‘The English bourgeoisie of the Industrial Revolution did not revolutionize society as a whole. Afraid from the beginning of the power of the new labouring masses brought into being by and for the Industrial Revolution itself, intimidated by the spectacle of the French Revolution and all it signified, the English middle class quickly arrived at a ‘compromise’ with the English ancien régime. Because of its basically capitalist structure (tenant-farming carried on by wage-labour for profit) and its absence of legal definition as a privileged estate, the aristocracy was such that a ‘compromise’ of this sort was possible.’ From a Whiggish perspective, the unwritten constitution is the ideal mechanism for adapting processes of government to changing circumstances. Whig historians of the constitution point to the robustness of the Westminster Model (WM) as it responds and adapts to ever changing circumstances and periodic reforming impulses (see Oakeshott 1962; Birch 1964; Beer 1965; Hennessy 1995; and for a critique King 2009; Dunleavy 2009). They argue the advantage of the unwritten constitution is that it is flexible and can adapt to new circumstances without rupture. From a Whiggish perspective, the UK has retained its traditions as a democracy whilst adapting to a changing world. Both Marxists and Whigs see Britain avoiding upheaval by either accommodating [Whig] or co-opting [Marxists] new social forces as a mechanism for preserving the system as a whole. For Judge (1993), much of the political process has been framed by Parliament and Parliamentary conceptions of politics. Consequently, there are many examples of various political forces, but maybe most obviously the Labour Party, curtailing their more radical tendencies
So what is the model of devolution being offered in the English case? Parallels can be drawn with the administrative devolution that characterised Scotland before 1998, rather than a process of real devolution of power to localities and citizens. The creation of the Scottish Office in the late nineteenth century led to a central government body effectively administering Scotland locally. The Scottish Office was allowed the administration of a range of polices (such as Education) with a local influence but without any concomitant democratic processes (Mitchell 2003); a reproduction of imperial governance. Decisions were made in Whitehall and administered locally and adjusted to local custom. The present case of CAs in England, reveals that devolution is mainly about administering certain polices by adapting to local conditions. Gains (2016) contribution on ‘Metro Mayors’ and her study of Manchester elsewhere in this edition, offers an example of this dynamic. The new devolved authorities have no legislative power and limited financial power. Britain has the second most centralised budgetary system in the world (after New Zealand whose population is about the same as Yorkshire) (OECD 2015). Devolution will not fundamentally challenge such asymmetry, as most taxation continues to be raised by the Treasury. The CAs’ position is one of administering central government policy in the context and clear parameters laid down by Whitehall. As the Manchester agreement makes clear (see Gains 2016), the policy undertaken by the new authorities will undergo ‘an extensive programme of evaluation’ by the Treasury and: “The next five year tranche of funding will be unlocked if HMT is satisfied that the independent assessment shows the investment to have met the objectives and contributed to national growth’ and to rub