Metro mayors are in the spotlight. Sir Keir Starmer welcomed them into 10 Downing Street on his first day in the job. It now looks like devolution is being taken seriously, and Metro Mayors will be key players in delivering change. Almost half of England’s population, and by 2025, two-thirds of the population will be under some kind of devolution deal. But do these mayoralties really hold the tools to deliver change?
Both Labour and Conservatives Governments have gone all-in on the ‘mayor-first’ approach, based on the idea that a mayor isn’t just a figurehead but a genuine advocate for their area – a leader with a voice both locally and nationally.
We now wait to see if the Devolution White Paper will come up with the answers and set out the framework for “full fat” devolution. The new Council of Nations and Regions, and the UK Mayoral Council, is ramping up the level of dialogue with these regional leaders. But at the end of the day, our metro mayors need powers with teeth and the funding to back it up.
According to the Government, these forums are all about ‘partnership working’, bringing local insight to national policy and rallying everyone around the Government’s mission of economic growth.
All sounds promising, doesn’t it? Regional insight feeding into national policy, and mayors seen as the ones who can drive that vision forward. But as metro mayors take on this larger role, it’s worth asking: how much power do they actually have? Are they genuinely being empowered to make local changes, or are they just a delivery arm of national government?
Let’s give credit where it’s due – metro mayors have already demonstrated they can bring more coordination to their regions, connecting local businesses, public services, and communities in ways we haven’t seen before. They’re visible leaders, tuned into local concerns, and they’ve proven effective in co-ordinating local politics and priorities. But up until now, they’ve been constrained by rigid funding pots that focus on specific areas like transport, housing, and skills. This setup puts strict limits on their ability to adapt to unique regional challenges or step outside Westminster’s priorities. It’s no surprise, then, that most combined authorities end up delivering similar projects – adult skills programmes, retrofitting schemes, transport franchising– because, let’s face it, they’re all playing with the same toolkit.
This limited flexibility underscores both the promise and the frustrations of England’s current devolution model. Metro mayors have shown the value of decentralising power, but they’re also bound by national agendas and pre-set funding. England’s local governance potential is there – it’s just not fully unlocked, restricted by a model that encourages leadership within a tight Westminster-defined boundary.
But things are shifting. In the recent Budget, the Government announced that what was once ‘trailblazer devolution’ will mean block grants in the style of departmental budgets for Greater Manchester and the West Midlands starting next year, with Liverpool City Region, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, and the North East following the year after. These grants offer more local control – a big step forward – but even then, the funds are earmarked for categories like local growth, transport, and housing, leaving little room for mayors to reallocate as they see fit. It’s an encouraging development, but one that illustrates the tension within metro mayoral governance: a desire for regional autonomy but a continued reluctance in Westminster to let go fully.
This tension is reshaping the role of the metro mayor itself. In the past, some mayors were vocal critics of national policy, proudly advocating for their regional priorities. Now, with a Labour Government and almost all metro mayors from the same party, there’s a noticeable shift towards alignment – a kind of unified front for national growth objectives. That may work for now, while regional and national goals are more or less aligned. But what happens when those goals inevitably diverge? Can metro mayors really be local change agents when their mandate is tied so closely to national objectives? If we’re serious about creating a long-term system, these mayoralties will be around well after this government is gone.
This Government has a real opportunity to rethink the role of metro mayors. If the Government truly backs local empowerment, this is the moment to redefine metro mayors not just as conveners and representatives but as leaders with the authority to make real, impactful decisions. That would mean giving them wider control over funding and policy, allowing them the flexibility to address regional needs and take risks that Westminster might shy away from.
The future of metro mayors is pivotal to the future of governance in England. If we want them to be more than regional delivery partners for Westminster, they need the authority to drive meaningful change on their terms – even if that sometimes means carving a different path.
