The Greater Manchester devolution model won’t work everywhere – Burnham should look to London instead
Bee network buses in Greater Manchester (Tony Smith/Alamy)
4 min read
In Makerfield, Andy Burnham could point to a decade of Labour delivery embodied most visibly by the yellow buses of his Bee Network.
In two-and-a-half years’ time, with children tucking in at breakfast clubs, reduced NHS waits, or the red, white and blue trains of Great British Railway, the Labour government will need to do the same.
Andy Burnham has made clear that one of the engines of that change will be devolution. The next phase of devolution therefore must be designed around delivery. That means giving mayors the tools they need to get things done.
Paradoxically, however, I would urge Andy Burnham to look almost anywhere but Greater Manchester to achieve this. The Makerfield test doesn’t work here.
For all of Andy Burnham’s time as mayor, Labour has led most of Greater Manchester’s 10 councils. His Greater Manchester cabinet has therefore largely consisted of political colleagues with shared broad objectives and a common political culture. That level of political alignment is, however, highly unusual. It should not be the model on which English devolution is built.
Take my part of the world. I believe Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes (BLMK) should have a mayor. But look at the politics. Four unitaries: one Labour, one Tory, one Lib Dem and one Independent. Whatever the party of the mayor, they are likely to find themselves leading a cabinet of council leaders with different political values. How is this mayor supposed to deliver when they can so regularly be outvoted?
Or put another way, it’s like saying: “Congrats Andy, you’re PM. Want to act? You’ll first need the agreement of the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Yes, I know they don’t agree with you, but them’s the rules.” It kind of makes delivery difficult! And for those who say, ‘but this is about local places so it’s different’, I think that’s a bit insulting to those politicians.
Greater Manchester also has a unique history. Mayoral governance was layered onto decades of existing collaboration through the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities. There was political trust, institutional memory and an established culture of working together before the mayor existed.
BLMK doesn’t have that. Nor do many of the other areas being considered for devolution. The governance model for these places therefore needs to assume disagreement, but still allow a mayor, directly elected by hundreds of thousands of people, to deliver on their manifesto. That can’t always mean securing agreement from council leaders elected to do something different.
Andy Burnham has made clear that one of the engines of that change will be devolution
Collective agreement should not become a veto on delivery. Otherwise, decisions will drift towards the lowest common denominator rather than the best outcome. That is not a criticism of local council leaders. A Labour council leader who votes against a Conservative mayor cutting buses, or a Reform council leader who votes against a Labour mayor investing in solar power, is doing what their electorate might reasonably expect. It is a criticism of a system that prioritises consensus above delivery.
We risk creating mayors with public accountability but without the power to make meaningful change. That is bad for delivery and democracy.
Of course, it requires courage. Any Labour prime minister must be prepared to see Conservative, Lib Dem, Green or Reform mayors follow through on choices they disagree with. And it requires Labour politicians to have faith in the electorate that they’ll kick them out.
London shows this can work. The mayor and London’s boroughs frequently disagree, yet the constitutional settlement makes clear who decides what, and who voters should hold accountable. That should be the model for the next generation of English devolution: a system that encourages collaboration but does not depend upon it.
Because devolution should never be judged by how many powers Whitehall has transferred. It needs to be judged on delivery. Devolution without delivery is simply decentralised frustration.
Alex Mayer is Labour MP for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard
