We need once voice to make big calls for future
THIS week, the Government set out its plan to ‘Level Up’ the country, explaining in detail how it would deliver on its 2019 election promise to create a more equal UK.
The plan realistically won’t be completed until 2030, which means we’ll have waited 20 years since the first plans to focus Government efforts on parts of the UK which lag behind were unveiled, namely as the Northern Powerhouse at the time.
At the heart of the plan is the push from the Government for more directly-elected mayors who would take responsibility for lots of extra devolved funding.
The Government’s love for directly-elected mayors makes sense fewer, elected people to talk directly to and hopefully have a good working relationship with.
The problem for us in Lancashire is that Lancashire’s elected council leaders don’t want a directly-elected mayor.
Earlier this month, they unveiled a plan they wanted to take to Government to unlock £5.6bn of funding for the county. The so-called “County deal” sets out four wide-ranging themes that would be likely to dictate the shape of any future agreement with ministers.
Crucially, the local authority leaders have also signed up to a series of principles about how Lancashire would govern itself if it secures the funding – and an elected mayor is no longer on the cards for the county.
Whether the County Deal will be enough to convince Government that it doesn’t need to insist on an elected mayor in Lancashire we don’t know - but the initial reaction to the County Deal suggests Lancashire isn’t really ready to pitch for the cash.
Already, two local councils have expressed some reservations. Burnley wants more assurances on how money will be spent, while Preston has sought further clarifications.
Interestingly, the relatively minor concerns raised by Preston prompted warnings that Preston could be locked out of the project altogether.
That sounds very reassuring doesn’t it?
And this gets to the heart of Lancashire’s problem - 15 councils is too many to ever agree on a deal which keeps everyone happy. Ultimately, it does need one person to be able to make big calls, and time and again, committee decision making involving council leaders who fear the power of their council will be eroded as a result of signing up, is shown not to work.
Councils don’t want to agree on a Mayor for Lancashire because they fear their council area will lose out as a result. Indeed, Rossendale is the perpetual loser when it comes to time, money and attention from Lancashire County Council already,
with the authority invariably drawn to supporting projects in places like Preston and Lancaster instead.
Would a Mayor really be better news for Rossendale? Probably not. But what if access to this cash is dependent on it? It’s a reminder that we don’t need both Lancashire County Council and Rossendale Council delivering services in our area. As in Greater Manchester, just
one authority will do.
Until council leaders get their heads around the fact our council system isn’t fit for purpose, Lancashire has no chance of being levelled up. And for Lancashire County Council, that means admitting an authority which tries to cover a region from Chorley to Carnforth, West Lancashire to Whitworth, just isn’t relevant or good enough any more. Will turkeys vote for
Christmas?
There is another argument of course. Much of the £5.4bn would be spent on closing attainment gaps in education around the county. You could argue that doesn’t need a restructure of local government at all, or a project like Levelling Up. It is just morally right thing for a Government to fund, and for a council to deliver.
Or is that too simple?