The government’s ambitious drive to “rewire” power across England is gathering pace, but the benefits are already concentrated in a handful of city‑region mayors. By April 2027 those mayors will be able to retain a yet‑to‑be‑specified share of business rates, and from the following year they will also keep a portion of local income‑tax receipts. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, passed earlier in 2026, underpins a shift that promises greater local control, yet many counties remain stuck on the sidelines, facing delayed elections and limited funding. As the West of England mayor’s authority expands, towns such as Melksham, Bridgwater and Minehead still lack any strategic leadership, raising urgent questions about fairness and accountability in the new system.
The New Devolution Framework
Andy Burnham’s administration has framed its agenda as a “fundamental rewiring” of governance, aiming to make central government “smaller and more strategic”. The flagship policy, unveiled in the 31 July statement *Re‑wiring the State*, sets a tight timetable: every area should have a strategic authority by the end of 2027, with full coverage by 2028. This timeline reflects the PM’s belief that swift action is needed to address long‑standing regional disparities, yet it also creates pressure on cash‑strapped councils and public services to adapt quickly. The legislation itself, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, replaces two‑tier local government with unitary councils in many districts, signalling a clean break from the past. Burnham’s insistence that “good growth in every postcode” is the goal contrasts starkly with the reality that the most powerful levers are being handed to a limited number of mayoral offices.
A Two‑Tier System Takes Shape
The House of Commons library briefing outlines a clear hierarchy. At the top sit the “established mayoral strategic authorities” that enjoy the broadest powers and multi‑year funding settlements. These include Greater London, Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region, the West Midlands, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and the West of England. A second tier comprises newer mayoral authorities such as Tees Valley, Greater Lincolnshire—led by Reform UK’s Andrea Jenkyns—and Hull and East Yorkshire. These must wait at least 18 months after formation before graduating to the top rank and receive more restricted, ring‑fenced funds.
Below them are the foundation authorities, notably Lancashire, Devon and Torbay, which have not yet introduced an elected mayor and continue to be run by existing local politicians. The government is still courting additional regions, notably Kent and Medway, and the proposed “Wessex” super‑authority covering Wiltshire, Dorset, Bournemouth and Somerset. The staggered approach means that some communities are years behind others in accessing devolved powers, a gap that has already sparked concern among local leaders and analysts.
Mayoral Powers and Funding Shifts
From April 2027, regional and metro mayors will be able to keep an as‑yet‑unspecified portion of business rates generated within their boundaries. The following year, they will also retain a share of local income‑tax receipts, replacing existing Whitehall grants rather than adding to them. This fiscal autonomy is intended to empower mayors to invest in housing, transport and other critical services, with the prospect of borrowing against projected revenues. Burnham’s team argues that such control is essential for driving growth and improving public services, echoing the view expressed by LSE’s Tony Travers: “The only way to make the economies of city regions work is by letting the central part of the city develop fast, and hope that people will commute in and out to take advantage of it.”
The new powers have already sparked speculation that mayors could eventually oversee schools, GP services and childcare. However, the lack of detailed figures on tax retention leaves many questions unanswered, not least about how the Treasury will balance the books. Critics point out that the shift could exacerbate existing north‑south divides, as most of the top‑tier authorities are located in the north of England and the Midlands, potentially trading one form of imbalance for another.
Accountability and Equity Concerns
Even where elected mayors exist, robust scrutiny remains uneven. London retains an elected assembly that can hold its mayor to account, but the rest of the country will rely on “scrutiny committees” whose effectiveness is widely disputed. This structural weakness raises the spectre of unaccountable power, especially given that some mayoral elections may be won by candidates from the Reform Party, adding another layer of complexity.
The equity dimension is equally stark. Towns such as Calne, Trowbridge and Minehead, which sit outside the West of England mayoral authority, have seen long periods of decline and have been denied a collective voice. The government’s own timetable acknowledges the urgency, yet the reality on the ground is one of delay and piecemeal progress. Police force reorganisation, fire‑service restructuring and integrated care board redesigns are all being held up because proposed boundaries do not yet align with mayoral jurisdictions, underscoring the logistical challenges of a rushed rollout.
Why it Matters
Burnham’s devolution push promises to reshape England’s economic landscape, but the current trajectory risks entrenching regional inequality rather than alleviating it. By concentrating fiscal authority in a handful of city‑region mayors while leaving many historic counties in a subordinate tier, the programme threatens to replicate the very imbalances it seeks to resolve. Moreover, the lack of comprehensive scrutiny mechanisms could allow significant public resources to be directed without sufficient oversight. The stakes are high: if the government fails to ensure that every community, from the south‑west to the north‑west, receives a fair share of power and funding, the promised “rewiring” will be seen as a selective upgrade for a few, leaving the majority of England stranded on the old wiring. This outcome would undermine public confidence in the devolution experiment and could fuel further political discontent across the nation.
