Burnham's devolution gamble: city mayors to get slice of income tax

Prime minister unveils radical shift away from Whitehall

Prime Minister Andy Burnham is preparing the biggest transfer of power away from Westminster in decades by handing England's regional mayors a share of income tax revenue for the first time.

The move, part of Burnham's flagship devolution agenda, would also allow strategic authorities to retain some of the business rates raised in their areas and gain greater control over housing, transport and skills policy.

Burnham said the reforms would fulfil his promise to "bring power home" and end what he sees as Britain's over-centralised model of government.

"Under our plans, more of the taxes raised in a community will stay in that community," the prime minister said, arguing that local leaders are better placed than Whitehall to drive economic growth.

Local leaders to keep more of what they raise

Metro mayors are expected to begin retaining part of their business rates income from April 2027, with a share of income tax revenues following in April 2028.

The exact amount has yet to be decided and will be set out in Chancellor John Healey's first autumn Budget.

Government sources say areas that successfully grow their economies could ultimately receive larger tax revenues, creating stronger incentives for local growth rather than dependence on central government grants.

Officials insist the reform will not alter income tax rates. The basic rate of 20 per cent and other national tax bands will remain unchanged, with the proposal focusing solely on where part of the revenue is spent.

Britain an international outlier

Supporters of the plan argue the UK has one of the most centralised systems in the developed world.

According to OECD figures, only 5.8 per cent of national tax revenues in the UK are collected and controlled locally, the lowest proportion among G7 nations.

That compares with 20.4 per cent in France, 36 per cent in Japan and 45.7 per cent in the United States.

Burnham has long advocated greater fiscal powers for local government, dating back to his time as Mayor of Greater Manchester, where he repeatedly argued that regions should rely less on Whitehall grants.

Fears poorer regions could lose out

Critics say the announcement raises more questions than answers.

Conservative shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride accused the government of producing a headline-grabbing proposal with little detail behind it.

He warned that unless new money is found, the Treasury could simply redistribute existing funding, potentially leaving areas with weaker economies worse off.

A government equalisation system is expected to accompany the reforms to ensure poorer regions continue receiving financial support, although ministers are still working through how that mechanism would operate.

Think tank Re has proposed allocating mayors 2.5p from every pound raised through the basic rate of income tax within their areas.

'Local first' becomes guiding principle

The devolution package forms part of Burnham's wider "local first" doctrine, under which ministers will be expected to justify why powers should remain in Whitehall instead of being transferred to local authorities.

The plans are reportedly being developed through No 10 North in Manchester, with a full policy paper due alongside the autumn Budget.

The proposal has drawn support from some regional leaders. West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin said local retention of tax revenues would allow regions to improve public transport and strengthen employment and skills programmes.

Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen backed greater local control but said he would rather see taxes cut, adding that if given a share of income tax he would seek to return money directly to residents through rebates.

Whether Burnham's devolution revolution becomes a genuine transfer of power or merely a reshuffling of Treasury funding may depend on the details still to come.

SOURCE

HUH!

If I'd known this was his policy before he stood on Labour's manifesto at the General Election I never would have voted for th....

Oh - wait a minute...

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

HUH!

If I'd known this was his policy before he stood on Labour's manifesto at the General Election I never would have voted for th....

Oh - wait a minute...

I’d be more than a little surprised if you vote at all.

Precisely what’s wrong transferring budgets, and inevitably power, from Whitehall to the regions?

Apart that is from the fact devolving power and budgets to the regions was in the 2024 Manifesto and you therefore might have missed your chance to vote on the matter.

28 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

HUH!

If I'd known this was his policy before he stood on Labour's manifesto at the General Election I never would have voted for th....

Oh - wait a minute...

Here you go Jonny, you obviously forgot to read it.

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Change-Labour-Party-Manifesto-2024-large-print.pdf

54 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Here you go Jonny, you obviously forgot to read it.

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Change-Labour-Party-Manifesto-2024-large-print.pdf

More "mistruths".

A specific policy to give mayors a direct share of local income tax was not in the 2024 Labour manifesto.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’d be more than a little surprised if you vote at all.

You're surprised that men can't have periods, so I'm not surprised you're surprised.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Precisely what’s wrong transferring budgets, and inevitably power, from Whitehall to the regions?

His proposal widens the regional inequality gap. What about regions without mayors? Not to mention weakened democratic scrutiny. But we know Burnham doesn't value Democracy.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Apart that is from the fact devolving power and budgets to the regions was in the 2024 Manifesto and you therefore might have missed your chance to vote on the matter.

A specific policy to give mayors a direct share of local income tax was not in the 2024 Labour manifesto.

Burnham is not someone you want in any public office, least of all as PM.

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You're surprised that men can't have periods, so I'm not surprised you're surprised.

His proposal widens the regional inequality gap. What about regions without mayors? Not to mention weakened democratic scrutiny. But we know Burnham doesn't value Democracy.

A specific policy to give mayors a direct share of local income tax was not in the 2024 Labour manifesto.

Jonny thinks manifestos should be written to include every minute detail of implementation.

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Jonny thinks manifestos should be written to include every minute detail of implementation.

Jonny thinks Burnham should have had his ideas/policies made known to the public and tested in a leadership contest prior to being given the job of PM, rather than being coronated in a bloodless coup, akin to a third world country.

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Jonny thinks Burnham should have had his ideas/policies made known to the public and tested in a leadership contest prior to being given the job of PM, rather than being coronated in a bloodless coup, akin to a third world country.

That was what the Labour Manifesto was for.

He’s implementing the manifesto.

That’s what people voted for.

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That was what the Labour Manifesto was for.

A policy to give mayors a direct share of local income tax was not in the 2024 Labour manifesto.

Why would it be? We didn't have the Manchester mayor as PM.

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He’s implementing the manifesto.

No he isn't. He's making it up as he goes along.

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s what people voted for.

What, 25,000 people in Makerfield?

He's illegitimate and the whole country knows it.

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

HUH!

If I'd known this was his policy before he stood on Labour's manifesto at the General Election I never would have voted for th....

Oh - wait a minute...

Conservative manifesto 'promises' 2019

• There will be a ban on fracking in the UK (Ban lifted by Liz Truss)

• There will be no increase in NI contributions (Boris Johnson increased NI contributions)

• The foreign aid budget will be maintained at 0.7% of GDP (Johnson cut it to 0.5%)

• ... numerous other examples of broken manifesto promises e.g. HS2, levelling up, etc.

I don't remember you raising too many complaints about the Tory party's right to legitimately govern during their time in office.

The bottom line is that manifestos - irrespective of party - are effectively wishlists and indicate a direction of travel and should be viewed as such, not cast-iron commitments. If you judge them as the latter, then you will continue to be disappointed irrespective of which party is in power.

And it is not just a matter of parties lying in their manifestos to gain office: Circumstances change quickly and, to paraphrase Keynes, 'if the facts change, my view may also'.

That said the three examples, which I listed above, are pretty major u-turns. For example, did the data about fracking change that much in the course of 3 years?

Edited July 31Jul 31 by RayC

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’d be more than a little surprised if you vote at all.

Precisely what’s wrong transferring budgets, and inevitably power, from Whitehall to the regions?

Apart that is from the fact devolving power and budgets to the regions was in the 2024 Manifesto and you therefore might have missed your chance to vote on the matter.

I can tell you precisely what's wrong with it in one word "accountability" the more layers of government the more cloaks of invisibility, in a administration that's already booted out one PM for lies and u-turns.

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’d be more than a little surprised if you vote at all.

Precisely what’s wrong transferring budgets, and inevitably power, from Whitehall to the regions?

Apart that is from the fact devolving power and budgets to the regions was in the 2024 Manifesto and you therefore might have missed your chance to vote on the matter.

So I presume you also must think the regions should have control over their borders then, and be able to decide whether or not illegal immigrants should be housed/located in their regions?

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That was what the Labour Manifesto was for.

He’s implementing the manifesto.

That’s what people voted for.

Smash the gangs was also in the manifesto look how that's going.

43 minutes ago, Tidal wave said:

I can tell you precisely what's wrong with it in one word "accountability" the more layers of government the more cloaks of invisibility, in a administration that's already booted out one PM for lies and u-turns.

Regional Mayors and councils are not accountable to their electorate?

42 minutes ago, James105 said:

So I presume you also must think the regions should have control over their borders then, and be able to decide whether or not illegal immigrants should be housed/located in their regions?

We’ve arrived at the Immigrunting.

Who suggested the regions should have control over the borders?

Or was that you making up arguments on my behalf to feed your need to be aggrieved?

Edited July 31Jul 31 by Chomper Higgot

45 minutes ago, Tidal wave said:

Smash the gangs was also in the manifesto look how that's going.

Illegal migrant removals are at highest level for five years:

Illegal working raids are at their highest level ever:

168 people have been convicted on people smuggling charges:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-07-09/66174/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-removes-highest-number-of-illegal-migrants-in-5-years?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/illegal-working-raids-reach-highest-level-in-uk-history?utm_source=chatgpt.com

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

We’ve arrived at the Immigrunting.

Who suggested the regions should have control over the borders?

Or was that you making up arguments on my behalf to feed your need to be aggrieved?

In your own words:

"Precisely what’s wrong transferring budgets, and inevitably power, from Whitehall to the regions?"

So what's wrong with (let's say) a reform council barring illegal immigrants from their regions? This way Labour regions get to enjoy the cultural enrichment they vote for. Obviously Reform areas would miss out on cultural enrichment but this is their loss and Labour voters gain!

40 minutes ago, James105 said:

In your own words:

"Precisely what’s wrong transferring budgets, and inevitably power, from Whitehall to the regions?"

So what's wrong with (let's say) a reform council barring illegal immigrants from their regions? This way Labour regions get to enjoy the cultural enrichment they vote for. Obviously Reform areas would miss out on cultural enrichment but this is their loss and Labour voters gain!

Who said immigration management would be transferred to the regions?

I think the bigger risk is Reform councils splurging on JCB equipment as a payback.

Edited July 31Jul 31 by Chomper Higgot

I come from the South West of England. It will be interested to see what is proposed for us (although I no longer live there of course, I do still vote in Parliamentary Elections)

We have no regional assembly, or mayorality, but County and District councils. Bristol is a Labour stronghold, the rest of the region for the most part split between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatived. Historically we have always rather been "on the hind tit" when it comes to government and infrastructure funding. My initial, sceptical, thought is that whilst "oop north" will do well, the South West will lag behind. Bristol will probably do well, but the rest of the region absolutely do not wish to be run by or from Bristol. That was tried in the 70s and 80s with the much loathed "County of Avon", which was deeply, deeply unpopular.

Cornwall will of course take not a blind bit of notice of what is going on outside - but then they never do! Bunch of pirates and pixies they are!

Edited July 31Jul 31 by JAG

2 hours ago, RayC said:

Conservative manifesto 'promises' 2019

• There will be a ban on fracking in the UK (Ban lifted by Liz Truss)

• There will be no increase in NI contributions (Boris Johnson increased NI contributions)

• The foreign aid budget will be maintained at 0.7% of GDP (Johnson cut it to 0.5%)

• ... numerous other examples of broken manifesto promises e.g. HS2, levelling up, etc.

I don't remember you raising too many complaints about the Tory party's right to legitimately govern during their time in office.

The bottom line is that manifestos - irrespective of party - are effectively wishlists and indicate a direction of travel and should be viewed as such, not cast-iron commitments. If you judge them as the latter, then you will continue to be disappointed irrespective of which party is in power.

And it is not just a matter of parties lying in their manifestos to gain office: Circumstances change quickly and, to paraphrase Keynes, 'if the facts change, my view may also'.

That said the three examples, which I listed above, are pretty major u-turns. For example, did the data about fracking change that much in the course of 3 years?

But but but the Tories.

Never saw that coming.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Illegal migrant removals are at highest level for five years:

Illegal working raids are at their highest level ever:

168 people have been convicted on people smuggling charges:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-07-09/66174/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-removes-highest-number-of-illegal-migrants-in-5-years?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/illegal-working-raids-reach-highest-level-in-uk-history?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Chomps your so gullible to believe this nonsense use your own eyes.

Date	Migrants arrived	Boats arrived	Boats involved in uncontrolled landings	Notes
23 July 2026	366	3	0
24 July 2026	103	2	0
25 July 2026	240	5	0
26 July 2026	0	0	0
27 July 2026	0	0	0
28 July 2026	26	1	0
29 July 2026	752	9	0

The Defense Mincer what a cock

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Jonny thinks manifestos should be written to include every minute detail of implementation.

Any old dross will do by the look of it🤔

4 hours ago, Tidal wave said:

Smash the gangs was also in the manifesto look how that's going.

Smash the gangs is working. Illegal crossings down 40%. And even your chums at GB News begrudgingly admit the policy is bearing fruit - that must hurt.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/small-boat-crossings-uk-data-2026-gb-news-407791/

And cue BarraMarra saying some boats landed this week like that has any bearing on the overall trend.

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

But but but the Tories.

Never saw that coming.

But but but, it rather blows a hole in your whole argument implying that Burnham's government has no legitimacy.

If this government doesn't have legitimacy, then neither did any other previous one.

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’d be more than a little surprised if you vote at all.

Precisely what’s wrong transferring budgets, and inevitably power, from Whitehall to the regions?

Apart that is from the fact devolving power and budgets to the regions was in the 2024 Manifesto and you therefore might have missed your chance to vote on the matter.

Because many of the local governments are corrupt. Others are financially mismanaged Need examples? Tower Hamlet, London. Look at the councils who had to file 114s; Croyden Nottingham, Birmingham etc. These are a declaration that a council was spending money it did not have and could not fulfill its commitments.

8 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Because many of the local governments are corrupt. Others are financially mismanaged Need examples? Tower Hamlet, London. Look at the councils who had to file 114s; Croyden Nottingham, Birmingham etc. These are a declaration that a council was spending money it did not have and could not fulfill its commitments.

Those are local/city councils, not the recipients of the proposed devolved budgets, regardless there’s plenty of history of corruption in central government.

14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

168 people have been convicted on people smuggling charges:

That's less than turned up in a couple of rubber dinghies the other day!

9 hours ago, RayC said:

If this government doesn't have legitimacy, then neither did any other previous one.

Well, apart from umh, Blair's, Cameron's, Johnson's and Starmer's.

You see they all stood as party leaders in General Elections, and won majorities from the electorate. Admittedly others didn't, Brown, Truss, Sunack, for example. But at least they stood, and were prominent leading figures, in the General Elections which previously put their parties into power.

Burnham was slipped in under the radar!

As a pub sign reportedly said the other week:"Our beer garden is shadier than Andy Burnham!"

Edited August 1Aug 1 by JAG