It is rather naive of the author to believe that the imposition of a political mayor on the North East region of England will make the slightest contribution to its prosperity. The prosperity of the North East lay entirely in its coal deposits and the industries these spawned.

My great grandfather rose from being the son of a Wearside butcher to become a significant industrial magnate during the 19th century and married the daughter of the man who sold him his first ship, who rose from a similar modest background. He started as a clerk and fitter ( a coal fitter being a coal broker) and acquired considerable prosperity through making contacts and shrewd commercial gambles in acquiring interests in coal mines, ships and quarries. Many of his ships sank but prudent insurance, laying off the commercial risks, enabled him to continue to prosper. It was ten years from the initial sinking of the Easington coal mine until it became viable because of flooding from the North Sea, a problem only resolved by bringing in German technology to freeze the ground.

The great industrial and mercantile developments of the North East all had their basis in the coal industry. The prosperity that brought underpinned the other commercial enterprises. Any enterprise involves risk and without a basis of prosperity men are generally unwilling to take the risk. My great grandfather was involved in offering a scheme to share the profits of the mines with the workers but it foundered on the perfectly understandable reluctance of the workers to take on the risk of sharing in losses.

The Nationalisation and subsequent demise of the coal industry sucked much of the basis for prosperity out of the region. Since that time local politicians have often done as much as they could to stifle what local enterprise remained. Having more political input is certainly not the way to increased prosperity.

Interesting that Bristol City recently decided to get rid of it’s elected Mayor after a referendum.

A large chunk of the area and population that lies north of the Tees identifies as Teesside – not Northumberland – and is more economically integrated with Yorkshire and London than Durham or Newcastle.

It is an academic’s fantasy not rooted in economic or geographic or social reality. Another layer of failed political management never fixed anything.

Incredible that an apparently North East based writer would fail to mention one of the region’s success stories, the tenure of Tory Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, but shoehorn in a job recommendation for the North Tyne Mayor Jamie Driscoll, a placeholder far left nodding dog who struggles to string two words together.

It is sad and amusing to hear these irrelevant musings.
In the course of a single generation, the British people have relinquished their identity and sovereignty, and those are never coming back. The gates of mass immigration remain open, and your ruling class will never let them close again no matter what voters say. Every elite and young person educated in Britain regards any remaining pockets of British-ness as irredeemably racist and deplorable. They will either die or become as “diverse” and cosmopolitan as London. I see no brakes on this train.

I don’t disagree with anything in the article, and the author makes a good case for regional devolution. But this does give me the opportunity to have my usual whinge about this particular topic. That is, the title “mayor” for the elected head of such an administration is entirely the wrong one.
Historically, English mayors have presided over urban settlements, all the way from the Mayor of Casterbridge to the Lord Mayor of London (and yes, I know that one of those is fictional, but it’s a good illustration of the point). It’s not unreasonable to extend that title to the elected heads of urban settlements, such as the Mayor of London or the Mayor of Liverpool – especially since we’ve imported this concept from the USA, where elected mayors of major (and smaller) cities are the norm.
It isn’t, though, equally reasonable to apply the term to elected heads of regions or largely rural areas. The title of Mayor has never been used for them in the past, and shouldn’t be, now.
If we are looking for historical precedent from the British Isles, then we could do worse than resurrect the title of Sheriff. Historically, sheriffs presided over counties, while mayors presided over towns and cities, so there’s an obvious synergy there. The argument that this would cause confusion with the ceremonial role of the High Sheriff isn’t really convincing, given that we don’t have a problem with there being both an elected Mayor of London and a ceremonial Lord Mayor of London. Most people can, most of the time, tell the difference. An elected Sheriff would be different to a High Sheriff, and both can coexist.
Alternatively, given that we’ve borrowed the idea from our former colonies in the first place, there’s no reason why we can’t borrow the terminology as well and call them Governors. That might be a step too far for those who object to the Americanisation of our politics and language, but it would at least have the advantage of being neither historically barbarous nor potentially ambiguous.
Either way, Mayor is the wrong word for this kind of elected representative. I’m sure we can come up with something better.

The region that arguably did more than most to carbonise the planet might lead the way in decarbonisation, and create meaningful work.

Dear, oh, dear… the same pointless green dross trotted out again. The ‘green economy’, if it ever materialises, will probably look much like the current one. The economy of the future will, in fact, look much like the previous one. Blue-collar workers are increasing in status as university degrees become increasingly worthless. The whole point of Brexit, won largely by working-class votes, as Aris Roussinos explained in his recent piece, was

a return to an economy of domestic industrial production, and to a drastic reduction in the historically unprecedented levels of inward migration to which the British political class had committed itself.

The left’s current ‘green new deal’ plan will simply drive energy prices even higher than their current level which, despite what the mainstream media incessantly tell us, is not all down to Vladimir Putin’s war; rather, to our own political elites’ catastrophic economic mismanagement over the last 40 years. Perhaps more damningly than even that, the left don’t even believe their own rhetoric. Neoliberalism and the selling off of nationalised industries which once provided steady work to generations is apparently a fair price to pay for ‘saving the planet’. Any possible gains from this fantasy economy would no doubt be entirely negated by unending mass immigration. ‘As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding’, indeed.

Like the proposed modest changes to the House of Lords, of “two out, one in”, extra government should only be on the basis of get rid of two layers if we must have a new layer.
By all means have a new Prince-Bishop if the county councils are abolished, and the district and parish councils merged.
As a great man said “don’t ask government to solve the problem, government is the problem”

Anyone recall T Dan Smith MP, aka “Mr Newcastle “?

“people in the North East have the greatest sense of belonging to their region than anywhere else in England”
Ouch. How did that ever make it past the editors? In my day that would be an O level fail.

If we junk the vast majority of the House of Lords as the quid pro quo that’d also help and perhaps much better reflect a governance model the public could welcome and understand. Given the cost associated with 800+ House of Lords members, who knows it might even save some money (as well as reduce the element of semi-corruption associated with party donors acquiring ermine).
But the issue will be all about ‘devolved powers’ and the balance with Westminster. Figureheads with limited levers will just frustrate. But a real commitment to serious devolved powers would move us in a Federal direction. Fascinatingly that was one of the possible models seriously explored before Irish partition when forebears were trying to find ways of holding a Union together. Obviously that didn’t work for a whole range of other specific reasons but one could envisage a future UK Federal model also spiking the guns of independence for Scotland. You can see why quietly some forward thinking politicians are beginning to push this debate.

A bit short sighted this, just bring back the Danelaw and be done with it.

Oh.
You mean the northeast of England.