Mayoral Delay Turn Into a Cash and Carry Problem for Council.

Local authorities across the south of England are warning that delays to mayoral elections could leave their regions at a disadvantage as the government prepares to hand greater financial powers to England's metro mayors. Councils in the Thames Valley, Hampshire, Dorset and the Isle of Wight say they could miss out on millions of pounds in additional funding and investment while regions in the North move ahead with expanded devolution arrangements. The dispute comes after Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced plans for metro mayors in England to receive a share of income tax revenues for the first time. The proposal is part of the government's wider effort to move economic and political decision-making away from Westminster and give local leaders greater control over regional priorities. However, the prospect of new revenue-raising powers has also intensified concerns among areas that do not yet have elected mayors. South Warns of a Devolution Divide Local authorities in southern England are now pressing ministers to accelerate plans for mayoral elections. Their argument is straightforward, if access to new funding and powers is linked to having a mayoral structure, delays could leave some communities waiting while others begin benefiting. The concern is particularly strong in the proposed Solent region, where local leaders say the area could lose out on substantial investment opportunities. Donna Jones, Conservative candidate for Solent mayor and the regions current police and crime commissioner, criticised the government's approach, describing it as an "economically reckless north first approach". She argued that postponing mayoral elections risk undermining the government's promises to spread economic power more evenly across England. Jones claimed that the Solent area could be missing out on hundreds of millions of pounds and called for mayoral elections to be brought forward. If he genuinely believed in levelling up every region of Britain, he would bring forward mayoral elections to next year, rather than leaving the South waiting while the North takes priority, she said. Government Says the Picture Is Not Yet Final The financial argument, however, comes with an important qualification, the government has not yet determined exactly what proportion of income tax revenues mayors could receive. Further details are expected when Chancellor John Healey delivers his first budget in the autumn. The government has also previously said that communities across England will benefit from its devolution programme. That means claims about precise amounts being lost should be treated cautiously until the funding formula and eligibility arrangements are formally established. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been approached for comment. A Bigger Question About Devolution At the heart of the dispute is a broader question about how England devolution settlement should work. Supporters of elected mayors argue that strong regional leadership can bring decision-making closer to communities and allow areas to develop long term economic strategies. Critics, meanwhile, worry that a system built around mayoral authorities could create new disparities between regions that have devolved powers and those still waiting for them. For councils in southern England, the issue is therefore not simply about elections. It is about whether the timing of those elections could determine who gets access to new powers, investment and potential revenue streams. The government faces pressure to demonstrate that its devolution plans will not create a new geographical divide this time between regions that are ready to take advantage of mayoral powers and those still waiting for the political machinery to be put in place. For now, the final financial settlement remains uncertain. But as Westminster prepares to set out the details, councils across the South are making it clear that they do not want their regions to be left standing at the back of England's devolution queue.