.jpg)
James Miller will be standing as Mayor of Essex for the Confelicity Party in 2026, despite opposing the devolution and local government reorganisation plans
- James Miller
- Mar 28
- 8 min read
Updated: Apr 2
When I and my fellow co-founders brought the Southend Confelicity Party to life, we did so on the basis of locally-led politics for Southend. Although this hasn’t changed, the political structures we thought we’d be working within likely will.
Devolution and ‘local government reorganisation’ (LGR) will see our original mission that concentrated primarily on Southend, change to a wider brief that will encompass Rochford and Castle Point as well as the entirety of Essex.
We had always intended to expand eventually, but never like this.
Regarding LGR, which is the re-shaping of the boundaries of local councils, of course we would be delighted to work with our neighbours as they are very much part of what I would arbitrarily consider local. The main gripe, however, is that all of us will be swallowed up by each other.
Southend has a population of 180,000 and this proposed new council will be somewhere close to 400,000, which will make it much harder for residents to engage with councillors. And whilst we are indeed local to each other that does not mean we know each other well enough to make comment on what’s best for where we each live. What does someone in Shoebury know about Canvey Island ? And vice-versa?
Regarding devolution, which is the transference of select powers from central government to local government, a new entity called the Mayoral Combined County Authority, will be a ruling body with an elected Mayor of Essex at the helm enriched with all manner of powers, responsibilities and money - one of them being the ability to charge a new precept.
Whilst I am always proud to represent my party in any capacity, as I have done so at both local and general elections, I put myself forward for Mayor of Essex unsupportive of the position itself and run despite my anti-devolution and anti-LGR stance in its current form.
I dislike intensely the lack of any public consultation with the current consultation see if only as a tick box exercise that has little to do with shaping what it might have been.
All this does not mean I am not serious about being elected Mayor of Essex and would carry out the task to the best of my abilities.
Thus, this blog is not really about the announcement of my candidacy, though I have shoehorned some justification of my abilities to do so, but rather a critique of the Mayoral position and its pitfalls based off the information presented in the English White Paper on Devolution.
I discuss the absence of the quality of the person versus the mayoral system; the Mayor’s remit; whether the Mayor is truly empowered; and finally brief rundown of why residents of Essex might vote for me in the potential election on May 7th, 2026.
System versus the person
People in strategic positions spend much time creating and developing the system, and whilst I agree that great systems are vital, I can’t tell you the amount of times even the best ones fail when in the hands of the wrong person.
If the broad goal for a government is to create an environment where we are all healthy and happy, then good people will figure out what to do to make that happen.
Therefore, the expensive experiment that is about to be undertaken due to Southend, Thurrock and Essex Councils miraculously agreeing to put us forward to be considered for the devolution programme and change our system of local government, will not necessarily change things for the better regardless of what the political aficionados say.
Whoever was responsible for writing the White Paper on English Devolution seemed to miss the importance of the person themselves. Given that the central premise is to establish a Mayor with significant powers I find this all the more concerning.
Not once does the paper talk about the competency, qualifications, political philosophy, moral compass, work history or skills, knowledge and experience of the person who would become Mayor. Instead it talks about all the glory the position itself can bring.
Parts of the White Paper effectively amount to a job description, and I dare say there are a few gaps in my CV given the breadth of the role. However, I am dead-sure the same will be true of the other candidates.
There will be council officers who will, perhaps, be able to fill these gaps, and the Mayor will be able to select their own group of people to assist, but still it is a mammoth task.
The Mayor’s Remit
The Government are talking about centralising decisions to the Mayor’s office which will include: transport; economic growth; housing; skills and education; public safety - even going as far as taking the powers of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and Fire and Rescue Authority (FRA); and health, where they will be invited to chair the NHS Integrated Care Partnership.
I wonder how much the candidates, whomever they may be, will truly know about assessing suitable bus routes throughout Essex; how to start a business, run it successfully and grow industry; the needs of residents when considering land for housing development; keeping people safe when combating terrorism; and exactly how to run a hospital or GP surgery.
Yet, the White Paper says Mayors will receive ‘unprecedented powers’ over all these areas, even going on to say that ‘when residents elect a Mayor, they need to know that key decisions cannot be blocked by a single council’ and ‘a desire for perfect consensus must not get in the way of tough decisions.’ It has the faint ring of a local dictatorship, dare I say, as they become one of the most powerful and influential people in Essex. The system certainly lends itself to corruption, which has been seen in other areas.
They will oversee a vast empire including places with unique demands such as Colchester, Chelmsford, Southend-on-Sea, Basildon, Harlow, Clacton-on-Sea, Canvey Island, Thurrock, Harwich, Maldon, Braintree and Saffron Walden, and to echo my point earlier, who can possibly understand the needs of all of the people in all these places?
I am sure I and the other candidates could pick it up in time, but are we sure that empowering so much to one person is the right system that will make us all happy and healthy?
I’m not sure what CV would be suitable, but the wrong person at the right table has the potential for catastrophe - just look at London. Just look at the country for that matter.
We have ‘Rachel from accounts’ running the economy into the ground backed up by a Business Secretary who has never run a business, but is instead a lawyer, not lawyer.
It points to a larger problem in our electoral system and one that will extend to the Mayoral position.
Is the Mayor really Empowered?
There is an inherent contradiction to the Mayor’s power if you read the Labour version of devolution.
The way the White Paper has been written points toward the accussation that it is a way of simplifying top-down government.
Newly elected Mayors will be delighted to hear they will attend a ‘Council of Nations’ Chaired by the Prime Minister no less. These meetings will be integral in making Mayors ‘fundamental partners to the government in delivering its missions’ whilst at the same time ‘allowing areas to take back control.’
What I cannot quite understand is if Government missions are conceived by Government (as in the Labour Party) then how are Mayors taking back control of their areas if it is being directed to them?
I doubt very much they considered the idea of a local party such as Confelicity putting forward candidates, but I would certainly not be there to be a conduit to implementing Labour Party policy if I and any of my Party do not agree with it.
For example, one of their missions is to effectively gut the greenbelt and build 1.5 million homes across the country with Essex picking up its fair share of that strain. Sir Kier insultingly labels those who do not want to live in a concrete city ‘blockers’.
I do not want any part of it.
I believe strongly that Essex, and particularly Southend, is so built up already that we barely have any room left.
I say no, unequivocally, to building 10,000 homes on Bournes Green Chase, Hadleigh Farmland or any other green or grey belt land for that matter.
In Southend, the 1500 families that are on the housing waiting list have been used as the excuse to justify big housing developments. I say excuse because rarely does any of the housing go to these people as they cannot afford it. It is effectively a lie and we see it over and over again. The Bellway development in Shoebury is a good example, where reports are coming in that the affordable housing quota cannot be met due to the well trodden loophole that the project would no longer be financially viable.
I do not begrudge new housing and the need is definitely there, but I do have a problem with over-populating an area, ripping up our green spaces and without any progress to house those who need it.
Addressing immigration is the fundamental solution in this instance and one I would be eager to discuss with the Prime Minister if I ever got a seat at the table. I must say my view is in no relation to the arguments on multiculturalism or infrastructure, we simply have too many people living here and we are destroying our environment.
Why vote for me?
I have spent almost 30 years working to help build a successful family business with all the experience that has taught me. I have a broad set of skills such as leading people, handling finance, public safety, crisis management, and general management skills involving efficiency and productivity.
I believe in basic values such as democracy, localism, respectful freedom of speech, compassion and empathy.
I didn’t have a silver spoon growing up having spent my childhood on social benefits, and I was educated in what was known as one of the worst schools in Essex at the time - Thorpe Bay High School - which did teach me a good dose of humility. I did go to university as a mature student and picked up a few Business Degrees along the way.
I started a local independent political party for Southend having been a member of the Labour Party for 15 years, and stood in several elections building a steady interest in Confelicity. One of the reasons I am standing as Mayor of Essex - aside from trying to win - is to put Confelicity on a wider platform in which people can hear our local message.
A vote for me is a vote for true local democracy. I will not know the needs of every residents across the county, but I and Confelicity have a proven track record to put residents front and centre of decision-making and that will continue.
With no connection to the national parties we are not encumbered with anything that does not fit the local agenda. Building on greenbelt and over-population are just a number of issues that I would be fighting against. I would reject the so-called ‘national missions’ of Labour if they do not coincide with what matters to the residents of Essex.
As a businessman I recognise the need to create a great business environment to pay for all the public services we all want. Taxing people to death is not the answer to a flourishing economy. The answer is allowing businesses to grow and create jobs.
Despite my deep reservations about the Mayoral position, devolution and LGR, I believe strongly that a locally-minded Mayor may have the best chance to make this system work, and if elected I would do my upmost to preserve Essex as it is, while only making changes that are truly necessary and in the interests of the residents.
References
Kommentare