Devolution: Views differ on Hampshire and Isle of Wight changes
Discussions have begun ahead of the biggest transformation of local government in southern England in decades.With this month's elections cancelled, attention has turned to the devolution plans for a new combined authority taking in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight and led by an elected mayor.Alongside devolution is local government reorganisation. With district and borough councils set to be scrapped, council leaders are deciding the future layout of the remaining local authorities.Opinion is divided among local politicians. For some, devolution means more powers and funding under local control, while others see it as costly and bureaucratic.
Portsmouth and Southampton city councils, along with Hampshire County Council and the Isle of Wight, voted to accept the government's offer to create a combined mayoral authority earlier this year.Devolution has been central to the Labour government's plans for local government with Prime Minister Kier Strarmer promoting it as allowing "those with skin in the game - those that know their communities - to make much better decisions".Phil Jordan is the Independent leader of Isle of Wight council and favours devolution as potentially beneficial to the island."Decisions made up in Westminster in London will be passed down to us," he said.Nick Adams-King, Conservative leader of Hampshire County Council, said the financial gains of devolution "might not be much initially"."But whenever government has money to give out it's the combined authorities which get it first and we need to be part of that."
But concerns have been raised by some leaders of other local authorities.The leader of Basingstoke and Deane council, Dr Paul Harvey, said he was worried the mayoral election could become a "personality contest". "We don't want a presidential style election, we need to know what the potential candidates are promising on transport, economic development, real political issues." The leader of Gosport Borough Council, Peter Chegwyn, said he thought the public would not support another level of bureaucracy."It's not really devolution because that would bring decisions nearer to the people and this doesn't, it's just another layer of government."
'Turkeys voting for Christmas'
Council leaders and chief executives are currently working out how to create new, larger local authorities, each serving about 500,000 people.An interim report submitted to the government in March suggested four mainland councils based around the centres of Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton and Portsmouth. Final proposals on reorganisation need to be submitted by September. Steve Pitt, leader of Portsmouth City Council, has written to the government insisting his authority is financially sustainable and does not want to be part of reorganisation."The government isn't just asking us to be turkeys voting for Christmas, it's asking us to make the stuffing and put the dinner on," he said.Mr Chegwyn also raised concerns about finances. "Hampshire County Council has huge debts and if you create new authorities without sorting finance for social care and children with extra needs, the new councils will be bust on day one".
In some rural areas, leaders have voiced concern about being "swallowed up" by cities. Jill Cleary, leader of New Forest District Council, said the process was a "back-of-a-fag packet idea"."If this has to happen, we need to merge with like-minded 'green' councils with national park, housing stock of their own and rural businesses. Cities are different."On the Isle of Wight, Mr Jordan said he had asked for the island to be an exceptional case and retain its unitary status."We don't save any money sharing services across the Solent," he said. "Our bin lorries collect waste here and take it to recycling plants or landfill on the Island. There's no benefit to any merger".Speaking at a meeting in Southampton last month, devolution minister Jim McMahon said the process needed "clarity and pace"."Local people need to see the improvements to services this will bring," he added.
You can follow BBC Hampshire & Isle of Wight on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Anglesey and Celtic freeports job hopes 'downgraded'
Plaid Cymru's Luke Fletcher criticised the pace of change at the Anglesey freeport as well as the Celtic freeport based around Port Talbot and Pembrokeshire. Mr Fletcher said people were promised transformative economic benefits, tens of thousands of jobs, billions in investment and a green revolution – "but years on, we are still waiting". "That's a fact, that's a reality," the shadow economy secretary warned. "Now, if freeports are meant to be a cornerstone of our economic strategy, then we need to actually understand exactly what we're getting and, right now, there's a huge lack of clarity and credibility." Freeports, originally a Conservative UK Government policy, offer tax breaks in an effort to boost business. Mr Fletcher said an initial promise of 20,000 jobs by 2030 was revised down to 17,000 on the Welsh Government's website, a decrease of 15 per cent. He added that the Celtic freeport was downgraded by 31per cent from a promise of 16,000 jobs to nearer 11,000 today. "All we've seen from the Celtic freeport so far are strategies, frameworks and meetings: no clear delivery, no major employment, no visible change," he said. Rebecca Evans, Wales' economy secretary, told Senedd members it remains early days with "an awful lot" of work going on behind the scenes and the freeports only open for business for a matter of months. Samuel Kurtz, the Conservatives' shadow secretary, welcomed the Celtic and Anglesey freeports but raised concerns about sites in England such as Teesside being further along. He also hailed "significant" progress at Wales' two investment zones – based on advanced manufacturing in Wrexham and Flintshire, and semiconductors in Newport and Cardiff. In her statement, Ms Evans said the Welsh Government has agreed full business cases for both freeports and the final agreement with UK ministers was close to completion.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
We should all hope Rachel Reeves delivers growth - or our taxes are going up: SIMON LAMBERT
Rachel Reeves faced a big challenge in her spending review. This is the event where she sets down a marker for what Labour plans to do under Sir Keir Starmer and herself as Chancellor. Funds are pledged to projects and government departments that fit with Labour's priorities – future Budgets should align with a plan to make this happen. Reeves faced a double challenge though, as she also needed to convince the country Labour can deliver growth and improve Britain, while balancing the books in a way that convinces markets the UK's finances are under control. The first element involves a commitment to spend, the second requires spending less or raising taxes. Clearly, this is a difficult balancing act to pull off at the best of times. But if you've promised not to raise taxes and many in your party are vehemently opposed to spending cuts to already threadbare public services, it's even harder. Add in the backdrop of a screeching U-turn on winter fuel payments, a rise in job losses blamed on the Autumn Budget 's employer national insurance rise, and a Spring Statement that regained a wafer-thin £9.9billion fiscal rule buffer only for this to be wiped out soon after by Donald Trump's tariff ructions, and you don't envy Reeves at all. As the old asking for directions joke punchline goes: 'Well, I wouldn't start from here'. There was more money for defence, schools and the NHS and less money for other public services deemed less important, or able to be brushed under the carpet for now. Ultimately though, the economic story remains the same as it was with Reeves' Tory predecessors: meet your targets by outlining plans that involve growth picking up, productivity improving and cutting spending in the future. Since Rishi Sunak there's also been some fiscal drag from frozen tax thresholds chucked in for good measure. Based on the OBR's five-year outlooks, this allows Chancellors to meet their fiscal rules. The fact that these forecasts inevitably turn out to be wrong, productivity doesn't improve, and things don't end up balancing is conveniently ignored. Yet, still we continue with the farce of policy by spreadsheet. As I've written before this fairytale economics is a terrible way to make decisions. Fortunately, the Chancellor had one card up her sleeve, the change to borrowing rules that allowed extra infrastructure investment. It freed her up to announce £113billion of plans to knock Britain into shape. These ranged from £39billion for affordable homes over a decade, to £30billion on nuclear power, £15billion on transport schemes. Among the beneficiaries will be rail and bus links in the North, the Oxford to Cambridge Arc, and the Sizewell C nuclear plant. Will these things deliver growth? Over time, they should do, but we will have to wait for that to arrive. In the meantime, we face a summer of speculation over tax rises in an Autumn Budget – and with the three big earners of income tax, national insurance and VAT off the table due to Labour's pre-election promise, that would mean more tinkering around the edges. The target of tax rises is likely to be wealth, and hitting the wealthy means potentially going after pensions, savings and investments – the OECD even called for a council tax hike on big homes last week. What if things can only get better? But there is an alternative scenario. Through a combination of bad luck and her own mistakes, such as the mystifying '£22billion black hole' gloomfest, Reeves has been caught out in her time as Chancellor. Government borrowing costs have risen, borrowing itself has come in higher than forecast, and growth has disappointed. Meanwhile, the second iteration of President Trump has proved even more erratic than the first. If things move in the opposite direction though, the UK's finances could improve, and Reeves would catch a lucky break and not have to raise taxes in autumn. This is not an entirely far-fetched scenario, GDP growth in early 2025 was better than expected, a calmer period could see government borrowing costs fall, and a pick-up in the economy would deliver extra tax revenue. Its doubtful that much benefit will be seen from the infrastructure splurge for a while, but the government's pledge to build homes and its threats against reluctant councils are already seeing more approved. I'm reading increasing reports of councils waving through schemes they would previously have said no to. Most likely as they are worried about appeals if they turn developers down and get over-ruled. This may come at a cost to the environment and local communities, while developers cash in, but if enough spades go in the ground, it will boost growth. Meanwhile, companies seem to have front-loaded job cuts, the UK stock market is on the up, and I feel that we may be past the moment of peak consumer gloom. All this could bring that much hoped for improvement in growth. I know this would mess with many of our readers' desire for schadenfreude over Labour, but to my mind, greater prosperity is definitely a better outcome. Otherwise, taxes will surely be going up again soon. How far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? Tax is an increasingly taxing subject for many people who feel hard done by as Britain's complicated system catches them out. And, it's getting worse. So how far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? And is it changing people's behaviour? On this podcast, Georgie Frost, Lee Boyce and Simon Lambert dive into how the British tax tail is wagging the dog - and what you can do to avoid infuriating tax traps.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Winter fuel payment u-turn exposes flaws in SNP's universalism
Reeves maintained that circumstances have changed so much that the u-turn now represents a model of safe fiscal navigation. She was bound to claim that and I don't really care, so long as it allows a costly political mistake to be neutralised. In fact, Reeves' statement indicated quite a few 'u-turns' which have headed the government in more recognisable Labour directions. Thank goodness for that too, I say. People voted for change and it needs to be more visible. In the run-up to last week's by-election, lots of voters were still angry about Reeves' initial action on Winter Fuel Payments but not enough, as it proved, to change the outcome. Labour has had the sense to listen and respond with more positive messages. The Chancellor was not just redistributionist in her commitments to health, education, housing and so on, which apply directly to England. She also spread serious investment around the nations and regions, on top of the record £52 billion to the Scottish Government. Read more from Brian Wilson: Her England-only funding will lead to lots of 'Barnett consequentials' for Scotland. Normally, these are taken with one ungrateful hand and recycled with the other as Scottish Government largesse, without a backward reference to where the money came from. Anas Sarwar will need to keep reminding them and this time more attention must be paid to whether the extra billions are used for priorities which generated them. For example, every penny of 'consequentials' which flow from extra NHS spending in England should be spent on the NHS in Scotland, which has not always happened in the past. There should be complete transparency around this and how other Barnett money, on top of the £52 billion, is spent, and the value we get. However convoluted the route to get here, Winter Fuel Payments now offer a perfect example of why 'universalism' is one pillar of nationalist rule which is long overdue for a 'u-turn', preferably under a new Holyrood administration which has the courage to take the argument on. Under Reeves' plans, pensioners with income under £35,000 a year will get the Winter Fuel Payment of two or three hundred pounds. Those above that amount will not. The vast majority of people will regard that compromise as somewhere between fair and generous. I haven't heard anyone plead the case for restoring universalism. Except, of course, in Scotland where the nationalists committed themselves to paying every pensioner £100, whether they need it or not. It was a political gimmick to demonstrate generosity, humanity etc in comparison to Whitehall, to be funded entirely from the Scottish budget (at the expense of something else). Now the money will come from the Treasury and it will be up to Edinburgh to divvy it up. If they persist in giving £100 to pensioners above the £35,000 threshold, it will either be at the expense of the less well-off or an entirely pointless use of scarce resources, other than to justify 'universalism'. Maybe that example could open the door to an overdue wider debate in Scotland around 'universalism' which opposition politicians tend to steer clear of because the assumption has developed that 'free things are popular' even if their effect is to widen wealth and attainment gaps, rather than narrow them. In a world of unlimited resources, universalism may be a desirable concept, to be recouped through correspondingly high taxation. In the world we inhabit, on the other hand, it is a lofty-sounding device for transferring scarce resources from those who have least to others who are much better off. That is a deception which the SNP have deployed to great advantage. Anyone who challenges it is accused of wanting to reintroduce 'means-testing' which carries the stigma of 1930s oppressors keeping money from the poor. In the 2020s, however, the case for 'means-testing' is to stop giving money to those who don't need it. Another obvious example of this con-trick involves 'free tuition' which now plays a large part in bringing Scotland's universities to the point of penury, forcing large-scale redundancies, excluding Scottish students from hundreds of desirable courses and making our great seats of learning more dependent on decisions taken in Beijing and Seoul than Edinburgh. 'Universalism is one pillar of nationalist rule which is long overdue for a 'u-turn', preferably under a new Holyrood administration' (Image: Radmat) At some point, politicians must have the courage to call out this deception for what it is. The guiding principle that nobody should be prohibited by economic circumstances from going to university does not equate to 'universalism'. Quite the opposite is true. Universalism actually works against those who need far more support if the dial on educational attainment is ever going to move, which it hasn't done in Scotland under present policies and posturing. If public money is to be better spent in Scotland to attack poverty and disadvantage while creating a thriving economy, then shibboleths will have to be challenged. The Scottish Government has never been short of money and certainly won't be now. The question of how it is spent and wasted should be the battlefield of political debate. Another satisfactory 'u-turn' confirmed yesterday was recognition that nuclear power will be an essential component in the transition to a clean energy future. I wish the same obvious conclusion had been reached 20 years ago, when I was arguing for it within government, or could be recognised even now by the student politicians in Edinburgh. With renewables and nuclear, Scotland really could have been a world leader on net zero. Without nuclear, it will still need fossil fuels for baseload for the foreseeable future with imports, rather oddly, regarded by some as morally superior to those extracted from the North Sea. Bring on another u-turn! Brian Wilson is a former Labour Party politician. He was MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003.
