England's Mayors Gain More Power, Thinktank Suggests Radical Concept of Checking What They Do With It
Devolution Advances to Stage Two: Somebody Looks at Receipts


LONDON - As ministers prepare to give English mayors greater control over funding and public services, IPPR North has argued that stronger scrutiny should accompany the expansion of mayoral powers. Planned changes include greater local revenue retention and potentially billions of pounds shifting away from Whitehall control.

Authority: Guardian report on mayoral powers and devolution scrutiny

Related: UK government satire at Prat.UK

Britain has discovered a dangerous new principle in public administration.

If politicians receive more money and power, somebody should occasionally check what they are doing.

This theory remains experimental.

England's regional mayors are due to gain greater financial authority as part of deeper devolution.

The logic is straightforward.

Local leaders know local problems better than somebody in Whitehall reading a briefing note entitled THE NORTH: BACKGROUND.

A mayor in Manchester presumably knows more about Manchester transport than an official in London whose principal northern experience involved changing trains at Crewe.

But with additional power comes the uncomfortable administrative concept known as scrutiny.

Scrutiny is government's equivalent of your spouse asking:

"What did you buy?"

"Nothing."

"Then why is there £480 missing?"

"Strategic infrastructure."

England's devolution system has grown rapidly.

Mayors increasingly oversee transport, housing, skills, investment and other functions.

Some will also gain more ability to retain locally generated revenues.

That creates political visibility.

If a mayor spends well, mayor takes credit.

If a mayor spends badly, central government remembers devolution exists and says:

"This is precisely why Dave should never have had a credit card."

Thinktanks therefore want stronger oversight arrangements so one disastrous decision does not damage public confidence in the entire devolution project.

That is sensible institutional design.

It is also wonderfully British.

We decentralise power, then immediately construct committees to monitor the decentralised power from somewhere else.

Soon every mayor will have a scrutiny board.

The scrutiny board will have an audit panel.

The audit panel will have an independent reviewer.

The independent reviewer will need a regional office.

Congratulations.

We have recreated Whitehall locally.

Tourist taxes may also feature in devolved finance.

This is an attractive political instrument because tourists do not vote in local elections.

Taxation becomes much easier when the taxpayer is currently taking photographs of a cathedral.

"Welcome to York."

"Thank you."

"That'll be £4."

"For what?"

"Being here."

Efficient.

Keeping a share of locally generated income tax or business rates could give regional leaders greater ability to finance projects.

Supporters argue this can create accountability because places gain more control over their own priorities.

Critics may worry about capacity, regional inequality and the risk of expensive mistakes.

Both concerns can coexist.

That is why institutions create oversight rather than resolving every political question with a slogan.

Still, the idea of "one bad decision" derailing confidence in mayors raises an awkward question.

If one bad decision is sufficient to end an entire political structure, Westminster should have been demolished centuries ago.

Central government survives mistakes with astonishing durability.

Computer system fails?

Government continues.

Cost overruns?

Government continues.

Minister accidentally spends £800 million on something nobody can locate?

Lessons will be learned.

Regional government deserves at least the same national tradition.

Mayors themselves will probably welcome scrutiny right up until scrutiny finds something.

All politicians support transparency in the abstract.

The trouble begins when transparency acquires a spreadsheet.

"Can we see the procurement documents?"

"We strongly believe in openness."

"Wonderful."

"Not that open."

The best devolution model will ultimately require enough freedom for mayors to make meaningful decisions and enough oversight to prevent the freedom becoming an expensive local sculpture titled Regeneration Opportunity.

That balance is difficult.

Too little autonomy and mayors are ceremonial complaint departments.

Too much without accountability and they become miniature prime ministers with tram budgets.

Britain therefore enters a bold new constitutional age.

Power moves out of Westminster.

Money moves into regions.

Responsibility moves closer to voters.

And somewhere, inevitably, a committee chair asks:

"Can you explain invoice 47B?"

Democracy has arrived. https://prat.uk/?p=49148

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Image
Iran Reopens Strait of Hormuz for Seven Minutes, Declares It a Major Diplomatic Breakthrough In a development that oil markets, shipping companies, and seventeen foreign ministries processed with the emotional range of people who have been through this before, Iran briefly reopened the Strait of Hormuz this week before closing it again after a US Navy seizure of an Iranian-flagged vessel reignited tensions. The Iranian government described events as complicated. The International Energy Agency described them as the biggest energy crisis in history. A tanker captain in the Gulf of Oman described them as "not ideal." The ceasefire framework called for the full reopening of the Strait as a condition, but ships once again found themselves unable to move through the waterway days after the agreement was reached, as Iran cited Israeli and American violations in Lebanon as grounds for reimposing restrictions. The Strait has opened and closed with the regularity of a British corner...
Read more

Good Satirical Journalism

  How to Tell Good Satirical Journalism From Bad Not all satire is created equal, and the gap between a genuinely sharp piece of satirical journalism and a lazy attempt at the same thing can be enormous, even when both are technically aiming at the same target. Learning to spot the difference makes satirical journalism far more enjoyable, and far easier to take seriously as a craft. Good Satire Has a Clear, Specific Target The best satirical journalism is built around a specific, identifiable target, a particular statement, policy or pattern of behaviour that the reader can recognise. This specificity is what makes the satire feel earned rather than arbitrary. A piece that could be aimed at almost any politician, with only the name changed, is usually a sign that the writer has not done the work of finding what is actually distinctive, and therefore actually satirisable, about their chosen target. Bad Satire Relies on Lazy Stereotypes When satire runs out of specific material, it ...
Read more

Paris Introduces New Tourism Package

  Paris Introduces New Tourism Package: See The Eiffel Tower Before It Gets Hit By A Flare Paris tourism officials announced a new advertising campaign Friday: "Visit the Eiffel Tower during victory celebrations and witness a historic monument potentially catching fire in real time!" The marketing department later clarified this was satirical, though barely. The underlying reality required very little exaggeration. The actual tourism message is less exciting but considerably more honest: "Visit Paris, where our monuments are generally not on fire." The modifier generally was added after Wednesday's events. Visitors immediately noticed. When Fire Safety Becomes A Tourism Feature Tourism promotions typically emphasize elegance and history. Paris's revised campaign essentially says: come see the city, but consider timing your visit for non-match days because football victories trigger urban chaos at scale. This is honest. It is not glamorous. It will not sell m...
Read more