Across great swathes of English local government, three lost years of levelling up have served principally to foster a growing sense of frustration, resentment and disappointment. The value of piecemeal pots of money made available by Westminster has been dwarfed by the impact of long-term austerity on council finances. Inflation has diminished their worth still further and the cost of living crisis has disproportionately struck areas that levelling up was intended to help.
But what has perhaps grated most with local leaders is the “begging-bowl culture” condemned by the Conservative West Midlands mayor, Andy Street; a bidding process requiring areas to spend inordinate sums fighting each other for access to limited Westminster largesse. Though purportedly designed to empower less well-off regions, the levelling up programme has reinforced the supplicant status of communities in thrall to politicised decision-making in London.
The “trailblazer” devolution agreements with Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, announced yesterday by the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, amount to a belated and welcome admission that Whitehall does not always know best. In fact, when it comes to dealing with the legacy of deindustrialisation in much of the country, its record has been truly dismal. A top-down, over-centralised political culture has created a much greater level of regional inequality than most other large, wealthy nations. Nor should this come as any surprise. It is inconceivable, for example, that the disgraceful underdevelopment of the north’s railway infrastructure would have been permitted, if northern leaders had possessed the powers to do something about it.
In handing Mr Street and Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, discretionary control over multi-year financial settlements focused on transport, housing and skills, the chancellor has acknowledged that the way England does its politics needs to change. The new autonomy will give both city-regions the chance to develop joined-up, bespoke strategies for growth, based on local priorities and insulated from politicking at the national level. Nascent projects, such as Mr Burnham’s “Atom Valley” plans for a hi-tech manufacturing hub in Rochdale and Oldham, will have a greater chance of succeeding as a result.
The two deals are only a first small step in the right direction. A lack of revenue-raising powers compared to equivalent regions in countries such as Germany means the combined authorities will be less able to effectively roll the pitch to attract international investment. If England’s regions are to really take charge of their own destiny, full-fat fiscal devolution will be necessary. More also needs to be done to develop new forms of scrutiny and accountability, not just in Westminster but at the regional level. And sooner rather than later, the privileges accorded to Greater Manchester and the West Midlands should be granted to the other combined authorities.
Nevertheless, this feels like an inflection point in the struggle to rebalance an economy grotesquely skewed towards London and the south-east. There is now cross-party consensus that regional inequality has contributed to anaemic growth and dire levels of productivity, while eroding communal self-esteem in places that have felt excluded from power and influence. Johnsonian levelling up was a cynical, superficial affair. But a new era of meaningful devolution can be the catalyst for both economic and democratic renewal, allowing English regions to write themselves back into the national story.
