End of term report: How is James Palmer doing as mayor of Cambridgeshire & Peterborough?

Cambridge. Image: Getty.

Continuing the Centre for Cities’ round up of the first half-year of metro mayors, we look at James Palmer, Conservative mayor of Cambridgeshire & Peterborough.

The collapse of the vast East Anglia devolution deal in November 2016 looked to have killed off devolution in the East of England. But a late push locally saw Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (C&P) announce a deal to set up a Combined Authority in March this year, ahead of the mayoral elections in May.

The rapid nature of this process meant that there was less time to prepare the ground politically and institutionally for the new metro mayor than in other city regions. As a result, the successful candidate James Palmer (previously Conservative leader of East Cambridgeshire District Council) is working with an entirely new political geography – which throws up a range of issues which some of his mayoral counterparts don’t face.

Six months into the job, we look at the challenges this poses for the new C&P mayor, and the progress he has made so far on achieving the objectives he set out upon taking office.

Progress and opportunities

To gauge Palmer’s headway so far, a good place to start is his ‘first 100 days’ strategy, which set out 32 priorities focused on transport, skills and housing. These included plans to explore options for a county-wide light rail scheme to link smaller towns into the jobs of Peterborough and Cambridge (which will report back in December), and for an underground transport system in Cambridge. They also included a pledge to launch new affordable housing schemes across the city regions.

These priorities reflect the need to deal with the costs of growth in the city region, such as high house prices (Cambridge is the third least affordable city in the UK), congestion, and economic disparities. And while many of Palmer’s ambitions are long-term projects which will take years, not months, to be completed, the new mayor has already made progress towards realising them. For example, he has launched feasibility studies into his transport ideas, and has announced 11 new housing schemes which will bring over 250 new affordable homes.

There is clearly much more to do to address housing and transport issues in the city region, but these steps indicate that Palmer recognises these problems and intends to tackle them. There is also a real opportunity for the mayor to use his strategic planning powers – which include oversight over a housing and infrastructure fund worth £100m, and the ability to implement a non-statutory spatial plan – to unlock more housing sites and transport.

Moreover, as a Conservative mayor for a city region which the National Infrastructure Commission has highlighted as strategically important, Palmer might expect to draw on government support as his feasibility plans become concrete proposals and plans. This theory will be put to the test if (and when) the government responds to his calls for greater Land Value Capture powers, and when the Department for Communities and Local Government makes a decision on C&P’s bid for £200m investment to build 7,600 homes in North Cambridge.


Toughest challenge

Geography is the main reason C&P stands out from the other areas electing a metro mayor in May. Largely rural, with two distinct and separate economies – Peterborough in the north and Cambridge in the south – the geography of the city region places unique demands on Mayor Palmer. Spending and policy geared to Peterborough will have little impact on (and may be potentially unsuited to) Cambridge, while those living in small towns or villages in rural areas may feel completely ignored. Making policy at the C&P level that works for everyone in the city region will therefore be a bigger challenge than in other places.

However, the strong economic performance of places across the area should make this a more manageable task than in more geographically coherent mayoral combined authorities which are less economically buoyant. Moreover, Palmer’s ambitions to improve transport connections between the north and south of C&P – and to better link people across the city region to jobs in Greater Cambridge – show that he is attempting to deal with the challenges that the city region’s unwieldy geography poses.

Biggest moment

The one institution that existed at the C&P geography before the combined authority was the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), which in October had its funding frozen due to a National Audit Office investigation into its finances. Mayor Palmer responded to this development by writing an open letter to say that the LEP was causing reputational damage to the area and failing to represent or support local businesses. He also called for a new governance structure that would bring the LEP in house, to restore confidence and address some structural issues in the LEP.

This represented the most high profile moment in Palmer’s mayoralty thus far. More importantly, his call for the LEP to be integrated into the combined authority makes sense, as it would allow the mayor and LEP to work more strategically and coherently, while maintaining a strong voice for local businesses. Indeed, in other city regions such as Tees Valley and the West of England, the Combined Authorities have grown out of the LEPs, which are therefore highly integrated with the mayoralty. The resolution of issues with the LEP in C&P will have a significant impact on ensuring there is a shared, efficient and effective vision for the C&P economy in the coming years.

Simon Jeffrey is a researcher and external affairs officer at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

What’s killing northerners?

The Angel of the North. Image: Getty.

There is a stark disparity in wealth and health between people in the north and south of England, commonly referred to as England’s “north-south divide”. The causes of this inequality are complex; it’s influenced by the environment, jobs, migration and lifestyle factors – as well as the long-term political power imbalances, which have concentrated resources and investment in the south, especially in and around London.

Life expectancy is also lower in the north, mainly because the region is more deprived. But new analysis of national mortality data highlights a shockingly large mortality gap between young adults, aged 25 to 44, living in the north and south of England. This gap first emerged in the late 1990s, and seems to have been growing ever since.

In 1995, there were 2% more deaths among northerners aged 25 to 34 than southerners (in other words, 2% “excess mortality”). But by 2015, northerners in this age group were 29% more likely to die than their southern counterparts. Likewise, in the 35 to 44 age group, there was 3% difference in mortality between northerners and southerners in 1995. But by 2015, there were 49% more deaths among northerners than southerners in this age group.

Excess mortality in the north compared with south of England by age groups, from 1965 to 2015. Follow the lines to see that people born around 1980 are the ones most affected around 2015.

While mortality increased among northerners aged 25 to 34, and plateaued among 35 to 44-year-olds, southern mortality mainly declined across both age groups. Overall, between 2014 and 2016, northerners aged 25 to 44 were 41% more likely to die than southerners in the same age group. In real terms, this means that between 2014 and 2016, 1,881 more women and 3,530 more men aged between 25 and 44 years died in the north, than in the south.

What’s killing northerners?

To understand what’s driving this mortality gap among young adults, our team of researchers looked at the causes of death from 2014 to 2016, and sorted them into eight groups: accidents, alcohol related, cardiovascular related (heart conditions, diabetes, obesity and so on), suicide, drug related, breast cancer, other cancers and other causes.

Controlling for the age and sex of the population in the north and the south, we found that it was mostly the deaths of northern men contributing to the difference in mortality – and these deaths were caused mainly by cardiovascular conditions, alcohol and drug misuse. Accidents (for men) and cancer (for women) also played important roles.

From 2014 to 2016, northerners were 47% more likely to die for cardiovascular reasons, 109% for alcohol misuse and 60% for drug misuse, across both men and women aged 25 to 44 years old. Although the national rate of death from cardiovascular reasons has dropped since 1981, the longstanding gap between north and south remains.

Death and deprivation

The gap in life expectancy between north and south is usually put down to socioeconomic deprivation. We considered further data for 2016, to find out if this held true for deaths among young people. We found that, while two thirds of the gap were explained by the fact that people lived in deprived areas, the remaining one third could be caused by some unmeasured form of deprivation, or by differences in culture, infrastructure, migration or extreme weather.

Mortality for people aged 25 to 44 years in 2016, at small area geographical level for the whole of England.

Northern men faced a higher risk of dying young than northern women – partly because overall mortality rates are higher for men than for women, pretty much at every age, but also because men tend to be more susceptible to socioeconomic pressures. Although anachronistic, the expectation to have a job and be able to sustain a family weighs more on men. Accidents, alcohol misuse, drug misuse and suicide are all strongly associated with low socioeconomic status.

Suicide risk is twice as high among the most deprived men, compared to the most affluent. Suicide risk has also been associated with unemployment, and substantial increases in suicide have been observed during periods of recession – especially among men. Further evidence tells us that unskilled men between ages 25 and 39 are between ten and 20 times more likely to die from alcohol-related causes, compared to professionals.

Alcohol underpins the steep increase in liver cirrhosis deaths in Britain from the 1990s – which is when the north-south divide in mortality between people aged 25 to 44 also started to emerge. Previous research has shown that men in this age group, who live in the most deprived areas, are five times more likely to die from alcohol-related diseases than those in the most affluent areas. For women in deprived areas, the risk is four times greater.


It’s also widely known that mortality rates for cancer are higher in more deprived areas, and people have worse survival rates in places where smoking and alcohol abuse is more prevalent. Heroin and crack cocaine addiction and deaths from drug overdoses are also strongly associated with deprivation.

The greater number of deaths from accidents in the north should be considered in the context of transport infrastructure investment, which is heavily skewed towards the south – especially London, which enjoys the lowest mortality in the country. What’s more, if reliable and affordable public transport is not available, people will drive more and expose themselves to higher risk of an accident.

Deaths for young adults in the north of England have been increasing compared to those in the south since the late 1990s, creating new health divides between England’s regions. It seems that persistent social, economic and health inequalities are responsible for a growing trend of psychological distress, despair and risk taking among young northerners. Without major changes, the extreme concentration of power, wealth and opportunity in the south will continue to damage people’s health, and worsen the north-south divide.

The Conversation

Evangelos Kontopantelis, Professor in Data Science and Health Services Research, University of Manchester

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.