Devolution is meant to be about boring practical things. So why do we obsess about identity?

The Yorkshire Dales. Image: Getty.

Please don't judge me for this, but I'm from Romford. Romford, if you have any sense of it at all, you probably perceive as a land of Tango orange tans and Ben Sherman shirts, and girlfriends yelling, "Leave it Gary, he's not worth it". Romford, in other words, is the most Essex place in the universe.

It's also, as it happens, not in Essex. Hasn't been since 1965 when, along with a huge swathe of other commuter suburbs, it was transferred into a new and bigger Greater London.

In any realm in which government matters – from planning to transport to policing to skills – it makes sense to manage Romford as a part of the city. Trying to manage, say, housing policies for a swathe of the metropolis from Chelmsford, just because they were part of the same marshy county when King Athelstan popped his clogs, seems absolutely (this is a pun) barking.

And yet, ask most people in Romford where it is, I suspect most of them would still say Essex. Some of them, especially those who elected the area’s selection of UKIP councillors, reject the idea it's part of London at all.

I mention all this, not just because it’s something I've been prone to banging on about for twenty years or more (I never really fitted in back in Romford), but because the same tension is screwing up our entire national debate about devolution. All too often, we make it about Who We Are, instead of How Things Work.

Devolution, at least in the limited form on offer at the moment, should really be a matter of administrative convenience and infrastructure planning. That, though, is quite boring – so everyone would rather talk about identity, instead.

And that’s a problem – because the places people feel an emotional allegiance to, and those that would make good sensible units for economic planning, only rarely match up.

By way of example, consider Leeds. The largest city in Yorkshire is also the largest in England without any form of devolution deal agreed with the Treasury.

This, you’d think, might be a bit of a disappointment. Manchester and Liverpool and Birmingham and so on are all going to be making at least some of the decisions that affect their residents; but decisions affecting Leeds will still be made by people in London, a fair chunk of whom have never set foot in the place. If I lived in Leeds, I think I’d be annoyed about that.

But no. There are many in the city and its hinterland that are absolutely appalled by the idea they could ever be part of the “Leeds City Region”.

After many conversations like this, which I have thought about for far too long, and far too much, I’ve concluded that I have two problems with this argument.

One is that I’m not convinced traditional counties make the most sensible units of local government. Leeds’ hinterland may be mostly in Yorkshire – but Sheffield’s extends into Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, and Hull’s across the Humber to Lincolnshire.

A Yorkshire-wide devolution deal would inevitably exclude areas whose prosperity depended on the county’s cities. As a unit of functional economic geography, Yorkshire is useless.

But that’s not the end of the world, and it’s probably still better to make decisions affecting bits of the Sheffield commuter belt in York than to do so in London. Yorkshire’s population is bigger than Scotland’s. A Yorkshire parliament could be made to work.

So here’s the bigger problem: it isn’t going to happen.

The form of devolution on the table is one based on cities and the regions around them. Anyone in Yorkshire who thinks that, by holding out, they will pressure George Osborne into coming back with a deal more to their liking is deluding themselves.

But to many people, that doesn’t matter. Because the wrong deal is worse than no deal at all.

Or, to translate that: it is better to make decisions affecting Bradford or Huddersfield in London than it is to make them in Leeds.

Because people don’t want devolution to be about boring matters like economics or infrastructure. They want it to be about identity. And those places are not part of Leeds.

I sometimes wonder whether the Blair government screwed us over on this one: by treating devolution as a way of placating the angry gods of Celtic nationalism, they made it a symbol of identity, rather than a tool for better government.

Then I remember that arguments about boundaries and identity have been screwing up the world for about as long as anyone can remember. This probably isn’t something that’s going to change any time soon.

Greater London works pretty well, incidentally. It covers the vast majority of one traditional county, hefty chunks of three more, and a slither of a fifth – yet it chugs along pretty nicely, even though no one thinks of Romford as a part of London. Just saying. 

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric and tweets as @jonnelledge.


CityMetric is now City Monitor! Come see us at our new home

City Monitor is now live in beta at

CityMetric is now City Monitor, a name that reflects both a ramping up of our ambitions as well as our membership in a network of like-minded publications from New Statesman Media Group. Our new site is now live in beta, so please visit us there going forward. Here’s what CityMetric readers should know about this exciting transition.  

Regular CityMetric readers may have already noticed a few changes around here since the spring. CityMetric’s beloved founding editor, Jonn Elledge, has moved on to some new adventures, and a new team has formed to take the site into the future. It’s led by yours truly – I’m Sommer Mathis, the editor-in-chief of City Monitor. Hello!

My background includes having served as the founding editor of CityLab, editor-in-chief of Atlas Obscura, and editor-in-chief of DCist, a local news publication in the District of Columbia. I’ve been reporting on and writing about cities in one way or another for the past 15 years. To me, there is no more important story in the world right now than how cities are changing and adapting to an increasingly challenging global landscape. The majority of the world’s population lives in cities, and if we’re ever going to be able to tackle the most pressing issues currently facing our planet – the climate emergency, rising inequality, the Covid-19 pandemic ­­­– cities are going to have to lead the way.

That’s why City Monitor is now a global publication dedicated to the future of cities everywhere – not just in the UK (nor for that matter just in the US, where I live). Our mission is to help our readers, many of whom are in leadership positions around the globe, navigate how cities are changing and discover what’s next in the world of urban policy. We’ll do that through original reporting, expert opinion and most crucially, a data-driven approach that emphasises evidence and rigorous analysis. We want to arm local decision-makers and those they work in concert with – whether that’s elected officials, bureaucratic leaders, policy advocates, neighbourhood activists, academics and researchers, entrepreneurs, or plain-old engaged citizens – with real insights and potential answers to tough problems. Subjects we cover include transportation, infrastructure, housing, urban design, public safety, the environment, the economy, and much more.

The City Monitor team is made up of some of the most experienced urban policy journalists in the world. Our managing editor is Adam Sneed, also a CityLab alum where he served as a senior associate editor. Before that he was a technology reporter at Politico. Allison Arieff is City Monitor’s senior editor. She was previously editorial director of the urban planning and policy think tank SPUR, as well as a contributing columnist for The New York Times. Staff writer Jake Blumgart most recently covered development, housing and politics for WHYY, the local public radio station in Philadelphia. And our data reporter is Alexandra Kanik, whose previous roles include data reporting for Louisville Public Media in Kentucky and PublicSource in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Our team will continue to grow in the coming weeks, and we’ll also be collaborating closely with our editorial colleagues across New Statesman Media Group. In fact, we’re launching a whole network of new publications, covering topics such as the clean energy transition, foreign direct investment, technology, banks and more. Many of these sectors will frequently overlap with our cities coverage, and a key part of our plan is make the most of the expertise that all of these newsrooms combined will bring to bear on our journalism.

Please visit going forward, where you can also sign up for our free email newsletter.

As for CityMetric, some of its archives have already been moved over to the new website, and the rest will follow not long after. If you’re looking for a favourite piece from CityMetric’s past, for a time you’ll still be able to find it here, but before long the whole archive will move over to City Monitor.

On behalf of the City Monitor team, I’m thrilled to invite you to come along for the ride at our new digs. You can follow City Monitor on LinkedIn and on Twitter. If you’re interested in learning more about the potential for a commercial partnership with City Monitor, please get in touch with our director of partnerships, Joe Maughan.

I want to thank and congratulate Jonn Elledge on a brilliant run. Everything we do from here on out will be building on the legacy of his work, and the community that he built here at CityMetric. Cheers, Jonn!

To our readers, on behalf of the City Monitor team, thank you from all of us for being such loyal CityMetric fans. We couldn’t have done any of this without you.

Sommer Mathis is editor-in-chief of City Monitor.