Eighteen months ago, 36 regions eagerly submitted ambitious proposals in the hope of getting their hands on a raft of localised powers and modest funding packages. The Treasury-backed ‘devolution revolution' appeared to be a sign that the Government was finally prepared to reverse decades of centralisation.
How things have changed. Since September 2015, proposals have almost crumbled by the week. Now just six areas are set to elect mayors in May.
The Government is now undertaking a ‘devolution stocktake,' but Theresa May and chancellor Philip Hammond clearly do not share the same appetite as their predecessors for the agenda. And now, of course, Whitehall has its hands full as it tries to navigate the complicated process of leaving the EU.
The former Government's attempts to initiate a ‘truly bottom up' approach led to a chaotic, technocratic process destined for failure. At the same time deals across the country came undone as a result of local bickering and petty politics.
Last week Lancashire's devolution proposals took a hit as the Tory-led Fylde BC became the second authority in the region to withdraw its support for a combined authority. The county will now have to wait until summer for any progress, having originally expected confirmation next month.
Chair of the shadow combined authority Cllr Simon Blackburn said: ‘It is disappointing we've been left waiting by the Government. I wrote to the secretary of state last month seeking reassurance of their support to progress a Lancashire combined authority and I am yet to receive a response.
‘It's inevitable if the Government is delaying things some people will start to question whether or not it's going to happen.'
The Three Southern Counties (3SC) deal, comprised of Surrey, East Sussex and West Sussex CCs, last week agreed to implement a ‘strategic pause' on its devolution proposals. Surrey CC council documents show the partnership is ‘repositioning the 3SC ambitions once government thinking is clearer'.
Elsewhere in Yorkshire, the Sheffield City Region deal has been put on hold and other politicians in Yorkshire are busy trying to read the Government's mind and put together a deal ministers will back.
Despite all this, the jury remains out as to whether the devolution agenda has merely hit a bump in the road or driven into a chasm.
Former local government minister Bob Neill insisted Brexit and devolution need not be mutually exclusive, rather, they should work ‘hand in glove' over the next few years.
Last month's IPPR North report blamed central government's ‘bloody-mindedness' for its losing sight of the agenda, but insisted ministers could set the ship back on course if it changed tack.
Others are far less optimistic, however.
Local Government Association chairman Lord Gary Porter last month declared devolution ‘dead'. The Conservative peer suggested local government was to blame because many in the sector ‘threw it back in the Government's face. I cannot see them starting to negotiate any more this side of the election,' he added.
Last week, local government expert at the London School of Economics, Professor Tony Travers, lashed out at the Government's lack of localism. ‘It is so centralised in England, even devolution is a centralised process. We are a long way from mayors or anybody other than Theresa May running the world.'
Rob Whiteman, chief executive of the Chartered Institute for Finance and Accountancy, believes the sector should look towards Greater Manchester. ‘I have a huge amount of respect for what Greater Manchester is trying to do,' he said. ‘Organisations there have overcome rivalries and sovereignties for the benefit of residents.'
He insisted the ‘prize of devolution is enormous' but, like Prof Travers, claimed the country doesn't have devolution but ‘delegation'.
Mr Whiteman urged local government to argue for reorganisation – but blasted councils for basing proposals on what benefits their own organisation, rather than residents.
Speaking to The MJ, think-tank NLGN's new chief executive, Adam Lent, said it was ‘obvious the wind has gone out of the sails of devolution'.
Mr Lent claimed it was ‘very unusual for the Treasury to have been innovative,' under George Osborne, describing it as a department that was ‘normally a block on innovation'. He continued: ‘Having the most powerful department driving devolution was huge, but it's clear Mr Hammond is not as keen.'
He said devolution would have a ‘massive impact on the ability of local government to drive forward the sorts of change we need to see' and said it would help address the major social challenges, such as productivity and health. ‘But I simply cannot see the Government getting back behind the agenda,' he added.
However, Mr Lent was not entirely negative. ‘Do I think without big devolution deals local government is completely out at sea? No. Councils are still able to generate change, but could do a lot more with devolution.'
Mr Lent decried the Government's obsession with structural changes that needed to be made in order for regions to qualify for more powers, saying: ‘If you really believe in devolution, do it. If you believe local is best, hand it powers. But don't set massive conditions.
‘There have been no marches for devolution. No million-signature petitions. Re-engaging people in decision-making is vital. Instead devolution became a hugely technocratic process.'
