Southern Power Play
Originally published in the Municipal Journal [19/03/25]
An accusation made against the European power elites in recent weeks has been their learned helplessness in global relations. The argument is that the continent that gave us the worldly political philosophy of Machiavelli in the Renaissance, the state-making diplomacy of von Metternich in the bloody aftermath of the Napoleonic wars and the military nous of Von Clausewitz, is a dullard that can’t plot more than a single move ahead of the geo-political chessboard. It is levelled that European leaders depend not on deep and mindful planning, but, instead, are overinvested in superficial surface relationships that prove vapid and illusory in the face of the kind of hard power wielded with cruel intent by President Trump.
This global context might not be the fairest of mirrors against which to judge how our councils are adapting to the Whitehall power games. In a sense, the English devolution game is one of building and maintaining complex political relationships across local, regional, and national levels while all the time waiting to follow the lineaments of shifting government policy priorities. And when summoned, seeking to place devolutionary proposals within whatever overarching strategy the government has set tramlines for. Often, it’s a case of hit and hope where the details are left as blank to be filled in later. But the rules of the game are ones which always has a perennial population quantum of 500,000 for local government reorganisation and a stipulation, from George Osborne onwards to Angela Rayner today, for a directly-elected mayor or no serious dice.
And so, in the effort to fill the vast gaps in the devolution map, we have witnessed the fraught race to pick the devolution priority programme – which has seen Greater Essex, Hampshire and the Solent, Surrey, Sussex and Brighton as four major southern heartlands get on the train – with Kent left frustrated on the platform.
However, the savagely abrupt timescales councils have been given to formulate, in agreement among themselves, plans that suit the latest iteration of national devolution strategy, don’t favour as seriously considered a response as is warranted. Against this time pressure, it’s always relationship dynamics – local, regional, national, that remain paramount above deep strategy.
In this process, it’s not possible to be expending deep stores of intellectual policymaking energy where it is most needed: either feeding the complex mechanics of devolution as a catalyst for radical place based local service transformation, or fully aligning all the elements to positively impact place – among them economic, financial, natural, physical and social capital – into a modern industrial strategy.
Instead, we are left in the main with the immediate machinations over what and how to parcel up, and who is ultimately going to be king of the castle. In the southern context, there has been less urgency to create sub-regional vehicles to rebalance and reinvigorate the political economy. The geographic and economic reality of a more prosperous and easily investable south, which guarantees a stronger return on capital, has often let the market take care of business.
So, against all this what should be the southern approach? The Greater South East, which is the country’s most populous region with more than 12 million residents, has always been, to quote Metternich describing pre-unification Italy, a ‘geographic expression’ and not a political sodality. There are strong relationships and connections among local and national leaders for sure. However, and although, with a little help from The MJ, Localis and South East Councils were able to stage a ‘Summit of the South’ back in 2022, the forging of a ‘Convention of the South’ seems unlikely.
So, what does the south need from the devolution game? In our report ‘Restoration and Resilience’ which came out a fortnight before the English Devolution White Paper in December, Localis argued for a devolution settlement that tailored governance in the south east that would play to the region’s myriad economic strengths.
Clearly, under this Treasury (or any other) our constant demand for allowing the region that delivers net into the Exchequer to have greater fiscal autonomy will be ignored. But that’s not to say that devolution as a longer-term process shouldn’t seek to prioritise fiscal sustainability through innovative revenue-generation mechanisms, such as tourism taxes, to reduce dependence on volatile central grants. For example, reforms to the apprenticeship levy would enable councils to design locally relevant training programmes and improve rates of young people deemed NEET and help adults find routes to employment in line with the ‘Get Britain Working’ agenda and its related decentralised ‘Connect to Work’ programme.
In other areas where power can be leveraged, such as housing and transport, planning, and skills funding, southern councils can, we argued, make use of the devolutionary moment to address the regional disparities and inequalities that exist across the south east, especially in coastal and deeply rural areas, while enhancing overall economic resilience. Similarly, a strategic focus on housing affordability, infrastructure development, and covering social care gaps would allow the region to harness its strengths while addressing pressing demographic challenges.
So while the emergent Combined Authorities and unitaries across the south may feel a country mile behind their more established counterparts, they would be advised to use the power of good strategy to confidently assume their roles on the stage of national life. And if formal unity proves illusory, why not leverage existing strong, if informal relationships across boundaries, to forge their own sense of solidarity and unity and advance common pan-regional interests.
Jonathan Werran is chief executive, Localis