Burnham's Devolution Drive Favors Established Cities While Leaving Many Regions Dangerously Behind
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/johnharris. "Cities are the big winners in Burnham’s devolution drive. But what happens to the rest of England? | John Harris | The Guardian." August 30, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author argues that Andy Burnham's plan to give more power to regional mayors is a good idea in principle, but it's being rolled out unevenly—cities and already-organized regions are getting the most power and money fast, while places like Somerset and Cornwall are just getting started or haven't begun at all. He warns that this could create a new kind of unfairness (rural/southern areas left behind) and that the rush to implement everything by 2027-2028, combined with weak oversight, could cause real problems if not managed carefully.
Conclusion
While Andy Burnham's rapid devolution agenda is fundamentally worthwhile, its city-centric design and uneven rollout risk creating a new geography of unfairness that must be urgently addressed before speed and zeal cause lasting damage.
Premises
- The devolution framework's most powerful tier (established mayoral strategic authorities with widest powers and multi-year funding) is concentrated in cities and pre-existing combined authorities, mostly in the north and Midlands
- Many areas—including large swathes of the south-west like Somerset, Wiltshire, Stoke-on-Trent, and Cornwall—are only in early foundational stages or have not even begun their devolution journey, despite the government's ambitious 2027-2028 deadline for universal coverage
- The underlying economic model of devolution, as described by expert Tony Travers, assumes city-region cores will drive growth while surrounding areas merely commute in to benefit, structurally sidelining non-metropolitan towns
- The rollout has been marked by delays, postponements (e.g., mayoral elections pushed from 2026 to 2028 in several counties), and rushed, mismatched reconfiguration of services like police, fire, and health boards to fit devolution boundaries
- Accountability mechanisms are weak outside London, with most areas relying on unconvincing 'scrutiny committees' rather than elected assemblies, even as some mayors may come from parties like Reform UK
- Historical precedent shows that being 'left behind' regionally has severe political consequences, as seen over the past 15 years
Assumptions
- Devolution as currently designed will naturally entrench rather than reduce regional inequality unless actively corrected
- Areas further behind in the devolution process will remain disadvantaged in funding and power for a significant period, not just temporarily
- The pace of reform (3-year timeline) is inherently in tension with the goal of inclusive, well-scrutinized implementation
- Political stability depends on perceived fairness in how regions are treated by central government
- Scrutiny committees are inherently less effective than elected assemblies for democratic accountability