Lord Sainsbury tells us how we can achieve the much desired levelling up:

If, however, the Government is going to grow high value-added businesses outside London, some important changes need to be made.

The first change is to give the metro mayors the clear responsibility for spatial planning and transport policies in their cities, bringing their powers in line with those already held by the Mayor of London. This would be a significant change, but granting mayors these powers would improve the management of our cities and create a more favourable business environment.

The second change would be to give mayors the power to align the courses run by FE colleges within their boundaries with the needs of industry. Currently, FE funding rules mean that, to survive financially, many colleges must spend a great deal of time competing to attract students to courses that are cheap to run. By giving mayors the authority to co-ordinate the courses put on by FE, and by incentivising collaboration between colleges rather than competition, this could be stopped, and the courses delivered could be brought in line with the needs of industry.

These being ideas that should be put to some sort of test.

So, are we sure that putting Sadiq Khan (or Boris Johnson, Ken Livingstone or Shaun Bailey) in charge of business and industrial planning has been wholly and wondrously beneficial to the economy of London? Do we think that their detailing the curricula of the capital’s educational establishments would further boost growth?

Do we then think that putting Andy Burnham (or Derek Hatton, or Joe Anderson or T Dan Smith) in charge of such things elsewhere is going to similarly boost the economy?

Our answers to those are no and hell no. We agree that others will differ on one or possibly even both of those. But that is still the correct test to put the assertions to. Have they actually worked where they already exist? If not then we’d best not expand the policy, had we?