Thread by @GeorgePeretzQC

There are two constitutional issues raised by this story. ft.com/content/d485da….

The first constitutional issue is the possible abuse of power to shovel funding to areas represented by Ministers and other Tory MPs. The delay in publishing the methodology increases suspicion that the methodology will be tweaked to generate the desired results.

Are our systems of accountability strong enough to detect and call out what everyone accepts in principle must be wrong - a distortion of public spending to areas which the government of the day feels are more politically sensitive at the expense of areas with greater need?

NB that if we had a fair voting system, parties would have to compete - and would be represented - across the country: there would be no areas which a govt would have no political interest in helping because “we don’t have/are never going to get any seats there”.

Second constitutional issue touched on at the end: the effect of this sort of scheme is to force local authorities to compete for Whitehall favours: to get the money they have to follow whatever the current central spending priority rather than the priorities of their own voters.

The good government and constitutional issue raised by that was flagged by @michaelgove in his Ditchley speech in June gov.uk/government/spe….

His first suggested remedy - moving civil servants around the country - was somewhat implausible as a corrective.

But this - though advanced tentatively - was far more plausible.

But making access by “urban leadership” and “communities” to funding depend on their following the current set of Whitehall spending priorities is the reverse of “taking back control of the policies that matter to them”.