.jpg)
We’re gonna do it anyway so **** you. How Southend is to be swallowed up by so-called devolution
Updated: 6 days ago
The Council Meeting
Wednesday, 8th January 2025 at 6:30pm
This blog is a review of the council meeting regarding devolution and explores councillors’ views and my take on it all, including commentary on the government’s white paper on English devolution.
As leader of a party founded on the promotion of local people having more money, power, resources and influence, the concept of ‘devolution’ should tie perfectly into what Confelicity does. Therefore, it might be assumed we would unanimously be in favour of the transfer of these things from Westminster/Whitehall.
The transference of all this would be most welcome, however, I could not disagree more with how it is coming about and where the chips are falling.
Democracy, for one thing, seems to have evaporated! Although the government white paper suggests a public consultation in March 2025, this is to be lead by central government and is not about whether we’d like devolution, it’s just a tick box exercise in how residents might see it emerge.
Councillors at this meeting recognised the ‘seismic’ change to local government and one that hasn’t been seen for over 50 years. So why are residents not being asked about any of this? Labour will say it was in the manifesto (and it was started by the Tories) and to this I say that’s not good enough. Manifestos are like Terms & Conditions - very few read them!
That is not to say it wasn’t spoken about before now. I attended a very informative Essex Chambers of Commerce event quite a while back that had representatives explaining all about it.
At the time I was informed there were three types of Combined Authority with one option centred upon an elected Mayor. There was a delay in moving things forward and I hadn’t heard anything until it had reared its head only now.
Shortly after the Chambers event I took the subject of devolution to one of our Confelicity manifesto meetings and we ended up voting unanimously in favour in principle depending on the detail.
Well, even after reading the 112 page white paper on Devolution in England, the report from the Southend Executive Director for Strategy and Change, the Cabinet report and the letter from the Secretary of State, the detail remained difficult to decipher as to what it meant for Southend! However, I have gleaned enough detail to know I am against it at this point in time for a number of reasons.
From 180,000 to 500,000
Firstly, Labour will be looking for authorities to have 500,000 constituents as a minimum, which means Southend Council will have to merge with other councils such as Rochford and Castle Point, at the very least, but still further to make the numbers.
According to Labour, ‘devolution enables more decisions to be made by those who know their areas best’, but can someone who lives on the edge Castle Point really know the issues in Shoeburyness?
I was previously told that a new Combined Authority would not impact Southend Council in any way and we would remain exactly as we are. The new Combined Authority would only be taking powers of central government and would have its own remit. It was not made clear that Southend would be completely changed as an entity.
Mayors
Secondly, I was told we would not have a Mayor. However, the report states the whole scheme is centred on having an elected Mayor as early as 2026.
Saddiq Khan alone is enough to frighten me off!
If we get the wrong person we too could end up with ULEZ, 20mph speed limits across the whole of Southend and a self-promoting New Years firework display paid for by taxpayers but credited to the Mayor of Essex!
One of my personal political fights is building on greenbelt land, and Mayors will have much greater control over housing as they will be responsible for ‘strategically planning housing growth’, according to the white paper.
That for me is ominous and I foresee uproar across Essex as more and more greenbelt land turns to concrete.
The Mayor will also be ‘a fundamental partner in delivering the government’s missions’, one of them happening to be the digging up of the greenbelt (https://www.southendconfelicityparty.co.uk/post/labour-southend-council-leader-supports-building-by-bournes-green-chase-in-line-with-national-labour).
The Council of Nations and Regions, lead by the Prime Minister no less, will collaborate on ‘national missions’ while the Mayoral Council, lead by the Deputy Prime Minister, will bring together the English Mayors and perform a similar task. The white paper uses the term ‘hardwired’ through the Council of Nations, and you can see that the Mayor will, in many ways, act as a tool in which the national government will carry out its directives. I suppose it’s easier than democracy!
As one councillor pointed out, there is also the very serious issue of corruption (though that is always open to any position). Unfortunately, history shows people cannot handle too much power. It’s why we diluted the leader’s power in Confelicity. The amount of powers that are to go to the Mayor is way beyond that which one person should be gifted with, and that’s not even accounting for the very few people that could be capable of doing a job like that.
You won’t believe just what knowledge and experience is required in housing and education to the environment and transport. And bear in mind the Mayor will be an elected position, and as we know politicians are not professionals in the work sense. Can you imagine some of our current council leaders presiding over all this?!
Money, Resources and Power
Devolution will not mean Southend itself will necessarily receive more money, power and resources.
Sure, the people who sit on the newly formed council will, as they will cover a much large geographic area, reign over more resources, and I’m going to guess, be paid significantly more. An enviable position for those who stand to benefit.
I suppose from the perspective of Southend Council Leader Cllr Cowan and many other career politicians who are in favour, he has as good a shot at becoming Mayor as anyone, particularly as the Leader of the Council - on paper he has a decent CV. It presents a bigger domain in which to rule and someone of his ambition would not turn his nose up at the opportunity. And yet, with the greatest of respect, he is exactly the reason the role of Mayor and all those powers are so dangerous.
As Leader of the Confelicity Party it has occurred to me that I, myself, might wish to run as Mayor of Essex and would benefit Confelicity as our coverage would publicise our local movement faster than we could otherwise have hoped. Yet, it wouldn’t be the right thing for Southend. The person on the street will have a much longer path to change or address anything as we skyrocket from 180,000 people to 500,000, and once the extra £billions is diluted into the new population I wonder just much extra that will be per person.
What was the vote for Southend Council about?
Much progress seems to have been made behind the scenes since my induction into Devolution from the Essex Chambers event because the vote at this meeting wasn’t about whether we’d like devolution. It seems that decision had been taken long ago which councillors seemed very aware of and with good reason. The white paper speaks as though it is a done deal with many passages that talk as though it is.
Instead the vote was whether we would write to the government to say we want to put ourselves forward to be at the front of the queue for the devolution programme.
Cllr Cox, Reform Leader, asked whether the meeting was structurally the same as a scrutiny meeting and whether questions could be asked. Unfortunately, the Monitoring Officer confirmed it would be a standard council meeting that allowed for comments only and then a vote taken. I cannot believe how such a monumental change can pass without any official scrutiny. I agree with Green councillor Allen who said it was “top down government”.
The vote was 36 - 7 in favour to put ourselves at the front of the queue, and with Essex and Thurrock recently voting the same way we are now all in position.
Such coordination from all these councils makes me deeply suspicious and someone behind the scenes has been very clever about the way they have gone about this. All three councils had to agree by the January 10th deadline and did it with ease.
Local Election Cancellations
The only real opposition was about the cancellation of the local elections in 2025 where Labour had generously and with much foresight legislated to allow councils to skip them if needed. It’s amazing what the law can do when you need it. It should also be noted that this acts as confirmation the cancellation was premeditated.
There are many who say they will rightly be cancelled as it would be a waste of money. However, I believe this to be an appalling level of arrogance towards our democratic rights and elections must take place.
I realise Southend wasn’t going to go to the polls in 2025 as it is a fallow year, but the rest of Essex was ready.
Labour would have lost a ton of seats as their calamities far outweigh some of the good stuff. Due to this, the optics very much look like devolution is a convenient excuse and if Labour did wish to sneak devolution home they would be better advised not to converge the obstruction of democracy with devolution. Not great foundations to build trust for the new way of governing.
Councillors Against
There were common sense councillors who wanted proper consultation with residents and real debate.
Cllr Allen, Greens, said “we’re being asked to sign off major structural changes without the plans and details in place”. Cllr Longstaff, Greens Leader, said “I cannot commit to something so vague that risks destabilising and the wider region.”
Non-aligned Independent Cllr Murphy said she didn’t want us to be a “test case”. Cllr McMahan (Conservative) said “we would do well to wait”. While Cllr Davison (Conservative) said “if we do things in too much haste it doesn’t often lead to the best of outcomes.”
Only a few voices with the conviction of their principles, but enough to keep some semblance of faith at least.
It’s Happening Anyway so…
Unfortunately, their voices were few and far between. Most repeated the lines:
“It’s happening whether we like it or not”,
“We’re going to do it anyway”,
and “We’ve got to play the hand we’ve been dealt” .
I do not believe in that defeatist philosophy.
If we don’t like something then say so and vote so, like the seven.
I was disappointed to hear former Southend Labour leader and Leader of the Council, Cllr Gilbert, say he didn’t believe it was right, but “it’s clear all the major parties think it is a good idea and the decision seems inevitable, so it’s best we take this opportunity rather than further procrastination.”
I’m just not sure that’s the right attitude to take, but it’s a difficult position to be in when you’re also part of the Labour MP’s office whose government are bulldozing it through.
Cllr Collins, Lib Dem Leader, also didn’t like the idea before but will go with it.
I can see why they might succumb to this view as the white paper states the government will go through the legislative process ‘when it becomes necessary to ensure progress’. It literally states the terms ‘ministerial directive’ What words! This is clearly the new term for dictatorship and a worrying tone for the future if this is how it is going to be. The government expects to deliver new unitary authorities by April 2027 and April 2028.
My view is nothing is set is stone no matter who says it is and how convincing they are. If the whole of Southend, Rochford, Castle Point and Essex really didn’t want to move forward with it, no matter what the government thinks it can do, it won’t be able to.
Having said all that, I feel certain anti-devolution protests are far from the mood of general public and why would they be? People are occupied with their own lives and few have spent their time studying the political structures of Southend council, much less understand a political re-structuring that even the most informed are sketchy on.
The general consensus of councillors was they preferred the idea of having a seat at the table in deciding how devolution looks. To that I say where is the guarantee? How much say will we get? This very meeting councillors attended underlined that being at the table doesn't really mean anything if the cards are stacked. Cabinet had the power to ignore the comments completely, and as Cllr Courtney, Conservative Leader, pointed out, “the letter was probably already written!”
Just as a cherry on top of what was a dubious meeting with many seemingly picked off,
Labour Councillor Faulkner-Hatt, one of the defeatists, happened also to mention her conversations with the Southend Youth Council who supposedly said they support it, even going on to say they believe having direct communication rather than a lot of bureaucracy would be so much more productive! Hmm, words in mouth sprint to mind, if indeed they ever did spring from them.
Overview from Leader of the Southend Council
Current Leader of Southend council and Southend Labour Leader closed the ‘debate’ with comments that I have answered beneath:
“Devolution is about bringing powers down.”
Had it been straight to Southend then fantastic. It’s not, so it is not.
“Government intends that 100% of England will be devolved.”
The very fact there are local governments across the country with certain levels of money, power and resources means ‘devolution’ already exists in some form. Also, just because government, now, wants this, doesn’t mean governments will for the future. And if Labour carry on as they are, they won’t be the government!
“Wait at the back of the queue and risk ending up with a form of devolution that doesn’t suit our residents and scraping the barrel for what’s left.”
What does this even mean? It certainly doesn’t mention this kind of punishment in the white paper, therefore this is a false statement and equates to little more than low level salesmanship.
“Crucial to engage including local communities to ensure their voices are heard.”
The irony of empowering local residents through devolution without consulting with the public seems to be lost on him. To engage after the event is meaningless.
“Advocate for retaining our identity.”
Does he realise that is not a choice? And if it were, are we to be grateful?
What Does it all Mean?
I am proud of the seven councillors that voted against putting Southend first in the queue. Far too many unknowns before jumping ahead with this.
I am not against devolution in principle - Confelicity voted in favour depending on the detail. However, I am aghast of how it has come about, the lack of transparency, democracy and detail, and the type of devolution we may be getting.
The government white paper on English Devolution does not make it clear what it means for Southend. What I have noticed is the total lack of balance - everything about devolution is great and there are no downsides.
I detest the amount of power Mayors will receive and worry about the competence of those who take those positions. I am also struggling with the illusion of empowerment when the Prime Minister will chair meetings to personally push through the government’s agenda.
Labour’s intent to draw the population line at 500,000 people per authority renders empowering local people obsolete. I believe their understanding of what local means is very different to reality. This decision is the epicentre of why this form of devolution is bad for Southend and the other authorities that are clumped together. We don’t know what it is like to live there and vice versa. This is not local.
I would much rather we stay as we are with each authority simply given more money, power, resources, and certainly not worry about a Mayor unless it continues in a ceremonial role.
Conservative MP Mark Francois made a good speech in the House of Commons, but has called for a referendum. I don’t believe there is a need, it just had to go through local councils to vote on. If this was the case I doubt many would have voted for it. Perhaps that’s why Labour chose this undemocratic method.
I would have liked to have asked a great many questions! How much money will we get? How many councillors will there be? How will the boundaries change? Southend’s agenda is already packed, how will adding another two to five authorities help with this?
I have a hundred more questions that I do feel would have been rather helpful to have been given the opportunity to ask. And the same courtesy shown to every resident who would be affected.
I remember starting Confelicity in part to ‘stop stupid’, but at this stage I’ll take a ‘slow down’ given how far along the road we seem to be. It seems we may well be too late on this occasion, but unlike many of our local politicians, we will not simply accept our fate.
Appendices
Report of Executive Director (Strategy and Change)
Cabinet Report
English Devolution White Paper
Letter from the Secretary of State
Comments