Burnham is acting like he’s mayor of everywhere – that’s not devolving power to local communities
Andy Burnham's recent policy pronouncements, including ending homelessness and capping bus fares, are criticized as centralizing power rather than devolving it to local communities, contrary to his stated localist agenda.
Intelligence analysis by Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
Simon Jenkins argues that Andy Burnham's actions as mayor, such as intervening in homelessness, bus fares, and social care, demonstrate a desire to be 'mayor of everywhere,' undermining the principle of localism. The author contends that the UK remains highly centralized compared to European peers, and such national interventions are often inefficient and inappropriate for local issues.
Imagine your town has a mayor who promised to let the local school board make all the decisions about your school. But then, the mayor starts telling the school board exactly what books to buy and what games to play, instead of letting them decide. That's what's happening here: a leader who said he'd give power to local towns is actually trying to control everything himself, like a mayor of the whole country, not just his own town.
Analysis
The Paradox of Localism
Simon Jenkins presents a sharp critique of Andy Burnham's recent policy initiatives, framing them as a betrayal of his stated commitment to localism. Despite campaigning on a platform of empowering local communities and challenging the dominance of Whitehall, Burnham's early actions—intervening in homelessness, capping bus fares, and proposing a national care service—are seen as a grab for central control. Jenkins questions the efficacy of these interventions, drawing parallels to failed past government projects and contrasting the UK's approach with more decentralized European models.
Centralization vs. Devolution
The core of Jenkins' argument lies in the UK's persistent status as one of Europe's most centralized nations. He highlights that countries like Germany, Spain, and Nordic nations empower their localities to set taxes and manage public services, supported by equitable tax redistribution. This contrasts starkly with the UK, where successive governments have tightened central oversight on local matters. Jenkins suggests that this centralization leads to inefficiency and inequity, with large-scale national projects often proving far more costly and less effective than their local counterparts.
The Illusion of Change
Jenkins observes a recurring pattern in British politics: politicians pledge localism and devolution during campaigns, only to consolidate central power once in office. He cites examples from Tony Blair to Keir Starmer, all of whom promised to devolve power but ultimately overruled local decision-making. The author implies that this political theater distracts from the fundamental issue of the UK's deeply entrenched centralized structures, which often prioritize headline-grabbing national projects over the practical, localized needs of communities.
Key points
- Andy Burnham's recent policy interventions are criticized for centralizing power rather than devolving it, contradicting his localist agenda.
- The UK remains one of the most fiscally centralized countries in the G7, unlike more decentralized European nations.
- Politicians often pledge localism but consolidate central control once in office, leading to empty promises.
- Centralized government interventions in local issues like housing and social care can be inefficient and counterproductive.
- The author suggests that local ownership and management are more effective for services like care homes.
If Burnham's interventions are successful, they could lead to tangible improvements in areas like homelessness and public transport, demonstrating that a strong, albeit centralized, mayoral hand can address pressing social issues. This could inspire similar integrated approaches in other regions, potentially leading to more efficient service delivery and better outcomes for vulnerable populations.
Burnham's approach risks overstretching central government resources and creating bureaucratic inefficiencies, potentially exacerbating the very problems he aims to solve. His interventions could disincentivize local initiative and lead to a one-size-fits-all policy that fails to address the diverse needs of different communities, ultimately proving more costly and less effective than genuine local control.
