Title: Can Greater Manchester Count Its Way to Greater Fiscal Freedom?

Introduction

Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, has long argued that his region’s future depends on breaking free from the apron strings of Westminster. His latest proposal is a bold one: granting English councils significantly more financial power, including the ability to retain a larger share of locally raised taxes.

It is a rallying cry for devolution that resonates far beyond the North West. Yet, as the region prepares to take on billions in new responsibilities, a critical question emerges from the accounting department rather than the political arena: if you hand local leaders the keys to the treasury, do they have the bookkeeping skills to drive the car?

The Ambition vs. The Apparatus

The case for fiscal devolution rests on a simple principle: those closest to the people know best how to spend their money. Currently, the vast majority of council funding in England is distributed by central government through a complex formula. This creates a culture of dependency, where local priorities are often secondary to Whitehall’s diktats.

Burnham’s vision flips this model. By allowing councils to retain growth in business rates and local income tax, the argument goes, areas like Greater Manchester could invest with greater certainty and accountability. They could plan for the long term, rather than scrambling for annual handouts.

However, the machinery of local government is not yet built for this level of autonomy. A recent analysis of the region’s financial readiness reveals a significant gap between political ambition and administrative reality. The issue is not a lack of will, but a lack of capacity.

The Skills Gap

The core of the problem lies in the complexity of public sector accounting. When councils manage central grants, the rules are prescriptive. The money is tagged, tracked, and reported against specific national targets. Moving to a system of local retention requires a different skill set entirely.

Finance teams must become adept at forecasting economic cycles, managing tax-base volatility, and auditing complex revenue streams that were previously handled by central agencies. This is a specialized discipline, and the talent pool is currently shallow. As one senior finance officer noted, the transition is not just about changing the source of the income; it is about changing the entire financial culture of the council.

Without this expertise, there is a real risk of mismanagement. A council that misjudges its business rate collection could face a sudden budget shortfall, forcing cuts to front-line services. In a worst-case scenario, the fiscal freedom meant to empower could lead to a fiscal crisis that undermines public trust in devolution entirely.

Risk and Reward

Supporters argue that this is a risk worth taking. They point to the success of metro mayors in negotiating bespoke deals with the Treasury, arguing that the current system is unsustainable. The challenge, however, is to build the scaffolding for this new financial architecture before the walls are removed.

This means investing heavily in training and recruitment. It means creating shared services for smaller councils that cannot afford their own teams of forensic accountants. And it means establishing a clear audit framework to ensure that local decisions are made with the same rigor as those in Whitehall.

The public does not care whether the money comes from a local tax base or a central grant; they care whether the bins are collected and the buses run on time. If Burnham’s plan is to succeed, the financial plumbing must be as robust as the political rhetoric.

Conclusion

The ambition to give English councils more financial power is a logical step in the evolution of local democracy. But the success of that ambition hinges on a mundane, unglamorous factor: the ability to do the accounting.

Without a serious investment in financial capability, the dream of localism could quickly turn into a nightmare of deficits and disillusionment. The question is not whether Burnham should have the power, but whether his administration is truly ready to count the cost of wielding it.