IS THE Burnham Model real devolution or just more bureaucracy in a smarter suit? Andy Burnham has certainly put Manchester on the map– though whether it’s for actual progress or just a particularly well-executed PR campaign is still up for debate.
He nationalised bus services, gave them a catchy new name – the Bee Network, because nothing screams efficiency like an insect that works itself to death – and spent plenty of time shaking his fist at Westminster. But only, of course, from a media-approved safe distance.
And yet, if you ask actual Mancunians, you’ll hear a different story…
Living costs? Higher than ever.
Public services? Still held together with duct tape and good intentions.
Infrastructure? If you like potholes and traffic jams, it’s basically a work of art.
Now, don’t get me wrong – Burnham has done some good things. But let’s not pretend that painting some buses yellow and giving them a new name is the same as fixing the city.
And yet, somehow, his model is being held up as the one Glasgow should follow. The idea being that if we just elect one charismatic mayor with a regional accent and a strong Twitter presence, all our problems will be solved.
Sounds inspiring. But before we blindly sign-up for our own version of Mayor Showmanship™, let’s take a moment to ask: is this really what Glasgow needs? Because let’s be brutally honest – Glasgow’s problem isn’t a lack of political figureheads. It’s the fact that the ones we already have are about as useful as a chocolate teapot in a heatwave.
Problem 1: The “Devolution” that’s actually centralisation
We’re told that a directly elected metro mayor will “give power back to the people.” Sure. And I’m sure that my council tax is going to go down any day now too.
The reality is that this model doesn’t give power to the people – it shifts it from local councils to one big shiny regional authority.
- Glasgow City Council? Redundant.
- Local representatives? Less of them, because fewer politicians equals more efficiency, right? (Just like how introducing fewer bin collections makes our streets cleaner.)
- Actual democracy? Further away from communities, but now with a slick PR campaign.
Under the English Devolution White Paper, these new mayors don’t answer to their communities – they answer to Westminster. (Or Holyrood, if they’re feeling particularly bossy that day.) In other words, you don’t get a local champion. You get a political middle manager in a nice suit, making big promises but ultimately implementing whatever top-down policies come through the pipeline.
Problem 2: Who’s really calling the shots?
Ah yes, “local leadership.” A beautiful phrase that means nothing when your mayor is tied into the same global governance frameworks that dictate policy from a glass-walled conference room somewhere in Brussels or Davos.
You see, Burnham’s model doesn’t just bring in investment. It brings in an entire ideology. And that ideology? Net Zero at any cost, Smart Cities whether you like it or not, and economic policies that prioritise international investors over the local butcher struggling to keep his shop open.
Want Proof?
Low Emission Zone (LEZ) Fiasco – In Glasgow and London, thousands of working-class drivers woke up one morning to find their perfectly functional cars had magically become “toxic polluters” overnight. Suddenly, if your van is more than a few years old, you either cough up a fortune for a new one, or pay daily fines to drive in your own city. Meanwhile, government ministers are still chauffeured around in fuel-guzzling Jaguars.
Net Zero Housing Madness – Instead of tackling actual housing crises – like rising rents, damp-ridden flats, or waiting lists longer than a Game of Thrones novel – policymakers have decided what you really need is a smart thermostat that barely works and some solar panels you can’t afford. Your landlord? He gets a government grant for “eco-friendly upgrades” – which somehow never includes fixing your broken boiler.
Smart Cities or Surveillance Cities? – We’re told Smart Cities will “enhance urban life”, but let’s be real: it’s a glorified tracking system. Want to park your car? Better scan your app. Need a bus? Hope you remembered to sign-up for the city’s new digital pass, otherwise, enjoy the £2.50 penalty. How long you loiter outside Greggs? Apparently, that’s now data the council needs. The only thing getting smarter in Smart Cities? The fines and the Mayors’ business suits.
15-Minute City Nonsense – Ah yes, the idea that you shouldn’t need to travel beyond a 15-minute radius of your home – because, obviously, everyone’s life revolves neatly around council-approved zones. Need to pick up your kids? That’s a different zone, mate – better justify why you’re crossing “boundaries” or pay up. Meanwhile, if you’re an Amazon delivery van, carry on – no restrictions for you.
Electric Vehicle (EV) Hype vs Reality – You’re told your diesel car is killing the planet, so you take out a loan for a fancy EV. But now there’s a queue for the four working charging points in the entire city, and if you live in a flat? Good luck trailing that extension cord down from your third-floor window. Meanwhile, mining for lithium batteries is devastating the environment elsewhere, but shhh, don’t mention that.
These policies don’t empower people – they just make everyday life more expensive, more restricted, and more monitored. But hey, at least the politicians get to virtue-signal about their “progressive” cities at the next climate summit.
Would a Glasgow metro mayor fight these policies? Or would they be another well-dressed puppet reciting the same tired script about “progress” while ignoring how unaffordable life is getting for ordinary Glaswegians?
Glasgow’s real problem? We’ve got too many bosses already
The real issue is not that Glasgow lacks a strong leader. It’s that we already have too many people in charge – and none of them answer to us.
Holyrood pulls the strings on budgets and policy, then blames Westminster when things go wrong.
Westminster treats Scotland like a difficult child who keeps asking for more pocket money.
International economic and climate bodies set the policy direction, while local businesses and workers foot the bill.
And yet, the solution we’re being offered is… more layers of management? If you’ve ever worked in an office with too many middle managers, you already know how this ends: nothing gets done, but there are lots of meetings about why nothing is getting done.
Adding a metro mayor to Glasgow’s circus isn’t “empowerment.” It’s another person in the chain of command, reporting upwards rather than listening downwards.
If we really wanted to give power back to the people of Glasgow, here’s a wild idea: why not actually give power back to the people?
What Glasgow really needs instead of a Metro Mayor
More local control, not more bureaucrats
Let’s strengthen local councils rather than replacing them with another tier of government.
Maybe instead of moving power further away from people, we should give communities direct say over budgets and priorities.
Policies Based on Glasgow’s Needs, Not Global Playbooks
Glasgow’s transport and housing shouldn’t be dictated by climate conferences in Brussels or Davos. Stop prioritising Net Zero targets over affordability, jobs, and basic common sense.
We need real accountability, not more political theatre.
No more unelected bodies making key decisions on infrastructure and investment.
If people can’t vote someone out, they shouldn’t be setting policies that affect their daily lives.
An Economy that works for Glaswegians, not foreign investors
Cut barriers to small business growth instead of favouring corporate-backed redevelopment schemes. Invest in local industry and infrastructure – not just “green transition” projects that nobody actually asked for.
The bigger picture: Glasgow’s future is about taking back control
We’re being told a metro mayor will make Glasgow stronger – but stronger for whom?
For working people? Or for politicians who love posing as local champions while following global playbooks?
For small businesses? Or for international investors who can afford to buy up city centre property while locals are squeezed out?
For real devolution? Or for a new layer of regional government that concentrates power even further?
The truth is, Glasgow doesn’t need another political celebrity. It doesn’t need another face on the news, promising bold change while quietly signing off on policies that make life harder for ordinary people.
Glasgow needs real local control – not a metro mayor taking their marching orders from Holyrood, Westminster, or an unelected climate summit.
We’re told we should learn from Manchester. But maybe, instead, we should ask why we keep being given governance models that benefit politicians and corporations more than they benefit us.
If real devolution means anything, it means letting people – not politicians – decide how their city is run.
Otherwise, let’s just skip the middleman, install a giant EU flag over George Square, and be done with it.
Because if we’re going to be ruled by unaccountable bureaucrats anyway, we might as well be honest about it.
If you appreciated this article please share and follow us on Twitter here – and like and comment on facebook here. Help support ThinkScotland publishing these articles by making a donation here.
Photo of Mayors Khan and Burnham by Alice Hodgson / No 10 Downing Street – https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/53845474549/in/album-72177720318623382/, OGL 3, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=150167657
