Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The English Question II: Elite-Driven Devolution Deals

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Publics, Elites and Constitutional Change in the UK

Part of the book series: Comparative Territorial Politics ((COMPTPOL))

  • 510 Accesses

Abstract

Drawing on an extensive set of elite interviews with politicians and civil servants at local and national level, this chapter considers the process that led to the announcement of a devolution deal for Greater Manchester in November 2014. The chapter shows how the devolution model has become a template for other deals, marking a significant development in the governance of England. It reconstructs what was an elite-driven process, with a deal negotiated in secret, and poses questions about the democratic legitimacy of that process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a fuller discussion of the ‘Devo Manc’ deal see Daniel Kenealy, ‘A Tale of One City? The Devo Manc Deal and Its Implications for English Devolution’, The Political Quarterly, 87:4 (2016), pp. 572–581 (Kenealy 2016).

  2. 2.

    At the time of writing (November 2016) deals had been agreed with Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, West Midlands, West of England, Cornwall, Sheffield City Region, Tees Valley, and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Deals with the North East of England, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Lincolnshire had, by this time, seemingly stalled.

  3. 3.

    John McDermott, Jim Pickard, Andrew Bounds and Sarah Gordon, ‘George Osborne Hands Local Councils Control of Business Rates’, Financial Times, 5 October 2015, at https://www.ft.com/content/1cfafc1c-6b55-11e5-8171-ba1968cf791a, accessed 31 October 2016 (McDermott et al. 2015).

  4. 4.

    Interviews 27, 28, 31.

  5. 5.

    David Cameron, ‘Scottish Independence Referendum: Statement by the Prime Minister’, 19 September 2014, at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/scottish-independence-referendum-statement-by-the-prime-minister, accessed 31 October 2016 (Cameron 2014).

  6. 6.

    Interviews 28, 32, 36.

  7. 7.

    For a full discussion, see James Mitchell, Devolution in the UK (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009), pp. 206–218 (Mitchell 2009b); also Guy Lodge and James Mitchell, ‘Whitehall and the Government of England’, in Robert Hazell (ed.), The English Question (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006) (Lodge and Mitchell 2006).

  8. 8.

    On the RDAs see Graham Pearce and Sarah Ayres, ‘Governance in the English Regions: The Role of the Regional Development Agencies’, Urban Studies, 46:3 (2009), pp. 537–557 (Pearce and Ayres 2009b).

  9. 9.

    See John Harrison, ‘Life after Regions? The Evolution of City-regionalism in England’, Regional Studies, 46:9 (2012), pp. 1250–1254 (Harrison 2012).

  10. 10.

    Matthew Ward, ‘City Deals’, House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper No. 7158, 16 March 2016, p. 3 (Ward 2016b).

  11. 11.

    For the full text of the 2011 Localism Act see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/contents/enacted, accessed 31 October 2016; see also Cabinet Office, Unlocking Growth in Cities (London: HMSO, 2011) (Cabinet Office 2011). On the first wave of the deals see Cabinet Office, Unlocking Growth in Cities: City Deals – Wave 1 (London: HMSO, 2012) (Cabinet Office 2012).

  12. 12.

    See Steve Leach and Chris Game, ‘English Metropolitan Governance since Abolition: An Evaluation of the Abolition of the English Metropolitan County Councils’, Public Administration, 69:2 (1991), pp. 141–170 (Leach and Game 1991).

  13. 13.

    The six areas were Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands, and West Yorkshire.

  14. 14.

    The ten authorities are Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan.

  15. 15.

    Kevin Ward, Iain Deas, Graham Haughton and Stephen Hincks, ‘Placing Greater Manchester’, Representation, 51:4 (2015), p. 419 (Ward et al. 2015b).

  16. 16.

    Graham Haughton, Iain Deas, Stephen Hincks and Kevin Ward, ‘Mythic Manchester: Devo Manc, the Northern Powerhouse and Rebalancing the English Economy’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 9:2 (2016), p. 359 (Haughton et al. 2016).

  17. 17.

    For a full discussion, see Iain Deas, ‘The Search for Territorial Fixes in Subnational Governance: City-Regions and the Disputed Emergence of Post-political Consensus in Manchester, England’, Urban Studies, 51:11 (2014), pp. 2285–2314 (Deas 2014).

  18. 18.

    Interview 39.

  19. 19.

    Interview 37.

  20. 20.

    Deas, ‘Search for Territorial Fixes’, p. 2297.

  21. 21.

    HM Treasury and GMCA, ‘Greater Manchester Agreement: Devolution to the GMCA & Transition to a Directly Elected Mayor’, November 2014, at www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/369858/Greater_Manchester_Agreement_i.pdf, accessed 31 October 2016 (HM Treasury and GMCA 2014).

  22. 22.

    Michael Heseltine, No Stone Unturned: In Pursuit of Growth (London: HMSO, 2012), pp. 56–57 (Heseltine 2012).

  23. 23.

    See HM Treasury and GMCA, ‘Greater Manchester’, p. 1; and Kenealy, ‘Tale of One City’, pp. 1–3.

  24. 24.

    Richard Johnstone, ‘Osborne Scraps Core Grant and Allows Councils to Keep Business Rates’, Public Finance, 5 October 2015 (Johnstone 2015).

  25. 25.

    Interviews 26, 28, 32.

  26. 26.

    The terms of reference for the scrutiny pool can be found at https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/downloads/file/27/gmca_and_agma_joint_scrutiny_committee_terms_of_reference, accessed 13 November 2016.

  27. 27.

    HM Treasury and GMCA, ‘Further Devolution to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Directly-elected Mayor’, July 2015, at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443087/Greater_Manchester_Further_Devolution.pdf, accessed 31 October 2016 (HM Treasury and GMCA 2015); HM Treasury, ‘Further Devolution to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Directly-elected Mayor’, November 2015, at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/479566/Further_devolution_manchester_nov_2015.pdf, accessed 31 October 2016 (HM Treasury 2015).

  28. 28.

    ‘Greater Manchester to Control £6bn NHS Budget’, BBC, 25 February 2015, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218, accessed 31 October 2016 (BBC 2015). For analysis, see Kieran Walshe, Anna Coleman, Ruth McDonald, Colin Lorne and Luke Munford, ‘Health and Social Care Devolution: The Greater Manchester Experiment’, British Medical Journal, 352 (2016), i.1495 (Walshe et al. 2016b); and Kath Checkland, Julia Segar, Jennifer Voorhees and Anna Coleman, ‘“Like a Circle in a Spiral, Like a Wheel Within a Wheel”: The Layers of Complexity and Challenge for Devolution of Health and Social Care in Greater Manchester’, Representation, 51:4 (2015), pp. 453–469 (Checkland et al. 2015).

  29. 29.

    Mark Sandford, ‘Devolution to Local Government in England’, House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper No. 07029, 19 July 2016, p. 15 (Sandford 2016b).

  30. 30.

    ‘Sajid Javid ends North East Devolution Deal’, BBC, 8 September 2016, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37312978, accessed 31 October 2016 (‘Sajid Javid Ends’ 2016).

  31. 31.

    See David McKay, ‘Theory and Practice in Public Policy: the Case of the New Federalism’, Political Studies, 33:1 (1985), pp. 181–202 (McKay 1985b).

  32. 32.

    Duncan Maclennan and Anthony O’Sullivan, ‘Localism, Devolution and Housing Policies’, Housing Studies, 28:4 (2013), pp. 599–615 (Maclennan and O’Sullivan 2013).

  33. 33.

    See Manchester Independent Economic Review, The Case for Agglomeration Economies, 6 April 2009, at http://manchester-review.co.uk/?page_id=162, accessed 31 October 2016 (Manchester Independent Economic Review 2009); Henry Overman, ‘Investing in the UK’s Most Successful Cities is the Surest Recipe for National Growth’, LSE Policy and Politics Blog, 26 January 2012, at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/44073/, accessed 31 October 2016 (Overman 2012b).

  34. 34.

    Neil McInroy, ‘Making Devolution Work for All: Grabbing and Grappling with the Opportunity’, Manchester Policy Blogs, 3 July 2015, at http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/featured/2015/07/making-devolution-work-for-all-grabbing-and-grappling-with-the-opportunity/, accessed 31 October 2016 (McInroy 2015b) (McInroy 2015b).

  35. 35.

    The Joseph Rowntree Foundation have undertaken work considering how different types of growth can have different effects of cities, concluding that employment growth has the greatest impact on poverty, not economic growth. See Cities, Growth and Poverty: Evidence Review, Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2014), at https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/cities-growth-and-poverty-evidence-review, accessed 31 October 2016 (Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2014).

  36. 36.

    McInroy, ‘Making Devolution Work’.

  37. 37.

    Haughton et al., ‘Mythic Manchester’, p. 363.

  38. 38.

    City Growth Commission, Unleashing Metro Growth: Final Recommendations (London: RSA, 2014) (City Growth Commission 2014); and Philip Blond and Mark Morrin, Devo Max-Devo Manc: Place-based Public Services (London: ResPublica, 2014) (Blond and Morrin 2014).

  39. 39.

    Interview 35.

  40. 40.

    Interviews 32, 33, 35.

  41. 41.

    Interview 35.

  42. 42.

    Interview 28.

  43. 43.

    Interview 35.

  44. 44.

    Interview 36.

  45. 45.

    House of Commons, Devolution: The Next Five Years and Beyond, Communities and Local Government Committee, 1st Report of Session 2015–16, HC369 (London: HMSO, 2016) (House of Commons 2016).

    CLGC Report, 2016, p. 12.

  46. 46.

    Interview 29.

  47. 47.

    John Fenwick and Howard Elcock, ‘Elected Mayors: Leading Locally?’, Local Government Studies, 40:4 (2014), p. 586 (Fenwick and Elcock 2014a).

  48. 48.

    ‘Liverpool Council Votes to Elect City Mayor’, BBC, 7 February 2012, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-16938425, accessed 31 October 2016 (Liverpool Council Votes 2012).

  49. 49.

    Ed Hammond, ‘Representation and Democracy: Voice of Citizens – A Local Perspective’, Representation, 51:4 (2015), p. 472 (Hammond 2015).

  50. 50.

    Interview 32.

  51. 51.

    Interviews 28, 31, 33, 38.

  52. 52.

    Interview 28.

  53. 53.

    Interview 26.

  54. 54.

    Interview 27.

  55. 55.

    For details of the consultation, see https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/news/article/77/consultation_on_greater_manchester_s_devolved_powers_launched.

  56. 56.

    Francesca Gains, ‘Metro Mayors: Devolution, Democracy and the Importance of Getting the “Devo Manc” Design Right’, Representation, 51:4 (2015), p. 426 (Gains 2015).

  57. 57.

    See John Fenwick and Howard Elcock, ‘Has the Introduction of Directly Elected Mayors Advanced or Detracted from Democratic Innovation in English Local Government?’, Democratic Audit, 6 March 2014, at http://www.democraticaudit.com/2014/03/06/has-the-introduction-of-directly-elected-mayors-advanced-or-detracted-from-democratic-innovation-in-english-local-government/, accessed 31 October 2016; and also Fenwick and Elcock, ‘Elected Mayors’ (Fenwick and Elcock 2014b).

  58. 58.

    Hammond, ‘Representation and Democracy’, p. 474.

  59. 59.

    Hammond, ‘Representation and Democracy’, p. 474. Hammond draws particular attention to the work of Tom Wakeford, ‘Citizens Juries: A Radical Alternative for Social Research’, Social Research Update, 37 (2002), at http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU37.html, accessed 31 October 2016 (Wakeford 2002b).

  60. 60.

    Paul Mason, ‘An Idea for Manchester’s New Mayor: Let the People Decide Where the Cash Goes’, The Guardian, 17 October 2016, at https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2016/oct/17/an-idea-for-manchesters-new-mayor-let-the-people-decide-where-the-cash-goes, accessed 31 October 2016 (Mason 2016). Participatory budgeting has been piloted in Scotland with mixed results. See Chris Harkins, Katie Moore and Oliver Escobar, Review of 1 st Generation Participatory Budgeting in Scotland, What Works Scotland Evidence Review, October 2016, at http://whatworksscotland.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ReviewofFirstGenerationPBinScotland.pdf, accessed 31 October 2016 (Harkins et al. 2016).

  61. 61.

    Hammond, ‘Representation and Democracy’, p. 474.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social Policy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

    Daniel Kenealy

  2. Social Policy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

    Jan Eichhorn

  3. Centre on Constitutional Change, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

    Richard Parry

  4. Social Policy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

    Lindsay Paterson

  5. Politics and International Relations, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

    Alexandra Remond

Authors
  1. Daniel Kenealy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Eichhorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard Parry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lindsay Paterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alexandra Remond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kenealy, D., Eichhorn, J., Parry, R., Paterson, L., Remond, A. (2017). The English Question II: Elite-Driven Devolution Deals. In: Publics, Elites and Constitutional Change in the UK. Comparative Territorial Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52818-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation