Local authorities are stronger together than apart

With the local elections coming up, its worth remembering that co-operation is key to development.

Cities across the country have responded to the wanted ad issued in the Localism Act. Politics outside Westminster suddenly looks very interesting. The impending referendums on elected mayors have grabbed the imagination and the headlines, but there is a quiet revolution in local governance that has been less commented upon.

Developments in the Leeds City Region remind us that championing localities is about collaboration as well as leadership. Leeds and its neighbour’s intention to follow Greater Manchester in establishing a combined authority shows that collaboration across functional economic areas is a growing phenomenon. The future story of local government will be as much about newly combined authorities as newly elected mayors.

Local champions can drive local economic growth. The areas in and around cities such as Leeds or Manchester, have vibrant economies – and what they often need most is internal and international connectivity. This description would equally apply to areas like Tyne and Wear or the Birmingham conurbation. If England’s cities and shires are going to fulfill their potential then creative approaches to investment are required. Mayors alone will not be able to provide this.

A good example of local investment to support business is provided by Northamptonshire County Council. The council made a £10 million secured loan to protect the future of the British Grandprix at Silverstone Circuits. It also made a £1.5 million contribution to a new high-tech business park to develop automotive innovations. The new technology park is expected to create 2,400 jobs and the loan could help protect 22,000 jobs in Silverstone and across the rest of the country.

Analysis in NLGN’s latest report – Grow Your Own: Skills and infrastructure for local economic growth – found that this investment can be scaled if councils are willing to pool their capital funding and borrowing capacity. The ten Greater Manchester authorities recently agreed a £1.5 billion revolving investment fund for major transport infrastructure. A single economic strategy gave the councils the confidence to allocate their own money and borrow substantial amounts to invest in a wide ranging programme of which extensions to the Metrolink are a centre piece. Joint borrowing helped to mitigate the risks that the councils faced in underwriting new investment.

The Leeds City Region wants to develop its own model for investment and is working with government in order to achieve this through the City Deal process. Leeds hopes that Whitehall will match fund £200 million worth of pooled investment cash. The money would be spent on new infrastructure to connect the sub-region’s economy. One way to encourage others to take up this approach would be to extend city deals beyond the core cities through a series of LEP deals.

Policy innovation is particularly important given the £4.9 billion spending gap inherited by local government and Local Enterprise Partnerships following the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies. The ability to pool investment is also the reason that combined authorities could have more clout than mayors in single authorities.

City mayors are often presented as business-friendly "one-stop-shops", providing clear points of contact for prospective investors. This potential will be limited unless they operate through the kind of collaborative local governance that is envisaged for the Leeds city-region.

In Birmingham there is much excitement over the potential of a mayoral race between Siôn Simon, Gisela Stuart and Liam Byrne. But their capacity to drive change will be undermined unless the city and its surrounding area cooperate. Currently the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP is struggling to agree on shared economic priorities with the neighbouring Black Country LEP. This makes no sense to a major multinational company making a major capital investment, such as Jaguar Land Rover looking to build a new automotive factory.

The government ducked the opportunity to support metro-mayors. Admittedly, the local politics of such a role could have proved one step too far for local cooperation. However, if mayors make narrow investment decisions based on authority boundaries they will exacerbate existing problems.

Elected mayors can be important figureheads for communities. They can also champion major investment projects, such as Crossrail, and help to attract future business investment. But local growth is equally dependent on local government. Combined authorities investing smartly – in everything from skills to infrastructure – may hold the keys to unlocking local economies.

A woman walks past Manchester City Town Hall. Photograph: Getty

Joe is a senior researcher at the New Local Government Network

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'm far from convinced by Cameron's plans for Syria

The Prime Minister has a plan for when the bombs drop. But what about after?

In the House of Commons today, the Prime Minister set out a powerful case for Britain to join air strikes against Isil in Syria.  Isil, he argued, poses a direct threat to Britain and its people, and Britain should not be in the business of “outsourcing our security to our allies”. And while he conceded that further airstrikes alone would not be sufficient to beat Isil, he made the case for an “Isil first” strategy – attacking Isil now, while continuing to do what we can diplomatically to help secure a lasting settlement for Syria in which Assad (eventually) plays no part.

I agreed with much of David Cameron’s analysis. And no-one should doubt either the murderous barbarism of Isil in the region, or the barbarism they foment and inspire in others across the world.  But at the end of his lengthy Q&A session with MPs, I remained unconvinced that UK involvement in airstrikes in Syria was the right option. Because the case for action has to be a case for action that has a chance of succeeding.  And David Cameron’s case contained neither a plan for winning the war, nor a plan for winning the peace.

The Prime Minister, along with military experts and analysts across the world, concedes that air strikes alone will not defeat Isil, and that (as in Iraq) ground forces are essential if we want to rid Syria of Isil. But what is the plan to assemble these ground forces so necessary for a successful mission?  David Cameron’s answer today was more a hope than a plan. He referred to “70,000 Syrian opposition fighters - principally the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Isil”.

But it is an illusion to think that these fighters can provide the ground forces needed to complement aerial bombardment of Isil.  Many commentators have begun to doubt whether the FSA continues to exist as a coherent operational entity over the past few months. Coralling the myriad rebel groups into a disciplined force capable of fighting and occupying Isil territory is a heroic ambition, not a plan. And previous efforts to mobilize the rebels against Isil have been utter failures. Last month the Americans abandoned a $500m programme to train and turn 5,400 rebel fighters into a disciplined force to fight Isil. They succeeded in training just 60 fighters. And there have been incidents of American-trained fighters giving some of their US-provided equipment to the Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Why has it proven so hard to co-opt rebel forces in the fight against Isil? Because most of the various rebel groups are fighting a war against Assad, not against Isil.  Syria’s civil war is gruesome and complex, but it is fundamentally a Civil War between Assad’s forces and a variety of opponents of Assad’s regime. It would be a mistake for Britain to base a case for military action against Isil on the hope that thousands of disparate rebel forces can be persuaded to change their enemy – especially when the evidence so far is that they won’t.

This is a plan for military action that, at present, looks highly unlikely to succeed.  But what of the plan for peace? David Cameron today argued for the separation of the immediate task at hand - to strike against Isil in Syria – from the longer-term ambition of achieving a settlement in Syria and removing Assad.  But for Isil to be beaten, the two cannot be separated. Because it is only by making progress in developing a credible and internationally-backed plan for a post-Assad Syria that we will persuade Syrian Sunnis that fighting Isil will not end up helping Assad win the Civil War.  If we want not only to rely on rebel Sunnis to provide ground troops against Isil, but also provide stable governance in Isil-occupied areas when the bombing stops, progress on a settlement to Syria’s Civil War is more not less urgent.  Without it, the reluctance of Syrian Sunnis to think that our fight is their fight will undermine the chances of military efforts to beat Isil and bring basic order to the regions they control. 

This points us towards doubling down on the progress that has already been made in Vienna: working with the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states, as well as Russia and Iran. We need not just a combined approach to ending the conflict, but the prospect of a post-war Syria that offers a place for those whose cooperation we seek to defeat Isil. No doubt this will strike some as insufficient in the face of the horrors perpetrated by Isil. But I fear that if we want not just to take action against Isil but to defeat them and prevent their return, it offers a better chance of succeeding than David Cameron’s proposal today. 

Stewart Wood is a former Shadow Cabinet minister and adviser to Ed Miliband. He tweets as @StewartWood.