Cheshire and Warrington given green light for devolution
Council leaders previously said a devolution deal would benefit residents, communities and businesses in Cheshire and Warrington.Some areas of the country have been given permission to postpone elections while devolution talks take place, but there are no elections taking place in Cheshire this year.
Devolution has been discussed for the county for several years.In 2015, the three councils drew up a bid but it was rejected a year later by councillors in Warrington - as there had been a split over whether to join the Liverpool City Region or work with Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester councils.Warrington agreed to join a deal in 2017, but although discussions with the government took place, no agreement was made.After the general election last year, the councils began talks with the government about devolution and last month, the three authorities formally submitted a request to be considered for the devolution priority programme.Last week, leaders said any combined authority would be called Cheshire and Warrington, after some calls for it to just feature the county name.The councils will now work with the government to confirm their deal and what powers they will take on, ahead of the first mayoral elections which are expected to take place on 7 May 2026.
Read more stories from Cheshire on the BBC and follow BBC North West on X. For more local politics coverage, BBC Politics North West is on BBC One on Sunday at 10:00am and on BBC iPlayer.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
a day ago
- Spectator
How long before Rachel Reeves introduces a ‘FTSE tax'?
As figures out today show the salaries at the top of business soaring, there are plenty of good reasons for the chief executives of the FTSE 100 to be paid a lot more – at least if you look at it dispassionately. These companies are catching up with global salaries. They need to attract talent from around the world. And they need to stop businesses from moving to New York. The trouble is, we also have a Labour government that is searching for more tax revenue and backbenchers and party activists determined that the 'rich' should pay more. Against that backdrop, paying yourself a couple of million more does not look so smart. With soaring taxes and a higher cost of living, most people are feeling squeezed for cash. The bosses of Britain's biggest companies, however, are doing better than ever. The latest data from the High Pay Commission found that the average pay for the man or woman running a FTSE 100 company rose to £5.91 million last year, a 15.9 per cent increase. It is the highest on record, overtaking the £5.79 million average recorded in 2017/2018. Meanwhile, median pay also set a fresh record of £4.58 million. There has never been a better time to take the helm of the UK's largest companies. It is not hard to understand why. Most of the major FTSE 100 companies operate in a global market, and while the salaries may sound huge to most of us, they are often far less than the same executives would be earning if their business was listed in the United States, or even in much of mainland Europe. If they want to compete globally, as they should, they have to pay the going rate. For shareholders and for staff, the difference between a brilliant CEO and a slightly rubbish one is so vast that it is worth paying an extra million or two to get the right person. Here's the catch, however. Surely the FTSE's leaders have picked the wrong year for a bumper pay rise? The Chancellor Rachel Reeves is desperate for more tax revenue to fill the 'black hole' that has opened up in the public finances. Her backbenchers, alongside senior ministers such as the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, are determined to 'tax the rich' to pay for higher spending, to pay the public sector more, and to avoid any cuts in the welfare bills. Wealth taxes, higher inheritance tax and steeper capital gains taxes are already under discussion. If the pay of these executives keeps going up, it won't be long before there are proposals for a 'FTSE tax'. Perhaps a one-off 'solidarity levy' of 10 per cent on salaries over £1 million or a windfall tax on companies paying their CEO over £5 million could work? Both would be wildly popular with Labour activists. These FTSE bosses are making themselves an easy target – and they will only have themselves to blame if they get clobbered in the Budget.
BBC News
2 days ago
- BBC News
Proposal for new Kent council map dubbed 'appalling'
A proposal for the reorganisation of local government in Kent has been branded "appalling and disrespectful" by one Council has put forward an outline for four unitary authorities to replace itself, Kent County Council (KCC) and the 12 district and borough councils - part of a major national shake-up announced by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner last year. It comes after KCC said its preferred option was for only three unitary authorities at a meeting last Vince Maple, leader of Medway's authority, described Labour's option as the way forward and best matching outlined plans for an England-wide overhaul. He said: "Whilst I appreciate there are currently different options, I wholeheartedly support the proposed model."This is the perfect opportunity to take a fresh look at the map of the county and get it right."However, other politicians did not agree, some even accusing the authority of trying to "break" them apart, according to the Local Democracy Reporting of Tonbridge and Malling council, Matt Boughton called the announcement "appalling and disrespectful" on social even within Medway there was a conflict of leader George Perfect said his group "vehemently disagreed" with the proposals, describing them as "not consistent with the aims and objectives as laid out by the government".Independent Group councillor Michael Pearce also expressed dissatisfaction online, suggesting the proposal "looks and smells a lot like gerrymandering". Currently under the two-tier system, the county has 12 district and borough councils, which split responsibility for public services with the overarching map which Medway Council is suggesting would see the creation of a North authority, including Medway, Sittingbourne, the Isle of Sheppey, Gravesend, Northfleet and West council would stretch from Royal Tunbridge Wells up to Longfield and Istead Rise, encompassing Tonbridge, Sevenoaks and Snodland, and reaching to the boundary of Mid authority is the largest in terms of geographical area, and includes Maidstone, Bearsted, Staplehurst, Cranbrook, Hawkhurst and also includes Faversham and Ashford and stretches down to Dungeness and across to East council covers Canterbury, Whitstable, Herne Bay, Margate, Broadstairs, Ramsgate, Deal, Dover and for how the boundaries of the new authorities are due at the end of November, and Maple encouraged residents to make their views known.
Times
2 days ago
- Times
Labour must abandon its project to define Islamophobia
In February, under the stewardship of the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, the government established a parliamentary working group to come up with an official definition of 'Islamophobia'. Since then, there have been multiple warning signs that this ill-conceived project was on the wrong track. Meeting in private, the group solicited evidence from only a small number of interested parties. Concerns that any definition of Islamophobia would prejudice free speech and academic freedom were naively downplayed, as too were plausible objections from opposition parties that the definition would introduce anti-liberal blasphemy prohibitions by a legislative backdoor. Most worryingly, the group's chairman, the former attorney-general Dominic Grieve, praised a bizarre report authored by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims: it claimed that the public discussion of the 'grooming gangs' had been an example of recent 'anti-Muslim racism'.The government has now been forced to delay its working group's deadline till the autumn, after its online consultation form was leaked on social media. Unsurprisingly, that leak led to the group being inundated with responses from the public. That expression of public concern should be taken by Labour as a signal that their ill-thought-through plans ought to be abandoned altogether. There are problems both in practice and principle with trying to circumscribe allegedly Islamophobic speech and action. Any definition broad enough to satisfy its proponents will inevitably be couched in language so generic and vague as to have a chilling effect on speech that is merely critical of religion or culture. Even non-statutory guidance tends to have this anti-liberal effect, because its force and remit is often subject to confusion. Though Labour's working group was set up in response to evidence of instances of anti-Muslim criminality, to point to this concerning increase is simply a distraction. Britain, by comparison with other liberal democracies, already has a surfeit of laws covering hate speech. Such existing laws should be properly enforced, rather than free and open speech subject to sinister restrictions. When it comes to codifying Islamophobia there is a specific danger that legitimate criticism of religion will be conflated with bigotry. These days, it is the outspoken proponents of free speech who need protection, rather than their alleged victims. Recently, Professor Steven Greer, an academic at the University of Bristol, was subject to a vindictive social media campaign, forced to disguise himself in public and eventually to retire, after vexatious complaints from students that his university module on human rights law contained Islamophobic material. Instead of publicly supporting him, Professor Greer says that his employers put his life in danger for fear of being perceived to be anti-Muslim. The recent audit by Baroness Casey of Blackstock into the grooming gangs scandal has revealed how a slew of officials culpably turned a blind eye to appalling child abuse and rape allegations for fear of appearing prejudiced. Such evidence of officials' cowardice rightly draws public outcry. To think that now is the time to impose on the public speech-policing guidance that seeks to prioritise 'appropriate and sensitive language' to the detriment of free speech is a folly. Britain must remain a country in which even offensive speech is legally protected. The government should abandon the attempt to control it.
