In typical fashion, you wait six months for news on LGR and mayoral devolution and it all comes out at once while you are on holiday.
However, while I was saved from having to come out with a snap analysis last week during the melee of Budget news (Gerkin anyone?), it does mean that I can write this having seen the reaction from those councils involved.
Back in September, when Angela Rayner unceremoniously threw in the towel, I summed up the Government’s options as being between ‘quick wins’, ‘resolve the prior phase’ or ‘deliver labour city hubs’.
The result last week was very much in the ‘quick wins’ category, with three of the five being in the only areas that hadn’t lodged a JR (Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire), with a little bit of ‘deliver labour city hubs’ in the form of a Greater Oxford and a Greater Brighton & Hove.
Now the final two are more than likely going to see some form of JR challenge (indeed Oxfordshire County Council has already announced it is looking at one), but the Government was never going to get a free ride and having two our of five threatening JRs sounds slightly more manageable than 16 out of 19!
As for the rest, Jim McMahon has promised these by ‘early next year’ with a possibility of a further batch before Christmas. However, with district elections now going ahead in many of these places next May, McMahon might find the window available to him to be extremely small! Indeed, I would suggest that post-May is more likely – though waiting does have its downside.
The problem with all this delay is that the areas left to resolve will only become more politically opposed after May next year – a set of elections that didn’t have Reform in the mix last time. That will inevitably mean more political resistance, from politicians whose mandate will arguably be fresher than a government entering its last 18 months.
So, how does this fit in with devolution – an agenda now being run outside of MHCLG from the No.10 in the North office?
As I predicted back in July, this split inevitably meant that LGR and devolution would become decoupled. With mayors being front and centre of Burnham’s first Budget last week, the announcement of ten areas in the final stages was not a surprise to anyone.
However, when taken with the LGR announcement, you can start to see that decoupling in action. While Jim McMahon described Mayoral Combined Authorities operating best when aligned with ‘strong unitaries’, only one of the ten new MCA candidates matched up with the five LGR announcements made at the same time.
Indeed, as it stands, the strongest three LGR candidates announced (Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire) have no announced plans for devolution at all!
So, where does this leave us? I would suggest that devolution and mayors are firmly at the heart of Burnham’s Government agenda and narrative about delivering ‘good growth everywhere’. Those ten areas announced will be delivered by the end of this parliament and whatever happens next, UK Mayor Andy Burnham will see this as his legacy fulfilled.
As to LGR, on that I am less certain. At the beginning of this process, I described this as the most ambitious reorganisation in 50 years. A normal LGR process would see somewhere between three to six council areas delivered – whereas this promised 20!
Currently with Surrey already in the bag (having taken over two years to do one) and five more candidate councils announced, we are starting to feel like your average LGR round. And while I believe we will see more councils come forward – I suspect that this may well not happen until after the next general election, where the rules will be potentially very different.