Here's the unpopular take: restraint, not speed, may be the smarter strategy as Labour navigates the thorny question of devolving power to regional mayors.
Andy Burnham's push for regional mayors to claim a share of income tax revenues has generated the kind of momentum that makes Westminster nervous. The Greater Manchester mayor is articulate, popular in his region, and increasingly difficult to ignore. The instinct in Labour circles is to move quickly, to show decisiveness, to prove the party understands that power has been too centralized for too long.
But watching politicians rush toward radical restructuring of how Britain funds its regions is watching a government court unnecessary risk.
The devolution agenda deserves serious pursuit. Anyone paying attention to regional inequality knows that London and the southeast have hoarded resources and influence while other parts of the country languish. The frustration is legitimate. The hunger for local control is real. Yet the questions that should slow this down are equally legitimate.
First, there is no consensus on what works. We have mayors in some regions, combined authorities in others, and various other models scattered across the country. Some are thriving. Others struggle. Before dramatically restructuring how income tax gets distributed, shouldn't we spend time understanding which models actually deliver results? Which governance structures attract investment? Which ones improve public services? Which ones reduce corruption or incompetence? These aren't rhetorical questions. The answers matter enormously, and they're not yet written clearly enough.
Second, speed invites mistakes. Devolution sounds simple until you start asking the hard questions. If regions control income tax revenue, what happens in economic downturns? Do some regions suddenly face catastrophic funding shortfalls while others remain stable? How does that affect the principle of funding public services based on need rather than wealth? What happens to national coordination on infrastructure, education standards, or health provision? These details are not pedantic obstacles to progress. They're the difference between thoughtful reform and chaos dressed up as ambition.
Third, there is a political reality that matters. Labour won an election with a specific mandate around specific issues: the NHS, growth, living standards. The party has spent political capital on some moves already. Spending months or years fighting with the Treasury, regional leaders, and backbenchers over tax devolution is spending that capital on something that was not in the manifesto. Is that the priority right now?
This is not an argument for the status quo. It is an argument for moving deliberately rather than dramatically.
The sensible path forward involves pilot programs, serious evaluation, and genuine testing of assumptions. It means taking Burnham and other regional leaders seriously without treating their proposals as urgent mandates. It means creating space for internal Labour discussion about what kind of Britain the party actually wants to build, rather than defaulting to "more local control" as the answer to every question about governance.
It also means resisting the pressure that comes from any charismatic politician with a clear message. Burnham is effective at his job. That doesn't mean his specific tax proposal is the only way to increase regional power or the best way to reduce inequality.
Good governance is unglamorous work. It requires resisting the temptation to move fast and prove critics wrong. It requires patience, evidence gathering, and humble acknowledgment that restructuring how a country funds itself carries genuine risks.
Labour won by promising stability and competence. Moving rashly on regional devolution contradicts both promises. The unpopular truth is that sometimes the most ambitious thing a government can do is wait long enough to do something well.