Left Libertarian Alliance

Lewis Craven (Spokesman for Yorkshire and Humber)

As the Provisional Representative for Yorkshire and the Humber, I am well-placed to understand the importance of regenerating and connecting our communities. Living in Kirklees, I have seen the neglect that occurs in places where the national government doesn’t care to invest in deprived areas. As a student, it is unnecessary for me to own a car, and, as a result, I am largely at the mercy of public transport. Arriva, FirstBus, Northern, TransPennine Express: these are the hallmarks of commuting in West Yorkshire–I’ve seen my fair share of cancellations and late services.

Since the advent of Thatcherism, and the privatisation drive that ensued, public infrastructure in Britain has been atomised – due to the fractious nature of train operating companies and private bus operators. Especially affected is public transport, with the extensive train and tram networks of the past giving way to car-centric urban planning, cancelled services, and expensive fares. One of the places this has been (most) apparent is Yorkshire, where, despite more than 20 years of effort, Leeds still does not have its own metro system – making it the largest city in Western Europe without one. Comparatively, Essen, a mainland European city in Germany similar to Leeds, has its own tram network and light railway (the Essen Stadtbahn), with seven lines serving the commuters.

West Yorkshire metro mayor Tracy Brabin has been under fire for setting “unrealistic milestones” for the Mass Transit scheme that will connect Leeds, Bradford and the White Rose Shopping Centre with a tram network. Planned to be part of a wave of public transport improvements in the region, they are driven primarily through the publicly controlled Weaver Network. 

A confidential ‘peer review’ carried out by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) found there was an unresolved need to build and support the case for tram infrastructure, with the report stating:“This is particularly important because the likely cost of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) mode is significantly less than for trams and the BRT benefits:cost ratio is significantly better.”

As a result, the predicted opening has been knocked back two to three years and is now set to begin operating in the late 2030s. This has created uncertainty about whether the project will be delivered, with Brabin’s term coming to an end in 2028; Leeds may (for a third time) be denied mass transit.

But is this entirely her fault? Our economy is being held hostage by the economic orthodoxy of the Treasury, with local leaders being largely locked out of the decision-making process by arms-length review bodies typically headquartered in Whitehall and staffed by London civil servants.How are they supposed to properly understand the impact these proposals might have, when their needs, unlike those of the rest of the country, are already comfortably being met by Transport for London? 

Questions over the necessity of this burdensome process are being raised, when even the NISTA’s own predecessor body, the National Infrastructure Commission, already recognised in 2023 that Leeds was in need of a tram network.

The decision then to create ‘Number 10 North’ may prove that change is rapidly underway. With many civil servants likely to experience difficulties and delays with their new commute, there may come an enhanced appetite for greater investment in Northern transport – perhaps reviving hopes for initiatives like Northern Powerhouse Rail. Such projects have been backed in the past by Burnham, in his time as Mayor of Greater Manchester, and have the potential to drastically speed up East-West rail commutes in the North of England, which currently lag behind those of Greater London.

In his first ‘policy blitz’ the new Prime Minister promised to devolve greater powers over tax revenue, local transport and planning applications to the strategic authorities (SAs) and their associated mayors – among other policy areas.With these new powers, it looks like Brabin may yet be able to deliver Mass Transit for West Yorkshire. But this all raises questions of who this transport investment will serve? 

If Phase 1 of the project is delivered, it will mainly benefit the major metropolitan areas of the county. This risks centralising regional growth in only a few places, and leaving behind areas like Huddersfield or Wakefield, which have more to gain from better connections than the comparatively well-served city of Leeds.

Despite all this talk of devolution, one might ask if this is the correct form. The UK government’s preferred system – strategic authorities – has been critiqued as an opaque, unaccountable, and largely imposed form of local democracy – which you can certainly see in the wide variability of so-called ‘devolution deals’.

Especially when it comes to areas without a definitive centre, such as the ‘Devonwall’ and ‘Heart of Wessex’ Combined County Authority proposals, this one-size-fits-all approach may take away from local decision making rather than empower it. This risks centralising power unnecessarily – leading some to argue the framework of regional parliaments would be a better way to devolve further powers out of Westminster. However, such an arrangement could prove unwieldy and devolve decision making too far (although an argument could be made for a singular English Parliament)

This lack of accountability also spreads to the processes used to enact their powers. Such as with franchising, where Brabin has received pushback for awarding contracts to FirstBus to operate the routes around Huddersfield and parts of Leeds, when they rank 62nd out of the 72 bus companies in the Your Bus Survey for 2025, carried out by Transport Focus (the independent watchdog for transport users). Groups like Better Buses West Yorkshire and other campaigners have been calling for more transparency and for all decisions around bus reform to be made public, including the franchise tender documents. The West Yorkshire Combined Authority (uniquely for a SA) does not permit questions or statements from the public in Combined Authority meetings, potentially dampening the ability for local voices to be heard during the franchising process.

A more freeform solution to public transport could have the potential to solve this, with local authorities (LAs) responsible for running the services local to their areas and the SA managing connecting services. Additionally, such a proposal could allow for greater transport links beyond the artificial boundaries of their respective Combined Authorities, with LAs making their own transport partnerships, allowing for greater subsidiarity and a truly accountable form of local transport that is adaptive to local needs.

The threat of mayors imposing their will without any accountability is a pressing issue, with the need to balance empowering communities and creating an overriding vision for the region causing contention. This is an important conversation that must be highlighted and continued, while attempting to not to recreate Whitehall-style centralisation in the nations and regions. While imperfect in some ways, the SA model has the potential to empower communities in ways not seen since the rise of neo-liberalism, especially if the opportunity is taken to relieve the unitaries of some of their statutory duties (i.e. social care) by transferring them to the SAs. Through synthesising the overarching vision of strategic authorities with greater local decision making for local authorities, a better solution for Yorkshire’s transport can be found.