It is encouraging that Andy Burnham seems as enthusiastic about devolution now that he is likely to take over power at the centre as he was when he was just a regional mayor. Such consistency is to be admired.
However, desirable as devolution is in our over-centralised state, it should not be confused with democracy. Devolution of powers from a central despot to a collection of local ones is an improvement, but will not necessarily be sensitive to the needs of the people allegedly represented, and very unlikely to engage them (us) in its administration.
In my life- time local government has moved further and further away from the grass roots. Until the late 1930s Birstall,the (formerly) industrial village where I live, was “governed” by its own Urban District Council. Although the proposal to merge us into the neighbouring Borough of Batley two miles down the road was defeated in a referendum by a massive 3500 votes to 25 (with 190 abstentions) the merger went ahead.
Then in the 1970s Batley’s Borough Council was itself abolished and we were submerged into Kirklees, administered from Huddersfield, seven miles away.
We still had a County Council based in Wakefield, which administered large scale services,( for which in education ,for example, it was internationally famous,) but Mrs Thatcher abolished it in the1980s because it kept falling into Labour hands. ( The Greater London council suffered the same fate at the same time for the same reasons.)
The de-democratising process continue.
The last series of Conservative governments imposed Directly Elected Mayors on Combined Authorities. Ours was certainly against the will of the councillors in most of the West Yorkshire authorities, without the actual public even being asked.
The present Labour government is abolishing District Councils and imposing massive Unitary Authorities. For example, the entire Surrey County is now to be administered by just two of these.
The concept of the US style directly elected mayors, to which Andy Burnham owes his popularity, (or notoriety, if you prefer) is flawed for three reasons.
First it places the emphasis on the personality of one individual rather than on the policies of a group. And engaging, (or flamboyant) personality can be an important asset in politics but is not sufficient on its own, as Boris Johnson’s performance as both London Mayor and Prime Minister illustrates.
Secondly, with the exception of London, where the mayor is accountable to the elected London Assembly, the other mayors are accountable, if at all, only to delegates on Combined Authorities, not directly elected and largely unknown to the people they are meant to represent.
Thirdly the exiting directly elected mayors have often been seen as, and could easily remain, agents of the central government, dishing out largesse from Westminster largely on Westminster’s instructions, in the manner of Santa Claus mayors.
For devolution to revolutionise both our democracy and economy we need leaders not only with powers and tax-raising ability, but democratic legitimacy though having been chosen by the people they represent at regional, county, town and parish level.