Burnham’s announcement emphasizes giving mayors more power and resources without necessarily addressing the underlying issues of funding and financing. Income tax rates for billpayers will remain unchanged, meaning local leaders will still work within a centralized system.

The Prime Minister’s rhetoric about carrying power into every postcode and giving locally elected leaders the tools they need to drive change sounds promising, but it remains to be seen how these plans will translate into tangible action. Several parts of England have already introduced mayoral powers, including Greater Manchester, the Liverpool City Region, and South Yorkshire.

However, what is missing from Burnham’s narrative is any real discussion about the long-term implications of these changes. Will local leaders be able to raise taxes themselves? How will the current system of funding, which sees central government retain significant control over finances, be reformed? The lack of clarity on these issues suggests that the Prime Minister’s devolution revolution may be more smoke and mirrors than substance.

As we look to the future, it is clear that Burnham’s plans are just the beginning of a longer conversation about decentralization and local authority. But for this policy to truly have an impact, it needs to address the fundamental issues of funding and financing. Without meaningful reforms in these areas, we risk creating a system where local leaders have more power on paper but still lack the resources to make real change happen.

The people who will be most affected by these changes are those living in communities that have been ignored or neglected for far too long. Burnham acknowledged, “I know what it’s like to be ignored by politicians in Westminster.” Now, as Prime Minister, he has a chance to put words into action.

Will he seize this opportunity, or will his devolution revolution turn out to be just another false promise? Only time will tell.