The most striking thing here is not the topline but the shape of the No coalition, which formed less along a north-south line than a generational one — the 35-44s recoiled hardest, barely a quarter backing the plan, while the youngest and the 45-54s leaned toward it. That is not the pattern you would expect from a "London versus the regions" story; it reads more like a dividing line between those most sceptical of new institutions being grafted onto old ones and those still open to the experiment.
Gender barely moved the needle, with men and women landing within a few points of each other, which suggests this was fought less on identity or place than on a harder question of principle: does relocating a slice of the premiership actually shift power, or just its postcode. That ambiguity is the real fault line running through the whole devolution project since 2016 — the same one that has dogged metro mayors, English regional assemblies and every promise to "take back control" for somewhere other than Westminster.
It also lands squarely in the argument over the cost and machinery of government at a moment of squeezed public spending, where any new office, however symbolic, invites the charge of duplication before it invites the charge of neglect.
The floor's top Yes case put it plainly: a Northern Number 10 would "force the massive London centric element of the establishment to at least take into account what's happening outside the M25." The most-respected No voice was blunter about the mechanics, warning it would "duplicate effort, at significant cost, for no benefit" and calling it "devolution by the back door."
Burnham gets his answer, if not the one he wanted: the chamber likes the idea of a northern centre of power rather more than it likes the plan for building one.
9 Opinions
A real step in the right direction - if only mainly symbolic at this stage - to transferring power away from London and towards all areas of the UK, giving people power to make decisions based on what they believe is best for their areas. What makes sense in Westminster might not make sense to someone actually living in the borders, for example, and someone based in Liverpool might be best placed to see how to drive growth there. A step towards unlocking *all* of Britain.
Just another layer of beaurcracy
I worry its not cost effective. Devolution seems more so.
Unnecessary costs of keeping two offices and moving employees from place to place. Meantime national debt is rising..
If the country was booming and we were the forefront of business and trade I’d argue devolution and spreading the wealth and decisions makes sense. Right now what we need is a little more action and a lot less committees. I don’t want to see more taxpayers money going towards funding the travel for these meetings up north when we have a perfectly good WESTMINISTER for this
Its just symbolic nothing more
In fact the relocation should be full time, not part time, to save travelling costs and delays.
For to long the UK has been controlled by people who are London centric, having a No10 in the north along with HQs in other parts of the country will force the massive London centric element of the establishment to at take into account what's happening outside the M25. Never forget at the moment, if a bridge falls down during flooding in for example Cumbria it's an issue, if the river Thames rise 2in due to flooding its a nationwide disaster! This mentality needs to end
It will at best duplicate effort, at significant cost, for no benefit. It's increasing government for the sake of increasing government. It's devolution by the back door.