The West Midlands Combined Authority declined to approve mayor Andy Street’s budget. What happened?

Tory mayor of the West Midlands Andy Street last year. Image: Getty.

A Birmingham Labour councillor on the budgetary rows in the Midlands.

At its last meeting on 12 January, the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) board voted that it was “not minded to approve the mayor’s budget, including a Council Tax Precept of £10.80”.

This was a first for the board, which is made up of regional council leaders – a vote that had split down party lines. And while the revised Budget proposals demonstrate that a compromise has been reached in the intervening weeks, that the vote was lost has not been without consequences for the WMCA, the relationships that underpin it or the region’s investment plan.

In our response to the Budget, the WMCA Overview & Scrutiny Committee said:

The current situation where the CA Board refused to agree the proposed mayoral budget does not resonate with the level of partnership and collaboration required for the Combined Authority to achieve its strategic objectives.

It’s easy to scoff at this – “It’s politics!” – but trust matters, even in political organisation. Collective investment from partners across the region – in cash or in kind – unlocks value, and locks in commitment. When trust dies, partners are less likely to collectively invest in that way.

That doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be political battles on how resources are raised and used, particularly while Council Tax endures as a way of funding places. But the basic principle is that we work together to create a bigger pie to divide up. My fear is that the events of the last few weeks run the risk of the pie shrinking. 


Let’s look at how the budget proposals have changed in the last month. The easiest starting point is the Mayoral Precept, a slight addition to council tax intended to fund the mayor’s office. That was projected to raise £7.5m. Now, there will not be one in 2018-19.

Part of the slack has been picked up by the Transport for West Midlands Levy – which the seven constituent authorities of the WMCA invest into collectively. Having underspent in 2017-18, all seven were due to share a rebate of £265,000, but they will now invest this straight back into the mayor’s office. The rest of the mayor’s office will be funded by drawing on the part of the £2m Mayoral Capacity Fund that had been destined to bolster the operations of the wider WMCA, and by removing a further £47,000 from the operational budget. 

This will see the mayor’s office funded to £832,000 – 7 per cent lower than last month’s proposal of £888,000, firmly in compromise territory. This arrangement cannot be repeated – the Mayoral Capacity Fund is otherwise destined to help the West Midlands deliver its industrial strategy, and there is no guarantee of a levy underspend/increase to create the headroom. 

The precept was also due to fund ‘Network Resilience’, to £572,000: this will now be covered by an increase in the transport levy of the same amount. Birmingham, the most populous of the Constituent Authorities, will pay £225.000 of that increase. 

With the mayor’s office and resilience covered, that leaves the most substantial segment left to cover: £6m that was destined for the investment programme, which is now deferred until next year. 

To summarise, instead of raising new local money from citizens via the Mayoral Precept, the money has either been replaced – broadly speaking – with the money that citizens have already invested via Council Tax, Business Rates and general taxation; or the spending has been deferred until 2018-19. In a year when many councillors in the Constituent Authorities are facing local elections, you can understand the tactical rationale for voting down the precept – but it hits the bottom line of already stretched council budgets. 

We can also conclude from the above that the WMCA’s ability to deliver its Strategic Economic Plan will be hampered by a lack of capacity within itself and a short-term reduction in its investment income – although the board has been assured that this doesn’t put the wider capital programme at risk in the round.

However, there is a risk that the Treasury – which factored in a “local contribution” (that is: the precept) when striking the first devolution deal, may claw back some of the ‘gain share’ revenue after the first gateway review – a funding stream currently coded as ‘amber’ in the Investment Programme, with the associated capital projects:

So whatever their reasons for voting down the precept, it is vital that the leaders of the constituent authorities and the mayor work together to secure the funding. With a potential ‘no deal’ Brexit looming, the challenges for the West Midlands are for us all to face.

Claire Spencer is Labour councillor for Moseley & Kings Heath on Birmingham City Council.

 
 
 
 

Here are eight thoughts on TfL’s proposed cuts to London’s bus network

A number 12 bus crosses Westminster Bridge. Image: Getty.

In 2016, the urbanism blog City Observatory had a modest proposal for how American cities could sort out their transport systems: “Londonize”.

Its theory, the name of which referenced another popular urbanism blog, Copenhagenize, was that the key plank of Transport for London’s success was something that even transport nerds did not consider very sexy: its buses.

Though the Tube might get more glamorous press, London’s bus service really is impressively massive: It carries roughly 2.3bn passengers per year—much more than the Tube (1.3bn), close to the New York City subway (2.8bn), and nearly half as much as every bus service in America combined (5.1bn), while serving a population roughly 1/35 as large.

How has TfL done this? By making its bus network high frequency, reliable, relatively easy to understand and comprehensive. We rarely talk about this, because the tube map is far more fun – but the reason it’s so difficult to fall off the transport network in Greater London is because you’re never that far from a bus.

Given all that, we should probably talk about TfL’s plans to rethink – and in most cases, cut – as many as 36 different central London bus services over the next few months.

I’m not going to rehash details of the changes on which TfL is consulting from next month: there are just too many of them, and anyway it’s someone else’s scoop. The story was originally broken by Darryl Chamberlain over on 853 London; there’s also some fascinating analysis on Diamond Geezer’s blog. You should read both of those stories, though preferably not before you’ve finished reading this one.

Before offering my own analysis of the proposed changes, though, I should offer a few examples. More than a dozen routes are facing a trim: the 59 from King’s Cross back to Euston, the 113 from Oxford Circle to Marble Arch, the 171 from Holborn all the way down to Elephant & Castle and so on. A couple – the 10, the 48, the C2, and at most times the special routemaster version of the 15 – are being withdrawn altogether.

On, and one new route is planned – the 311, from Fulham Broadway to Oxford Circus. This will help plug some of the cuts to the 11, 19 and 22.

So, what does all this mean? Some thoughts:

1) This might not quite be as awful as it initially sounds

TfL says that demand for buses has fallen by around 10 per cent in London in recent years. It predicts it’ll fall further when Crossrail opens, as passengers switch to the new line, or to the tube routes relieved by the new line. So: the idea of taking some unwanted capacity out of the system is not, in itself, terrible.

Striping out unnecessary buses should also improve air quality in some of London’s worst pollution hot spots, and improve traffic flow, hopefully speeding up journeys on those buses that remain. 

A map from the presentation in which TfL explained its plans, showing the reduction in bus numbers on key arteries. Hilariously, notes Darryl Chamberlain, “It no longer produces its own maps, so has had to use one prepared by a bus enthusiast”.

The plans might even free up buses and staff to increase frequencies in outer London where demand hasn’t fallen – though these plans won’t be unveiled until next year and, for reasons I’ll come to below, I’ll believe it when we see it.

2) For many bus users, a lot of these changes will pass almost unnoticed

By my count, I use nine of the affected routes with any regularity – but only three of the changes are things that I’m likely to be at all inconvenienced by. Most of the changes either affect a part of the route I don’t take, or one where there are easy, and pain free, alternatives.

This is anecdotal, obviously – perhaps I’m just lucky. But my suspicion is that a lot of these changes will go unnoticed by most passengers. It’s only the sheer number of them happening at once that makes this look like a big deal.

3) The Hopper fare makes this easier...

Once upon a time, if you had to switch buses, you had to pay a second fare. This isn’t true of journeys on the tube or railways – and since bus passengers have, on average, less money than tube passengers, it amounted to a pretty unfair tax on poorer Londoners.

But in January, in what is probably his most notable policy achievement of his two years in office so far, London’s mayor Sadiq Khan changed the rules. Now you can take as many buses as you want within an hour, for a single fare: that means you can switch buses without paying a penalty.

That will have made it easier for TfL to cut routes back: replacing a direct bus journey with one that requires a change no longer means imposing a financial penalty on passengers.


4) ...but not that easy

That’s about where the good news stops, though – because there are reasons other than cost why people prefer direct bus routes. Needing to change buses will be difficult for anyone with any form of mobility impairment, for example. Even for those of us lucky enough not to fall into that category, it’ll be annoying: it’s just easier to stay in one seat for 40 minutes than to get turfed off and have to fight for a new one halfway through.

More than that, from the passengers’ point of view, excess capacity feels quite good a lot of the time: it means your bus may well be nice and empty. Reducing the number of buses along those key corridors will also make those that remain more crowded.

5) The motive is almost certainly financial

Another of Sadiq Khan’s big policy promises was to freeze fares. He made this promise at a time when central government is massively reducing the financial support it gives TfL (the work, Chamberlain notes, of Evening Standard editor George Osborne, back when he was chancellor). And the Hopper fare, while a great idea in many ways, means a further reduction in income.

So: TfL is scrambling for cash: this is why I remain cynical about those new outer London bus routes. I would be amazed if money wasn’t a motivation here, not least because...

6) TfL thinks no one will notice

Any attempt to reduce tube frequencies, let alone close a station, would result in uproar. Hashtag campaigners! Angry people pointing at things in local newspapers! Damning reports on the front of the Evening Standard from the bloke who made it happen!

Buses, though? Their routes change, slightly, all the time. And do you really notice whether your local route comes every 10 minutes or every 12? That’s not to mention the fact that bus passengers, as previously noted, tend to be poorer – and so, less vocal – than tube passengers.

So cuts, and the savings they bring, are much easier to sneak through. TfL probably would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for those meddling bloggers.

Although...

7) Scrapping the C2 might be a mistake

The C2 runs from Parliament Hill, through Kentish Town and Camden to Oxford Circus. In other words, it links north London, where a lot of journalists live, to the offices of the BBC and Buzzfeed.

As occasional New Statesman writer James Ball notes, this is probably not the easiest route to quietly shelve.

8) None of this is set in stone

The consultation doesn’t even begin until next month and then will run for six weeks – so all these plans may yet be forgotten. We shall see.

Anyway – here’s Darryl Chamberlain’s original scoop, and here’s some detailed analysis on Diamond Geezer. Please support your local bloggers by reading them.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.

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