Introduction
The exclusion of Milton Keynes from the Devolution Priority Programme is not just a missed opportunity—it is a critical moment that puts our entire region’s future at risk. As we now grapple with the repercussions of this failed bid, it is clear that strained relationships, miscalculated leadership decisions, and lost opportunities have left Milton Keynes and its neighbouring authorities in an uncertain position.
At the heart of this issue lies a fundamental question: how can regional partnerships thrive when key principles of collaboration are ignored? The failure of the recent devolution bid for the Bedford, Luton, Milton Keynes, and Central Bedfordshire (BLMK) model highlights a wider issue—the fragility of partnerships when political self-interest overrides strategic cooperation.
The Breakdown of the BLMK Devolution Proposal
Milton Keynes City Council, under its Labour leadership, put forward a devolution proposal linking Bedford, Central Bedfordshire, Luton, and Milton Keynes. However, this proposal was rejected for failing to meet the government’s preference for a broader, regional partnership. Crucially, it abandoned a long-standing model of cooperation that had included all six South Midlands authorities—Bedford Borough, Central Bedfordshire, Luton, Milton Keynes, West Northamptonshire, and North Northamptonshire.
The decision to exclude the Northamptonshire authorities was a significant gamble by the Labour Leader of Milton Keynes City Council, Cllr Pete Marland. It disrupted years of regional collaboration and created deep divisions among key local stakeholders. Worse still, it undermined the collective bargaining power of Milton Keynes and its neighbours, reducing the region’s ability to secure transformative investment and greater local decision-making powers.
This is more than just a bureaucratic setback; it is a wake-up call about the risks of fragmented leadership and unbalanced partnerships.
The Stakes Are High
The principle of devolution is something we support—localised decision-making has the power to transform services, create jobs, and drive economic growth. However, devolution must be based on democratic legitimacy and inclusive partnerships, not rushed proposals designed to serve narrow political interests.
A report commissioned by the South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership (SEMLEP) was published on 13th July 2021, focusing on the economic impact of SEMLEP’s £265 million Local Growth Fund (LGF) investment programme. This multi-million-pound funding has supported 55 capital projects across the area between 2015 and 2021, aimed at enhancing business growth and productivity, funding new transport schemes and homes, and generating new jobs and opportunities for students.
The impact of the Local Growth Fund (LGF) projects has been significant:
- By the end of 2020, the new homes and households created through LGF projects were generating an annual increase in local spending of around £25 million, projected to rise to £186 million by 2030.
- The gross value added (GVA) from these projects reached approximately £173 million in 2020, with projections of £656 million annually by 2030.
- More than 5,500 learners had been trained by the end of 2020, leading to an estimated £5.9 million in local spending each year, expected to increase to £8.5 million with 9,000 learners by 2030.
- Investment in business growth yielded capacity for around 3,500 employees in 2020, which is anticipated to grow to nearly 4,000 by 2030.
These figures illustrate the profound impact of strategic investment on the region's economy, education, and workforce development.
Cllr Pete Marland, Council Leader of Milton Keynes City Council, has previously championed the collaborative model, stating, “We need strong partnerships like these to drive economic growth and boost job prospects in our city and across the region"
Councils join forces to champion growth in business support, skills and careers drive - Business MK However, his recent U-turn regarding the exclusion of Northamptonshire from the BLMK bid has led us to a troubling situation.
The decision to exclude Northamptonshire from the BLMK bid disrupted a model that had a proven track record of success. It was a political gamble that relied on selective alliances rather than a strategic vision for the entire region. Even figures like Conservative Mayor Tom Wootton (Bedford Borough), who initially supported the proposal, later expressed concerns about the imbalance of power within the partnership.
Why Partnerships Fail: A Case Study in Mismanagement
The failure of the BLMK devolution bid provides an important lesson in how partnerships can break down. Several key issues contributed to this failure:
1. Imposed Rather Than Collaborative Decision-Making
True partnerships are built on genuine consultation, not top-down imposition. The devolution process was driven by a government directive, but the rushed nature of the BLMK proposal left many stakeholders feeling sidelined. Central Bedfordshire Council and others expressed frustration at the lack of meaningful engagement. This lack of consultation bred discontent and undermined trust in the process.
2. Imbalanced Power Dynamics
Effective partnerships require equitable representation. By excluding West and North Northamptonshire, Cllr Marland upset the balance of power. A devolution bid should not be structured to favour one authority over others, yet this is precisely what happened. The result was a proposal that lacked credibility and cohesion, making it easy for the government to reject.
3. Absence of Consensus
Successful partnerships require clear terms that all parties can agree on. The original SMA model had a solid foundation, with six authorities working in tandem. In contrast, the BLMK proposal lacked full support even among its own members, with Bedford’s Mayor eventually expressing reluctance. The lack of consensus was a major red flag for decision-makers in government.
4. Financial Motivations Over Community Needs
Devolution should be about empowering local communities, not political manoeuvring. The exclusion of key partners from the BLMK model was not about delivering better services—it was about consolidating power. When financial gain and political self-interest take precedence over collaboration, communities suffer. Issues such as affordable housing, infrastructure, and local economic growth should have been at the heart of the proposal, but instead, the process became a power struggle.
5. Leadership Driven by Self-Interest
Strong leadership is about serving the people, not personal ambition. Cllr Marland’s actions have raised serious concerns about governance in Milton Keynes. His decision to exclude key partners from the devolution bid was not in the best interests of residents but rather a strategic move to increase his control over regional decision-making.
6. Fear of Losing Control
There is always an understandable concern that larger partnerships might dilute local authority power. However, excluding key stakeholders from the BLMK model did not strengthen Milton Keynes’ position—it weakened it. By failing to build a broad, inclusive coalition, Cllr Marland effectively ensured that our city would be left out of the devolution programme altogether.
7. Lack of Transparency and Public Consultation
Residents were not given a say in this devolution bid, despite the fact that it would have major implications for local governance. A lack of transparency creates distrust, and the failure to properly consult the public has only added to the perception that this process was driven by political interests rather than community needs.
The Path Forward
The failure of the BLMK bid should serve as a warning—but it must also be an opportunity for us to rebuild. Milton Keynes cannot afford to be left behind. The way forward requires:
1. Restoring Regional Collaboration – All six South Midlands authorities must come back to the table to form a balanced and inclusive devolution proposal. The SMA model worked, and we should return to it.
2. Aligning with Government Expectations – The government has made it clear that it favours broader, regional partnerships. We must ensure that our new proposal meets these criteria to avoid another rejection.
3. Prioritising Community Needs – Devolution should focus on creating jobs, improving services, and boosting local economies. Political self-interest must not take precedence over real benefits for residents.
4. Ensuring Transparency and Public Consultation – Residents must have a voice in the process. Future devolution discussions should be open, transparent, and accessible to the public.
5. Avoiding Unwanted Alternatives – If we do not take the lead in creating a devolution proposal that works for Milton Keynes, we risk being forced into a less favourable partnership—such as being absorbed into a Thames Valley authority where we would have minimal influence.
Conclusion
Milton Keynes has a proud history of innovation and growth. However, recent political miscalculations have put our city at risk of being left out of the next stage of devolution. If we want to secure the investment and decision-making powers that our region deserves, we must move beyond political gamesmanship and focus on genuine collaboration.
The failure of the BLMK bid is not the end of the road—but it is a clear signal that we need to change course. By restoring trust, working together, and prioritising our residents, we can build a stronger, more effective partnership that will drive real progress for Milton Keynes and the wider South Midlands region.
Now is the time for leadership that puts people before politics. If we fail to act, we risk losing control over our own future. Let’s make sure Milton Keynes does not fall behind.
