Rebecca Riley analyses the likely next Prime Minister’s flagship speech through the lens of City-REDI and the LPIP Hubs research.
Today, Andy Burnham delivered his first major policy speech since launching his bid for the Labour leadership, and, in all likelihood, the premiership. As a “Manc” who grew up on a housing estate with access to opportunities no previous generation had, I listened with interest. Speaking at the People’s History Museum (somewhere I have visited many times and developed business cases for!) in Manchester, Burnham set out the most ambitious devolution programme proposed by any prospective UK Prime Minister, promising the “biggest rebalancing of power our country has seen.” He announced a “No 10 North” operation in Manchester (which will need to speak to my adopted home of Birmingham), a 10-year mission to raise living standards, and borrowing explicitly from the German Grundgesetz, a commitment to pursue “equivalent living conditions in all parts of Britain.”
These are bold claims. But how do they stand up against the evidence? At the City-Region Economic Development Institute (City-REDI) at the University of Birmingham, we have spent over a decade through government, Research England, ESRC and UKRI funding, building precisely the kind of evidence base needed to assess approaches like Andy’s. This blog examines the key pillars of Burnham’s speech against City-REDI’s body of work, identifying where the research lends strong support and where it raises important questions and cautions.
1. The Diagnosis: Over-Centralisation and Threadbare Local Government
Burnham’s speech began with a diagnosis that will be familiar to anyone working in sub-national governance. He described a “stark imbalance in resources” between national and local government, with councils unable to “fix potholes” let alone “bring forward major regeneration schemes.” He argued the UK is “one of the most over-centralised countries in the world” and that Whitehall is “not pulling in the same way but in different directions.”
The evidence strongly supports this diagnosis. City-REDI’s major ESRC-funded project, Improving Public Funding Allocation to Reduce Geographical Inequalities (Hoole et al., 2025), paints a picture that is, if anything, starker than Burnham’s rhetoric. The research finds that “a highly centralised governance system, coupled with fragmented devolution, has led to policies ill-suited for diverse local and regional needs.” Short-term, competitive funding practices “have failed to provide sustained support for struggling areas,” while “austerity measures and fiscal crises affecting many English local authorities have severely limited their capacity to drive sustainable local growth.”
City-REDI’s policy briefing on the local authority financial crisis (Lyons and Kratena, 2024), using the Socio-Economic Impact Model for the UK, demonstrated concretely how Birmingham City Council’s attempts to address a £300 million shortfall through tax rises and spending cuts “tend to hit households on the lowest incomes the hardest”, illustrating the real human cost of the funding squeeze Burnham describes.
Business Cases and Place-Based Funding (Pugh & Riley, 2025) is a landmark LPIP Hub report reviewing 134 business cases submitted to three place-based funds. The finding that sub-national institutions face “significant challenges in developing robust business cases due to limited resources, training challenges and over-reliance on consultants” powerfully reinforces Burnham’s diagnosis, but takes it to the practitioner level, showing how the system fails in the granular mechanics of funding access, not just in high-level governance.
WMCA Deeper Devolution Deal analysis (Pugh, 2024), Pugh’s blog identifying the four systemic problems (centralisation, funding cuts, competitive bidding, fragmented governance) that the trailblazer deals were designed to address, the core finding that single pot funding would enable the WMCA to “focus on achieving goals and meeting the needs of its populace.”
The analysis of the Green Book and 2026 Update (Pugh, 2026) updated the Green Book’s introduction of ‘place-based business cases’, which begins to address the spatial biases she identified, but cannot fully resolve them while fiscal centralisation persists.
The LPIP Hub’s own evidence reviews reinforce this picture from complementary angles. The Inclusive and Sustainable Local Economic Performance Evidence Review (LPIP Hub, 2024) found that “the lack of clear structure, funding and resources is leading to poor capacity and capability in place”, a systemic condition, not a local failing. Hoole’s subsequent research note, Exploring the Concept of Governance Capacity (Hoole, 2025b), developed this further, arguing that governance capacity is not merely about formal powers but about the ability to exercise them effectively, and that “there is a pressing need for central government to engage more meaningfully with regional voices.” This matters because Burnham’s proposals assume a baseline of local institutional competence that, in many places, has been systematically eroded. The LPIP Hub and Heseltine Institute’s Seven Essentials of Place-Based Growth (LPIP Hub and Heseltine Institute, 2025), drawing on evidence from city-region mayors and devolved nations, sets out a framework of seven principles for effective place-based growth, including long-term funding certainty, institutional stability, and genuine co-design between central and local government. Read together, these amount to an evidence-backed checklist against which Burnham’s proposals can be tested, and on several counts, the speech aligns well, though the question of how to rebuild capacity in places where it has been lost remains unanswered.
Burnham Verdict: Strongly supported by the evidence.
2. “Equivalent Living Conditions”: Lessons from the German Basic Law
Perhaps the most striking proposal in the speech was Burnham’s adoption of the German constitutional principle of gleichwertige Lebensverhältnisse, “equivalent living conditions”, as a guiding mission for his government. Under Article 72 of the German Basic Law, this principle mandates that the federal government pursue comparable (not identical) access to essential services, balanced economic development, and no serious regional imbalance in public welfare.
City-REDI’s comparative work provides both support and caution here. In Geographic Inequalities in an Era of Unequal Devolution (Hoole, 2025), Germany’s federal system is highlighted as a model with “significant powers over education, economic development, and local government” at the state level, with a constitutional mandate for collaboration between different levels of government and “long-term industrial strategies and major spending programmes.” The research notes that Germany “actively redistributes tax revenues to address spatial disparities” through the Länderfinanzausgleich, horizontal fiscal equalisation payments exceeding €18 billion annually.
However, the same research is careful to note that even Germany still struggles with East-West disparities, and that “countries with stronger institutionalised multi-level governance, like Germany, seem better equipped to address these imbalances than more centralised systems like the UK.” The key lesson is that a constitutional aspiration alone is insufficient without the institutional architecture to deliver it. Germany backs its principle with formal fiscal equalisation mechanisms, constitutionally protected state powers, and decades of institutional capacity-building. The UK currently has none of these.
City-REDI’s Fiscal Federalism review (Pike, 2025) and Devolution and Subsidiarity review (Ayres, 2025) both underscore that meaningful fiscal devolution requires not just the transfer of powers but a fundamental rethinking of the relationship between central and local government, including the “devolution of funding” and the challenges this poses for “institutional capacity and capability.”
The LPIP Hub’s most recent publication adds a further dimension to this challenge. The Communities in Their Places Evidence Review (Taylor, Kollydas and Green, 2026) demonstrates that “communities are central to addressing local economic, social and environmental challenges” but that “their ability to do so varies widely depending on policy frameworks, resources and local capacity.” The review finds that community-level agency, the capacity of residents and civic organisations to shape their own places, is itself spatially unequal, and that top-down policy frameworks frequently fail to account for the granular, neighbourhood-level differences in social capital, institutional trust, and organisational infrastructure that determine whether national aspirations translate into lived experience. If Burnham’s “equivalent living conditions” principle is to mean anything beyond a rhetorical commitment, it will need to engage with this evidence: equivalence cannot be delivered solely through fiscal transfers and institutional reform if the community-level capacity to absorb and deploy resources is itself uneven.
Verdict: The aspiration is well-grounded in international evidence, but City-REDI’s research warns that without deep institutional reform and fiscal mechanisms, it risks being rhetorical rather than transformative.
3. No 10 North and Place-Based Collaboration
Burnham’s announcement of a “No 10 North” in Manchester, designed to “make power flow into the Midlands, into the South West, into the East of England and yes, into London”, is an eye-catching institutional innovation. He framed this as a mechanism to make “place-based collaboration the new operating principle for UK plc.”
City-REDI’s work on Enabling Regional Growth: Institutional and Fiscal Lessons from England and Japan (Taylor et al., 2025) is directly relevant here. Comparing Birmingham and Osaka as “second cities,” the research examines institutional conditions for growth, regional group formation, funding mechanisms, and monitoring and evaluation. The consistent finding is that effective regional economic development requires sustained institutional presence and coordination, not just announcements from the centre.
The From the Local to Global report (Shaw et al., 2025) further argues that the UK is “not leveraging the international potential of its cities, regions, universities and civic institutions,” proposing a new framework for “sub-national diplomacy” that enables strategic authorities and local partners to play a greater role in attracting investment and promoting trade. A No 10 North could, in principle, serve as a catalyst for this kind of coordination.
However, City-REDI’s research on the “devolution periphery” (Hoole and Newman, 2024) raises a critical question: will No 10 North serve Manchester or the whole country? This research identifies a “significant cluster of places that are falling behind both politically and economically”, particularly smaller cities, towns, and rural areas that lack governance capacity. The risk is that a Manchester-based operation reinforces existing hierarchies rather than genuinely dispersing power. As the researchers warn: “One legacy of the levelling up agenda is the myth that it is possible to focus on the economic development and political empowerment of the major cities while assuming that smaller cities, towns and rural areas will catch-up.”
The forthcoming ECPR paper by Warner, Newman, Hoole and colleagues (2026) on Capacity Building in the English Devolution Agenda deepens this concern, finding that current capacity-building is “targeted at those places already furthest ahead and is therefore likely to further entrench England’s ‘devolution periphery.'”
4. International Evidence on Making Coordination Work
Dr Abigail Taylor’s extensive body of international comparative research adds a further critical dimension here. If Burnham’s No 10 North is to function as a genuine mechanism for coordination rather than a symbolic gesture, the international evidence suggests it will need to be underpinned by structured systems for intergovernmental learning and capability-building. Taylor, Kaizuka, Matsu and Green’s Building Intergovernmental Capability Through Secondments: Lessons from Japan for the UK (2026) shows how Japan’s legally grounded, reciprocal secondment system, in which central and local government staff systematically rotate between tiers, builds collective understanding, strengthens local capability, and connects national policy design with local operational realities. The contrast with the UK is stark: where Japan embeds “predictable and reciprocal staff movement” as part of its governance operating model, the UK relies on ad hoc, individualistic career progression that fragments institutional memory. No 10 North would benefit from adopting something closer to the Japanese model, creating structured pipelines of people and knowledge between Manchester and Whitehall, but also, crucially, between Manchester and the regions it is meant to serve.
Taylor’s broader comparative work reinforces this point from multiple angles. Her Enabling Regional Growth report (Taylor, Matsu, Fujiwara and Green, 2025), comparing Birmingham and Osaka as second cities, identifies four key enablers of regional growth: stable institutions, functional regional groupings, empowering funding models, and embedded monitoring and learning. The experiences of Osaka Prefecture demonstrate that second cities can drive inclusive growth, but only when supported by consistent governance structures and fiscal autonomy that the UK has yet to provide. Her earlier Investing in Regional Equality work with CIPFA (Taylor et al., 2022), drawing lessons from Greater Lille, Nantes, the Ruhr and San Antonio, identified nine “success factors” for addressing regional inequalities, including long-term political commitment, clear strategic vision, and investment proportionate to local need. When these were tested against four English areas (Dudley, Enfield, South Yorkshire and Tees Valley) in the follow-up report (Taylor et al., 2024), all nine factors were recognised, but English local areas consistently struggled with long-term investment and effective monitoring and evaluation, precisely the institutional weaknesses that a No 10 North would need to overcome. Taylor’s peer-reviewed journal article (2022) examining how left-behind places in Greater Lille, Nantes, the Ruhr region, San Antonio and Estonia have addressed socio-economic challenges further stresses the importance of levelling up within regions, not just of regions, a distinction that Burnham’s city-centric framing risks overlooking. Most recently, Taylor’s British Academy-funded project, Learning from Europe, is investigating how university research institutes and their local partners in other European countries create and mobilise knowledge to benefit their regions, work that speaks directly to the role Burnham envisages for universities as anchor institutions in his devolution programme.
Two further pieces of LPIP Hub research speak directly to whether Burnham’s coordination model can work in practice. Jarvis’s Collaborative Innovation in Employment Policy: A Liverpool City Region Case Study (Jarvis, 2025) provides a detailed account of how “trust-based relationships, boundary-spanning roles, and collaborative governance have acted as an ‘invisible thread’ maintaining local capacity for innovation” in employment and skills policy, even as national frameworks shifted repeatedly beneath practitioners’ feet. The study demonstrates that effective coordination across tiers of government depends less on formal structures than on relational infrastructure: the personal networks, institutional memory, and shared professional norms that allow people in different organisations to work together over time. This is both an encouraging precedent for No 10 North and a warning: these relationships take years to build and cannot be created just by having a new central coordinating body.
Separately, the LPIP Hub’s Data and Transparency for Combined Authorities briefing (Riley, 2025) highlights a more prosaic but equally important obstacle. The briefing identifies seven devolution asks for data sharing, arguing that “greater devolution of data accessibility and sharing would help deliver better outcomes” but that current arrangements leave combined authorities reliant on fragmented, inconsistent datasets that make effective coordination across government departments extremely difficult. If No 10 North is to function as a genuine coordination hub rather than a symbolic outpost, it will need to address the data infrastructure gap that currently prevents places from understanding their own economies in real time.
Verdict: The institutional innovation is promising, but City-REDI’s research, including Taylor’s extensive international comparative work, strongly cautions that without deliberate attention to places beyond the major cities, structured intergovernmental learning mechanisms, and the institutional patience to build capacity over decades rather than electoral cycles, No 10 North risks becoming another Manchester story rather than a national transformation.
5. Reindustrialisation and Industrial Clusters
Burnham called for supporting “every region to set clear and credible industrial ambitions,” encouraging “across UK partnership between places with complementary industrial clusters” and consolidating “public and private investment at a place-based level.”
This aligns closely with a substantial body of City-REDI work. The Bridging the Innovation Gap report (Billing et al., 2025) examines innovation intermediaries as “place-based policy measures” and explores how publicly funded intermediaries can reconfigure knowledge and create geographical impact. The research on Building Winners: Strengthening the UK Innovation Ecosystem (Billings, Hoole, Kitsos and Ribaudo, 2025) investigates real-world experiences of knowledge exchange, IP management, and commercialisation to develop “actionable policy proposals that could build winners, enhancing innovation outcomes across sectors and regions.”
City-REDI’s work on cluster policy (Kitagawa et al., 2025), drawing on German, French and Japanese comparisons, demonstrates how universities and businesses working together can drive regional innovation, but only when supported by sustained public funding and place-sensitive policy design. The Exploring Emerging and Future Opportunities in the West Midlands report, written with the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU), shows concretely how existing industries and new technologies interact to shape emerging economic clusters.
The key insight from this body of work is that cluster development is inherently place-based and long-term; it cannot be ordered from Whitehall (a point Burnham himself made). But it requires consistent funding, institutional memory, and patient capital. The 10-year timeframe Burnham proposes is welcome, but City-REDI’s research on the serial failure of short-lived initiatives (from LEPs to Levelling Up) underlines how difficult sustained commitment has proven in the UK political context.
The LPIP Hub’s work extends the procurement and social value argument in two important directions. Riley’s What Are Place-Based Business Cases? (Riley, 2026) builds on Pugh’s earlier findings to argue that “a place-based business case is not just a bid, it’s a decision-making tool”, and recommends a hybrid model that combines the rigour of Green Book appraisal with genuine sensitivity to local context, capacity constraints, and non-monetisable outcomes. This is directly relevant to how Burnham’s reindustrialisation investments would be appraised: if investment decisions continue to be evaluated using frameworks that privilege agglomeration economies and high-GVA service sectors, the manufacturing-led clusters that Burnham and the West Midlands are betting on will remain systematically undervalued.
Swift’s Valuing What Matters: Reclaiming Social Value for System Change (Swift, 2025) goes further, arguing that social value must be “reclaimed as a driver of system change rather than reduced to compliance exercises.” Swift’s analysis suggests that the current social value framework, while well-intentioned, has become a box-ticking exercise in many procurement processes, with limited connection to strategic economic development priorities. If Burnham’s 20% social value weighting in public procurement is to be transformative rather than performative, it will need to be embedded in a broader framework that connects procurement decisions to place-based industrial strategy, skills pipelines, and community wealth-building, precisely the kind of integration that City-REDI’s research on innovation intermediaries and place-based ecosystems supports.
Verdict: Well-aligned with the evidence. The 10-year timeframe is appropriate, but delivery depends on resisting the political cycle’s tendency toward churn.
6. Public Procurement and Social Value
Burnham’s pledge to ensure “all eligible public contracts are subject to proper social value weighting” and to move away from “chasing cut price deals around the world” is one of the most concrete policy proposals in the speech.
City-REDI’s Leveraging Public Procurement to Drive Local Innovation report (Billing, 2024) provides a strong evidence base for this approach. The research examines procurement as “a catalyst for innovation,” analysing international case studies across healthcare, energy and transport, and the role of the UK’s Procurement Act as “an opportunity to embed innovation in public purchasing.” However, it also highlights significant barriers: “risk aversion, fragmented budgets” and the challenge of building technical capacity in local authorities.
The Local Wealth Building in Birmingham and Beyond work (CLES, 2018) mapped procurement spend by anchor institutions, including the University of Birmingham, demonstrating concretely how redirecting procurement can benefit local communities and deprived areas. And the Innovation Procurement Empowerment Centre’s work on social housing retrofitting (Rafique, 2025) shows the practical complexities of procurement reform in specific sectors, including “financial constraints, quality assurance concerns, and coordination complexity.”
The LPIP Hub’s A Long-Term Strategy for Housing (Christie, 2025) offers a relevant case study in the institutional design challenges that Burnham’s 10-year plans would face. Drawing comparative lessons from Scotland and England, the report shows how housing policy outcomes are shaped not just by funding levels but by the stability, coherence and accountability of the institutional frameworks through which investment flows. The Scottish experience, with a more integrated approach to housing, planning, and infrastructure investment, suggests that long-term plans require long-term institutional commitments, not just long-term funding envelopes. This reinforces the central finding of City-REDI’s fiscal federalism work: without matching fiscal and institutional architecture, Burnham’s 10-year horizons risk being undermined by the same short-termism and fragmentation that characterise the current system.
Verdict: Strong evidence base for the direction of travel, but implementation will require significant investment in local procurement capacity, precisely the kind of capability that austerity has eroded.
6. Universities at the Heart of Local Economies
Burnham spoke of “placing our universities at the heart of local economies, as all the mayors do, and bringing the innovation-led approach through start-ups and scale-ups.” This is a theme that runs deep in City-REDI’s DNA.
The Civic Universities in Action report (Hassan, Read, Green and McNulty, 2025) explores how universities are “repositioning their civic role as anchor institutions, not only producing knowledge but actively shaping local and regional futures.” The Civic Universities and Economic Impact scoping review (Read et al., 2024) provides frameworks for understanding universities’ economic impact in place, while also warning that “universities are not fully embedding their civic economic impact within their strategic framework.”
City-REDI’s long-standing policy briefing on universities as anchor institutions (Hoole and Collinson, 2017) recommends promoting universities as sources of regional skills, incentivising research collaborations aligned with regional growth plans, and reviewing procurement guidelines to support local firms. These recommendations map almost exactly onto Burnham’s “Manchesterism” description.
Verdict: This is one of the strongest areas of alignment between Burnham’s vision and City-REDI’s evidence base. The challenge is moving from aspiration to systematic embedding across all regions, not just those with major research universities.
7. The Missing Piece? Funding Reform
The most significant gap between Burnham’s speech and City-REDI’s evidence base concerns how the devolution vision will be funded. Burnham committed to the “stability of sound public finances” and the “discipline of our current fiscal rules”, but City-REDI’s research consistently identifies the quantum and allocation of funding as a central barrier to reducing geographical inequalities.
The Improving Public Funding Allocation project’s ten guiding principles (Hoole et al., 2025) include not only devolution and subsidiarity but also equity, stability, and responsiveness, none of which are achievable without meaningful fiscal decentralisation. The practitioner engagement research (Emmerich, Gilmour and Russell, 2025) centres on three key barriers: “Quantum and Prioritisation, Centralisation, and Capacity and Local Leadership.” The international case studies, from France (Taylor, 2025), Australia (Velthuis, 2025) and Germany, all demonstrate that countries which take spatial inequality seriously back their commitments with fiscal mechanisms.
As Professor Jonathan Davies wrote in The Struggle for Devolution Goes On!, evaluating the English Devolution White Paper: “It has long been recognised that English governance is hopelessly over-centralised, with control over money and power hoarded in Westminster and Whitehall.” The question is whether a Burnham government will genuinely “let go” of fiscal control or whether devolution will remain, as City-REDI’s research on Central-Local Relations under Labour (Davies, 2025) suggests, a process where the overriding focus on national GDP continues to see resources channelled toward “areas with the quickest economic return.” Look out for our briefing on Fiscal devolution to be published in July!
The LPIP Hub’s skills research provides the most granular evidence available for why devolved skills commissioning, as Burnham proposes, makes analytical sense. Kollydas’s Skills for the Future: Demand for and Supply of High-Skilled Labour Across England (Kollydas, 2026) maps skills demand-supply gaps across all 38 Local Skills Improvement Plan (LSIP) areas, finding that “high-level skills mismatches differ significantly by place” and that “context matters”; the same occupation can be in surplus in one city-region and a severe shortage in another. The report demonstrates that national skills frameworks, however well designed, cannot capture the spatial granularity of labour market need: Greater Manchester’s skills gaps in digital and cyber are qualitatively different from the West Midlands’ gaps in advanced manufacturing and health technology, and both differ from the service-sector skills challenges in London and the South East.
The earlier Skills Evidence Review (Kollydas, 2024) reaches a complementary conclusion: “the most effective approach to enhance the influence of skills interventions on places is to integrate them as part of a comprehensive ‘local stimulus package'”, combining skills investment with transport, housing, childcare, and business support in a way that reflects local economic structures. This is precisely the holistic, place-based approach that Burnham describes, and it is supported by the international evidence from Taylor’s comparative work. The challenge, as ever, is institutional capacity: devolving skills commissioning to combined authorities only works if those authorities have the analytical capability to understand their local labour markets, the convening power to bring together employers, providers, and universities, and the fiscal flexibility to invest in training pipelines that may take a decade to produce results.
Verdict: This is where the rubber meets the road. Without fiscal reform commensurate with the institutional ambitions, City-REDI’s research suggests the “biggest rebalancing of power” risks becoming the latest in a long line of centralised promises about decentralisation.
Conclusion: A Vision That Deserves Serious Scrutiny
Andy Burnham’s speech today represents, in many ways, the most evidence-aligned devolution agenda proposed by a prospective UK Prime Minister. His diagnosis of over-centralisation, his emphasis on place-based collaboration (music to LPIP Hub ears!), his adoption of the German “equivalent living conditions” principle, and his recognition that growth must be “nurtured from the bottom up” all resonate strongly with a decade of City-REDI/WMREDI/LPIP Hub research.
But City-REDI’s work also sounds several important warnings:
- The devolution periphery is real. Without deliberate support for places that lack governance capacity, devolution risks creating new inequalities even as it seeks to address old ones.
- Institutional reform must be matched by fiscal reform. The German model Burnham admires works because constitutional principles are backed by fiscal equalisation mechanisms. The UK has nothing comparable.
- Long-term commitment is essential but politically fragile. Ten-year plans are welcome, but the UK’s track record of policy churn – from RDAs to LEPs to Levelling Up – gives reason for caution.
- Capacity and capability matter as much as power. Devolving powers to institutions that lack the staff, data, and expertise to use them effectively is not genuine empowerment.
- From aspiration to architecture: The gap between Burnham’s constitutional aspiration (gleichwertige Lebensverhältnisse) and the detailed institutional and fiscal architecture required to deliver it is the speech’s greatest vulnerability. Germany’s Basic Law principle works because it is embedded in a mature federal system with formal fiscal equalisation, constitutional protections for state powers, and decades of institutional practice. The UK would need to build this architecture almost from scratch.
One dimension notably underexplored in Burnham’s speech is democratic accountability. Swift’s Dialling Up Democracy in the 21st Century (Swift, 2026) argues that “devolution only works if citizens have real oversight, transparency, and redress” and that current accountability mechanisms for combined authorities are weak, with low public awareness of mayoral powers, limited scrutiny capacity, and no formal mechanisms for citizen participation in strategic economic decisions. If Burnham’s vision concentrates significant new powers in mayoral combined authorities and a No 10 North operation, the question of who holds these institutions to account becomes urgent. The speech was strong on institutional devolution but relatively thin on democratic deepening, a gap the evidence suggests cannot be left unaddressed.
The coming weeks will determine whether Burnham becomes Prime Minister. If he does, the research community, including City-REDI, will have a critical role to play, not as cheerleaders for devolution, but as rigorous, evidence-based partners in ensuring that this time, the promise of rebalancing Britain is actually delivered.
This blog was written by Rebecca Riley, Professor for Enterprise, Engagement and Impact, City-REDI, University of Birmingham and the Director of the LPIP Hub, with assistance from AI.
Find out more about the Local Policy Innovation Partnership Hub.
Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and not necessarily those of City-REDI or the University of Birmingham.