Tory plans to scrap RDAs won't help the region's economy.

I definitely agree with West Midlands NO!'s views in relation to making RDAs much more democratic and accountable. I also agree that we need to be clearer about what they actually do acually costs.

Would West Midlands No! be more prepared to accept the RDAs if they were more democractic, more accountable and more efficiently funded and less bureaucratic, or is s/he against any RDAs anywhere in and of themselves? I won't make prejudiced judgements based on someone's name, online or real!

I am also inclined to agree with West Midlands No! that where democratically elected local authorities have the expertise, these development decisions are best left with them at county, town or city level. It means that the decisions taken have democratic legitimacy, and on a subsidiarity basis it is also at a legitimate local level. Decisions taken about, and money invested in, strategic local economic development decisions should be up for local debate and be made by people who can be thrown out by the electorate or re-elected on the back of a good record, where necessary.

Those of you who have read my comments on Professor Bailey's blog before will know what's coming!

Birmingham should have much more economic self-determination along with other authorities in the West Midlands. I don't see why economic development in Wolverhampton, or Sandwell or Birmingham should not be devolved to the local authority level as much as possible. It's possible that we will get much more sound decisions that affect local people directly.

Let them issue Bonds! Let them set up local development banks. Let the Local Economic Development Council (Leddy!) take shares in local industry in return for confident and long-term investment in local business. Let the Leddy play a part in assisting, even creating, sound local circuits of capital that benefit micro-economies which then make up a myriadic patchwork. (Getting a bit carried away here, I know.)

I think, though, West Midlands No!, that there will definitely and by the same reasoning need to be a regionally based local economic development authority (the Reddy!) but I think you may be right - strip it down to the overarching strategic function, decentralise it and give it an elected, democratically-accountable basis which it simply is not perceived to have now.

As for the Tory plans - well they haven't got a clue. Where David is right is that they simply see and define a regionalist agenda they don't like, and then throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Worse than that: the reason they don't have credibility in this area is that I believe that their party, should they come to power, would simply return the whole system to the London-centric, London-based, London owned finance markets which simply do not have in their very DNA anything that recognises regional or local economic development.

If the Tories have their way Birmingham will be going cap-in-hand to London High Financiers for any slim hope of regional or local investment in business and industry.

Reform the RDAs radically, I say, and decentralise appropriate functions to local authorities as much as possible.

If the Tories really had a clue about local business, about their employers and their employees, they'd have a constructive policy on the issue, instead of, effectively, none at all!

"I don't vote Tory but they are the party that has England's best interests at heart". Which England? Newcastle? Birmingham? Manchester? Bristol? Tower Hamlets?

I don't think any of these places were particularly well looked-after by the Tories when they were last in office. Birmingham still languishes with a high umemployment rate that is largely the legacy of Thatcherite policies.

Perhaps the comment above might be more applicable to Chipping Camden (shades of John Major's beloved village cricket green and spinsters on bicycles); or Kensington and Chelsea (moany old Sloane rangers and other assorted yuppies).

This only points to the deeply ingrained regional disparities that "West Midlands NO!" seems keen to ignore (intentional or not) and have been woefully addressed by past national governments; and conveys a rather narrow view of "England's best interests".

I am not sure where David Cameron has been recently but scrapping RDAs would take Britain back to when there was London and the rest. It is true what West MIdlands NO! says, regionalism and regional policy has been encouraged by the EU, but I am grateful they have done so. Regional disparities cannot just be 'a fact of life' because this is socio-economically unsustainable. All regions deserve the chance to decide their own paths to economic development. And if this is too academic, I would just like to recall the role that EU funds have played in supporting and financing the regeneration, for instance, of Birmingham and the West Midlands.
RDAs and with them regional policy in Britain have enabled regional stakeholders to come together and identify priorities and actions for regions'short term and long term change; as well as to channel national and EU funds towards such priorities.

I can only assume that people opposing RDAs have no experience of local or national government. There could be a debate about what powers RDAs have but they are undoubtedly useful in ensuring the buoyancy of a region.
In planning for instance, it helps to combat NIMBYism that can inadvertently hold a region back for years. Localisation isn't always good too, as council officers can get pretty creative when, say, offloading homeless families onto neighbouring boroughs. The alternative are pretty much Whitehall (who may discard a region's benefit for wider strategic objectives) or something that looks like an RDA. I also think people get hung up on the 'undemocratic' nature of them, since all this really does is provide a sack-able figurehead for an entire incompetent department. Having a Parliamentary Select Committee to keep an eye on RDAs could be more effective as a form of accountability.