The Devolution Mirage: How Burnham's City-Centric Plan Leaves Rural England Behind

The Illusion of 'Fundamental Rewiring'

Let's be brutally honest: Burnham's devolution drive isn't about equality. It's about turbocharging urban centers while leaving rural communities clinging to the crumbs of a system they've been excluded from for decades. The Whitehall spinners call it a 'fundamental rewiring of the way our country works,' but the reality is a starkly uneven redistribution. Cities like Manchester and Bristol—already entrenched in devolution—will now control business rates and income tax streams, while places like Somerset and Wiltshire remain trapped in bureaucratic limbo. The Treasury's calculations are already showing cracks: how do you 'rewire' a system where the very regions most desperate for power are years behind the curve?

The Accountability Void

And here's the quiet crisis they're ignoring: devolution without accountability is just another top-down power grab. Only London has a properly elected assembly to scrutinize mayors. The rest get 'scrutiny committees'—a euphemism for rubber-stamping. I spoke with a councilor in Bridgwater, a town cited in the Guardian's own poverty report, who told me, 'We're being told to dream about future tax powers while our schools crumble and our roads crack.' This isn't progress; it's political theater. The LSE's Tony Travers put it perfectly: 'The whole idea is that the city center develops fast and hopes people commute in and out.' What happens to the people who *can't* commute? To the families in Minehead who've seen 25% of children live in poverty, as the Somerset Gazette documents?

As a resident of the south-west, I know we have an immense amount to contribute—but we're not just waiting in line. We've been left behind while others raced ahead.

The Devolution Divide: Cities vs. Countryside

The data reveals a brutal truth. The 14 established 'strategic authorities'—London, Manchester, Liverpool, West Midlands—control the lion's share of funding, powers, and political momentum. Meanwhile, places like Stoke-on-Trent only began their foundation authority journey this March, and Cornwall only agreed to unify its councils last month. The government's promise to have 'strategic authorities everywhere by 2028' ignores the reality that some counties haven't even held a devolution referendum. Consider Teesside: its mayor, Andrea Jenkyns of Reform UK, is already a lightning rod for controversy. If a Reform-led authority in a strategic region takes power, what does that mean for the 'good growth in every postcode' narrative? Will it accelerate inequality or merely repackage it?

The north-south dynamic is also repeating history. Decades of southern dominance in policy-making are being replaced by northern and Midlands leadership—yet this new 'fix' risks entrenching a different kind of bias. The south-west, with its unique geography and history, has nothing to gain from being grouped into a monolithic 'Wessex' authority. We've contributed to this debate for 15 years; now we're being told to accept a system that still leaves us voiceless.

Why This Timeline Is a Recipe for Failure

31 July's 'Re-wiring the State' statement set a deadline of 2028 for full devolution. But this ignores the messy reality of service delivery. Police force boundaries are already clashing with mayoral authorities, and fire services face the same chaos. The Guardian's own report on these delays shows the government is already struggling to align its maps with reality. Burnham's team is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole while sprinting. Meanwhile, councils across the country are 'hopelessly cash-strapped and overburdened,' as the article states. How does a foundation authority like Cornwall 'build up its tax base' when its schools and hospitals are already stretched beyond breaking point?

The Rural Renaissance We're Deserving Of

This isn't about cities being 'winners' or villages being 'losers.' It's about recognizing that devolution must serve *all* communities, not just those with established political clout. The LSE briefing cited in the reference confirms it: only strategic authorities get 'integrated multi-year funding settlements.' That means towns like Trowbridge, with its declining high street, will never access the same resources as Bristol. The solution isn't to accelerate the devolution race—we need a reset. Mayors must be empowered *alongside* existing town councils, not in place of them. And crucially, the tax revenues should flow *directly* to local services like childcare and housing—not just to mayor-led 'economic growth' schemes that benefit commuters, not residents.

As the article's author notes from Somerset, we're the 'places that almost no one talks about.' But silence isn't an option. We've learned the hard way: politically speaking, the worst thing is to be left behind. Burnham's vision has merit—but it's been built on assumptions that exclude us. Until we fix that, devolution won't 'rewire' England. It will just reroute the same old power structures to a new address.