Will the spending round crush urban growth?

Alexandra Jones welcomes funding for skills, but worries that grants to pay for councils and growth have been wiped out.

Everyone knew there would be very little money to spare in Wednesday’s spending round and Thursday’s "growth statement". The economy’s poor performance has put paid to any attempts to move away from "austerity" government, so departmental cuts of up to 10 per cent came as no surprise. Yet the big question for me was whether the Review – which, it’s worth remembering, doesn’t even get put into practice until 2015 – would start to signal an alternation in the balance of power, away from most decisions being taken centrally about how money is spent and towards more local decision- about how best to deliver jobs, growth and better public services for much less money. So did it happen?

The honest, if unexciting, answer is that it’s a mixed picture – the rhetoric is going in the right direction but Government still lacks a "place" focus in its approach to national policy, and many of the the decisions about devolution were fairly timid, with too much emphasis on central government control rather than local autonomy.

Take Heseltine’s Single Local Growth Fund. Heseltine suggested it could be as much as £49bn over four years; it ended up being £2bn a year for five years. While it’s good news that a direction of travel has been established, creating some degree of certainty for local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) wishing to make investment decisions, £2bn is hardly a ringing endorsement for devolution to local areas. Digging beneath the detail, much of the money is not new – about £700m has already been allocated to local areas for transport or the New Homes Bonus – and when you divide it between 39 LEPs, it's not a great deal of money, roughly the same as the nine Regional Development Agencies had in the mid 2000s. 

It is good to see skills money in there, however, and now it’s been created it will be difficult to put the localism genie back in the bottle – provided local areas deliver. The challenge for Whitehall as it finalises guidance about how the money will be allocated is to ensure that, even if the amounts are smaller than I had hoped, there is devolution of decision-making and that access to the funds do not involve local areas jumping through a lot of Whitehall-devised hoops.

It’s also unclear whether the welcome announcements on affordable housing, super-fast broadband and transport will respond to the needs of different places. The £3bn of capital investment to build 165,000 affordable homes, along with the £250m announced for more super-fast broadband are welcome and will make a difference in cities across the country, as will the vast number of inter- and intra-city transport schemes that were announced. My concern is that as we move from policy announcements to prioritisation and implementation, the significance of the differences between places will be missed by Whitehall departments. 

Finally, it was not a surprise that local government has again been hit hard by cuts, receiving a 10 per cent cut that Stephanie Flanders of the BBC suggested would amount to a 35 per cent cut in real terms for local government since 2010 (although the Chancellor argued that other measures meant that the "true" cut for local government would be 2 per cent in 2015/16). Combined with cuts in welfare, which will affect some city economies significantly, it will be very tough for many cities to manage their budgets giving rising demands for their services. 

To help them manage cuts more effectively, more action is needed on innovative measures that increase local autonomy. It was good to see confirmation of Manchester's Earn Back deal, involving Manchester keeping a proportion of the benefits generated by increasing local economic growth. It was also good to see additional money for Troubled Families, but I would have liked to see more steps taken down the road of "Community Budgets", allowing local areas to pool budgets across silos in order to deliver more effective, efficient local services in a way already demonstrated in pilot areas such as Manchester and Essex. 

So where does this leave us? I’m an optimist, so I still hope that as the detail emerges over the next few weeks and months this will show that government is putting "place" at the heart of its policy-making. In the meantime, in the two years before these announcements kick in, there’s still more to do to give greater freedom to cities with the capacity to deliver and provide greater support to those cities struggling with capacity, decline or both.

Alexandra Jones is the director of the Centre for Cities

Show Hide image

Will Euroscepticism prove an unbeatable advantage in the Conservative leadership race?

Conservative members who are eager for Brexit are still searching for a heavyweight champion - and they could yet inherit the earth.

Put your money on Liam Fox? The former Defence Secretary has been given a boost by the news that ConservativeHome’s rolling survey of party members preferences for the next Conservative leader. Jeremy Wilson at BusinessInsider and James Millar at the Sunday Post have both tipped Fox for the top job.

Are they right? The expectation among Conservative MPs is that there will be several candidates from the Tory right: Dominic Raab, Priti Patel and potentially Owen Paterson could all be candidates, while Boris Johnson, in the words of one: “rides both horses – is he the candidate of the left, of the right, or both?”

MPs will whittle down the field of candidates to a top two, who will then be voted on by the membership.  (As Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 Committee, notes in his interview with my colleague George Eaton, Conservative MPs could choose to offer a wider field if they so desired, but would be unlikely to surrender more power to party activists.)

The extreme likelihood is that that contest will be between two candidates: George Osborne and not-George Osborne.  “We know that the Chancellor has a bye to the final,” one minister observes, “But once you’re in the final – well, then it’s anyone’s game.”

Could “not-George Osborne” be Liam Fox? Well, the difficulty, as one MP observes, is we don’t really know what the Conservative leadership election is about:

“We don’t even know what the questions are to which the candidates will attempt to present themselves as the answer. Usually, that question would be: who can win us the election? But now that Labour have Corbyn, that question is taken care of.”

So what’s the question that MPs will be asking? We simply don’t know – and it may be that they come to a very different conclusion to their members, just as in 2001, when Ken Clarke won among MPs – before being defeated in a landslide by Conservative activists.

Much depends not only on the outcome of the European referendum, but also on its conduct. If the contest is particularly bruising, it may be that MPs are looking for a candidate who will “heal and settle”, in the words of one. That would disadvantage Fox, who will likely be a combative presence in the European referendum, and could benefit Boris Johnson, who, as one MP put it, “rides both horses” and will be less intimately linked with the referendum and its outcome than Osborne.

But equally, it could be that Euroscepticism proves to be a less powerful card than we currently expect. Ignoring the not inconsiderable organisational hurdles that have to be cleared to beat Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and potentially any or all of the “next generation” of Sajid Javid, Nicky Morgan or Stephen Crabb, we simply don’t know what the reaction of Conservative members to the In-Out referendum will be.

Firstly, there’s a non-trivial possibility that Leave could still win, despite its difficulties at centre-forward. The incentive to “reward” an Outer will be smaller. But if Britain votes to Remain – and if that vote is seen by Conservative members as the result of “dirty tricks” by the Conservative leadership – it could be that many members, far from sticking around for another three to four years to vote in the election, simply decide to leave. The last time that Cameron went against the dearest instincts of many of his party grassroots, the result was victory for the Prime Minister – and an activist base that, as the result of defections to Ukip and cancelled membership fees, is more socially liberal and more sympathetic to Cameron than it was before. Don’t forget that, for all the worry about “entryism” in the Labour leadership, it was “exitism” – of Labour members who supported David Miliband and liked the New Labour years  - that shifted that party towards Jeremy Corbyn.

It could be that if – as Brady predicts in this week’s New Statesman – the final two is an Inner and an Outer, the Eurosceptic candidate finds that the members who might have backed them are simply no longer around.

It comes back to the biggest known unknown in the race to succeed Cameron: Conservative members. For the first time in British political history, a Prime Minister will be chosen, not by MPs with an electoral mandate of their own or by voters at a general election but by an entirelyself-selecting group: party members. And we simply don't know enough about what they feel - yet. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.