As Mayor of the region that’s home to the second city, you’d expect me to have some concerns that the first time a Prime Minister opens an office outside London, it isn’t here. The messages I’ve had this week tell me plenty of people felt the same.

I wasn’t put out though. When I saw the announcement, my first thought was actually how good it was as a message. Would I have preferred it in the West Midlands? Of course I would.

We’ve watched departments leave Whitehall for years now. The Treasury moved hundreds of roles to Darlington. The Cabinet Office set up a second base in Glasgow. Closer to home we have MHCLG in Wolverhampton, DfE and Skills England in Coventry, a DfT office in Birmingham, and plenty more. But the Prime Minister himself, working from somewhere other than SW1? That hadn’t happened before.

I understand the instinct behind it, because I’ve had it myself. I wanted an office in the Black Country. I promised one during the campaign. Our own Combined Authority sits in Birmingham, and when your base is in one city you can slowly start to see the whole region through that city’s eyes. Focussing on one city’s problems without understanding the other places. That’s always been my criticism of the CA before I became Mayor - it was too focussed on one row of businesses in Birmingham.

We’ve now opened up in the Civic Centre in Wolverhampton, and I made sure it wasn’t just a desk for me. My team is there too. It’s put us within reach of a lot more of the people we work for.

So I understood the symbolism. What I wasn’t sure about was whether there would be anything of real substance underneath it. Not yet at least. No10 North was announced only a few weeks ago and the Prime Minister has been in post for less than a week.

A new Prime Minister showing he’s rooted in the places people actually come from, great! But what could possibly have changed in that time?

On Friday, the first official day of the new No10 North, I went with other mayors and my team. I could see the same pressures and frustrations our own towns live with. I walked past more of them on the way to the office.

Outside No10 North though, hundreds of people were queuing to catch sight of the PM and the politicians going in and out. Something was clearly happening in Manchester.

Then I went in.

We were there for three or four hours. A couple of meetings, a few conversations over coffee. Very quickly my questions were answered and my view changed.

No10 (South) is one of the most recognisable front doors in the world but what makes it iconic, also means it’s a genuinely hard place to work. Narrow staircases, small rooms, a basement, staff tucked into corners all over the building. It’s a wonderful thing to stand inside. The art on the walls, the sense of history in every room. But I wouldn’t want to run a modern, multi-disciplinary team out of it.

No10 North is different. It’s an office built for how people actually work in 2026. Open floors and hot-desking, with proper room to break out and build something together. There are also people working there now who couldn’t necessarily take a job in London, because their families are in the North, and they’re exactly the people government should be fighting to employ.

It reminded me of an exciting start-up. Everyone could see the whole problem in front of them and they’re champing at the bit to tackle it and turn it around. Our conversations weren’t stage-managed. They were about our real issues, real people, real projects - and where the Prime Minister and his team could help clear the blockages.

Nobody said “that’s not my department.” People didn’t really care how it was fixed, or who fixed it - it just needed fixing. The PM talked about having regular meetings with us so that we could just tackle the biggest issues facing our places and what he needs to do to help.

Decisions that would normally take months, needing three meetings and a written submission through officials and then politicians were being taken in the room, over coffee.

What stayed with me most was the mindset, the conviction and the behaviour.

Whitehall is old and it works like it. Good people have spent years trying to change it from the inside, and some of them are winning small battles. But the estate itself sets the terms. It decides the pace, and it decides who ends up close enough to power to be heard.

That’s why this is bigger than a week of good media coverage. A Prime Minister who wakes up to the same problems our residents face will make different calls about them. That train up to, and walk through, Manchester for me just highlighted the challenges we all face, and a Prime Minister (and importantly his team) who sees them too means that, like me, they will never forget the mission.

When London works so well, you can begin to forget where it’s not working.

There is no doubt that being close to something changes what you notice and what you choose to focus on first. You can’t govern the whole country well from a basement four hours away, however good your intentions.

So do I want the same thing in Tipton, Coventry or Chelmsley Wood? Yes I do. I’ve now seen what changes when government sits closer to the people it’s meant to serve. The problems are closer to home, so they get focussed on quickly.

I went to Manchester ready to admire an astute piece of communications. I came home having changed my mind. What I saw was government just about to start working the way it should.

Richard

Subscribe now

It has been a strange few weeks since I last wrote here. Politics in this country has shifted under our feet, and we have a new Prime Minister.

I’ve gone on record about the support Keir gave me, when I came into politics and throughout my time as Mayor. Every time I picked up the phone to him or to No10, they worked to help us. No ask was ever turned down or downgraded, because the Prime Minister and the Chancellor understood how much this region matters to the country.

I understand the reasons he set out for standing down. And I know some of the mistakes of the past two years have cost our residents and our businesses. I’ve been open about that.

But we shouldn’t forget what was achieved. The biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. The Renters’ Rights Act. Free breakfast clubs. Half a million children lifted out of poverty. Support for Ukraine. And a trade deal with the US that protected tens of thousands of jobs here in the West Midlands. Those are real things, and they will last.

So what do I want from Andy Burnham, our new Prime Minister?

The collaborative, supportive approach is the fabric of what we’re doing here in the West Midlands, and I expect it to continue. I’ve also set out some process asks in other interviews, changes that would push devolution further and faster for us.

But start with what’s genuinely different this time. Andy has done the job. For almost a decade he ran Greater Manchester, so he knows what it is to be responsible for a place without always having the money or the powers to match. And he knows the frustration of a good plan stuck in a pile of papers in Whitehall. When I talk to him about buses, or skills, or housing, I’m not starting from scratch because he gets it.

That is important in politics because most of what impacts on someone’s day happens pretty close to them. It starts with a bus that turns up on time and doesn’t cost a fortune. Or a town centre worth walking into on a Saturday, with the pubs, cafes and shops open - and some life around. Do our young people have a real way into a decent job? Whether that’s a college course or an apprenticeship that actually leads somewhere. That is the work Mayors are closest to. We are the delivery arm of government. A Prime Minister who understands that, and who trusts Mayors to get on with it, is good news for us.

That’s not to say that Keir didn’t get it, because I believe he did. But he’d never experienced it first hand in the same way.

Andy’s top team is now taking shape. John Healey will be a very good Chancellor. I’ve known John for sixteen years, and I count him as a friend.

When the person holding the country’s purse strings is someone you know and trust, someone you can pick up the phone to and speak plainly with, it changes how the work gets done. I had that relationship with Rachel Reeves - and it no doubt benefitted the region at each of the budgets and spending reviews.

It doesn’t mean you get everything you ask for (although we always have). But it means you get a proper hearing, and you get it early in the process. Andy has written about the Treasury himself. The way it judges whether a project is worth funding has long made it harder to build here than in London. With Andy setting the direction there is a real chance to change that - there has already been some important work to the green book. And we’re trialing some of those place-based budgets here in the West Midlands.

Which brings me to fiscal devolution.

There is one big problem with the way devolution currently works. When the region grows, the tax that growth generates goes straight to the Treasury. Almost none of it comes back. Instead we are handed pots of money with strings attached. Ringfenced, time-limited grants, designed in Whitehall to meet Whitehall’s targets.

Proper fiscal devolution would change that. If we grow the economy, we keep a share of what we raise and we decide where it goes. We put the money where the need actually is, not where a funding round happens to allow it.

Currently, if we smash our targets (like we did last year) we get the same amount next year. So the reward to go beyond those targets can be a little weak.

Some will worry this loosens accountability but I honestly believe that it tightens it. If I’m spending money we have raised here, and it doesn’t work, there is nowhere for me to hide. That is the point.

The other thing I want is pace. We have spent too long moving at the speed of the system rather than the speed of the need. People don’t experience plans, reviews, strategies or funding rounds. They experience whether the bus turns up and whether the high street thrives. If devolution gives us the freedom to act, then people here should start to feel the difference within this term, not in ten years’ time. Some of it takes time. We may need a new budget, and that will take a few months to work through. But the direction is clear, and I want us to move.

There is a reason I am impatient about this. Look at who lives here. The West Midlands is one of the youngest regions in Europe. A third of us are under 25. The median age is nearly four years below the national average. And we have the highest forecast growth in working-age population of anywhere outside London.

That is a huge amount of potential sitting in one place. Handled well, and it is the engine room of the country’s growth for the next twenty years. But if it’s handled badly, then it is a generation we allow to drift.

This is why skills matter so much to me, and why I keep asking for control over skills training from the age of 16, not just from 19. I left school at 16 myself. I know how early the drift can start. By the time a young person reaches me at 19, they have often been out of the system for years, and the disengagement has set in. Someone once told me we are giving these young people a second chance. The truth is that a lot of them never got a first one. Most don’t want a life on welfare, they want a way in to work and they need it earlier.

So that is what I want from a Prime Minister who has stood where I stand. Keep the collaboration going. Trust us to deliver. Let us keep more of what we raise, so we can put it to work here. And move at the pace this moment demands.

Andy knows this region can thrive. He has said so, and I take him at his word. The job now is to prove it, and to make sure people here feel it in their everyday lives.

Richard.

We are failing a generation.

Young people in parts of the West Midlands face youth unemployment running at twice the national average. When I became Mayor, that was the first thing I asked council leaders to get behind together. They all did and we’ve made progress. But nowhere near enough. For as long as young people are out of work, we have more to do.

Subscribe now

And I am tired of hearing the accusations from others.

Workshy. Snowflakes. Not resilient enough. I hear it still and it’s wrong. It’s used to avoid the harder conversation about a system that has been designed, almost entirely, to work against young people.

Here is the central absurdity. We have a significant skills gap across several industries in this region, and at the same time record youth unemployment. That is not the fault of young people, it’s a failure of the system.

So what are we actually doing about it?

Growth creates jobs. Investment creates growth. And business, supported by government, is what drives both. So - in my view - the government’s job is to reduce the risk of employing a young person - not increase it.

The NIC rise did the opposite. Employers were already cautious about taking on NEETs. The increase in employer contributions made that harder. We have to work against that headwind.

One thing we’ve explored in the West Midlands is co-funding roles alongside employers. We would cover half the cost of the job. It halves the employer’s risk. But the return on that investment is significant. If someone is in work, they’re not relying entirely on the welfare system. They’re less likely to need the NHS in the way they would otherwise. Less likely to be in contact with the justice system or social care. The multiplier effect is significant and it’s real.

We’ve also been testing something else. A job rotation pilot where we take workers off the shop floor to upskill - and we pay employers to backfill that position with an unemployed resident. We’re removing the risk for the business.

On the surface it looks like a training scheme but it’s actually doing two things at once. The person being upskilled comes back at a higher level. The unemployed resident gets a foot in the door. The employer carries less risk because the position never goes empty.

That’s the kind of innovative intervention we need more of - programmes that move multiple people forward at the same time. Because there is a challenge of too many people in our region being ‘under-employed’, remaining in entry-level positions for too long which can often block new entrants but also leaves under-employed people reliant on some level of state benefit.

My main point here is that we’re not afraid of direct intervention in this region. The construction sector shows exactly how granular this needs to be.

Less than a third of FE learners on construction courses in our region go into construction employment or an apprenticeship. I asked why. Two answers came back.

First: the courses are too narrow. A bricklaying course teaches bricklaying. But an SME builder needs someone who can turn their hand to tarmac, scaffolding, plasterboard - the full range. Single-skill qualifications are producing people who don’t fit the jobs that actually exist.

Second: developers often want to take on young workers as subcontractors, not employees. That means having their own tools, their own van, their own insurance, their own tax arrangements. An 18-year-old leaving college does not have the capital to do any of that. We’re sending people into the world of work ill-prepared.

Last year we announced a £75 million investment to train 12,000 young people in construction. But that investment only works if we fix what happens at the other end. So that’s what we’re doing. Mitigating the risk at the point of employment, not just the point of training.

I’m supported by a fantastic team of officers in our Skills teams. They do all of the hard work driving forward this agenda. And we have lots of work going on to tackle this challenge.

At the same time our Jobs Taskforce are also working through similar blockages in other sectors. Because this pattern repeats. Training that doesn’t connect to employment. Young people ready to work, blocked by systems that weren’t designed with them in mind.

We are, frustratingly, doing all of this work with one hand tied behind our back though. Whilst post-16 skills are not devolved in any way to Mayors, we don’t get to make the early interventions that Milburn’s report has identified. We’re relying on central government to know the issue in Wolverhampton, Dudley or Coventry - and create a solution from Whitehall. When that doesn’t work, we have to intervene far too late in process when people have already fallen through the cracks.

We need to reset the system.

The problem is structural. The answer has to be too.

We know what doesn’t work though is blaming the young people out of work.

Richard.

Share

So I wanted to just get things done. However, there were challenges from the start that needed to be fixed.

Most crucially, I inherited an organisation with a £120 million deficit, the Camp Hill project needing an additional £30 million for completion and the Dudley metro delayed and over budget. That matters because when the organisation’s finances are out of control, nothing else works. You cannot deliver trams, train stations, homes, jobs or anything really if you cannot balance the books.

The organisation had been chasing its tail for far too long, bouncing year to year without the stability to back and fund long-term projects.

Promises were made, with no plan on how to actually deliver them. And Government departments were telling me that the lack of delivery needed to be turned around.

So that’s where we started. We had to fix the finances. We had to bring financial discipline back. And I set a clear expectation that this organisation exists to deliver.

Delivery matters

Take housing. Before I was elected, the WMCA funded just 93 homes in two years. Ninety-three! At a time when thousands of families were stuck in temporary accommodation, young people were priced out, and council waiting lists were growing. That is a significant failure.

We took a different approach to get things moving. We cut through delays, worked directly with government and developers, and focused on getting schemes moving. The result is over 7,200 homes now funded this year. That is thousands of families closer to a stable place to live. And it’s above the target set by Government.

Meeting those families is one of the best parts of my job - because I know the change we’re making wouldn’t have been possible, if we hadn’t have refocussed our teams and our funds.

Meeting young people is also an inspiring experience. Almost 20,000 have so far been helped into work or training as part of my Youth Pledge. But, I’m also making a £75m investment in construction skills - and asking the private sector to match us - so we can build the homes we so desperately need. Because it’s not just about delivering homes, but also jobs and a sustainable long term plan to keep doing that.

I’ve met lots of young people who have directly benefited from the interventions we’re now making - and their stories are incredible. We need to give young people a better reason to build their future in our region.

The right track

But crucial to that is transport. This is what people raise with me most. Usually when I’m using public transport to and from the office. ‘Why don’t the buses run on time?’ ‘Why are the trains cancelled?’ ‘Why don’t the buses match the shift patterns?’

For years, people were asked to accept a system that didn’t work well enough, while public money was given to shareholders just to keep it going.

One of the key reasons it doesn’t work - is because it’s not joined up. Trains, trams, buses and the cycle network are all separate. They don’t allow you to easily transition between each. You can’t tap your card on the bus, then return home on the tram - and have one simple charge.

So we are changing that. We have started the process of bringing buses back under public control. We’ll see the first buses move over in 2027. That means we’ll have a system designed around passengers, with clear accountability for performance. It is a real change that people will see and feel in their day-to-day lives. It still takes too long though - two years is frustratingly slow but the legislation is set that way.

Trains came under public control earlier this year, and through the devolution bill Mayors get a “statutory role” as part of the move to Great British Railways.

And from next year, people across the West Midlands will be able to tap in and out with their bank card on any bus or tram, and the system will automatically find them the cheapest fare - no tickets, no planning ahead. We’ll then roll that out across other transport modes shortly after - including trains.

There is more happening too on infrastructure. New train stations are open. Investment is moving forward in East Birmingham, Midlands Rail Hub and at Arden Cross. These are long-term projects, but they all have the same aim - more jobs, better connections, real opportunity.

The Rosewell Review in transport has helped us to design a system to move these projects forward quickly - and I’ll have more to say on our ambitions soon.

But what I’ve learnt in two years, as a first-time politician, is that politics can easily drift towards announcements, launches, plans, press releases or photo-ops.

They all have a place but on their own, they don’t change anything.

And saying things for the sake of being ‘visible’ doesn’t change people’s lives as quickly as I need it to.

People judge us on what they can see and feel. Can they find a home? Can they get a job? Does the bus turn up? Is their area improving?

That is the standard I hold myself to.

The first year was about putting the basics in place. Fixing the finances. Getting the organisation working properly. Turning intention and ambition into something real.

The second year has been about delivery. Making progress that people can start to see.

As I move into my third year, my focus is to keep going - but even quicker. Remove the barriers that slow things down. Show people the scale of our ambition with material change. And make sure more people feel the benefit of those changes. And put this region on the map, and at the heart of the government’s thinking.

In the end, what matters is whether people’s lives are getting better. That’s the standard I hold myself to.

Richard

Councils across our region have elections in a week’s time. Different names and faces vying to run our local authorities. But running them is serious business. It’s children’s services, social care, foster placements. It’s balancing budgets without cutting the things people rely on. It’s keeping services going when money is tight and making sure the most vulnerable people don’t pay the price. Because how we look after our most vulnerable, is a measure of who we are as a region.

What I’m struggling to see, with some political campaigners, is a seriousness and an understanding of those responsibilities. Because, that stuff matters more than almost anything else. And it rarely makes the news or social media - until it all goes wrong. And there have been some shocking cases throughout the years.

So it comes with real responsibility.

How decisions really get made

The West Midlands Combined Authority (emphasis on the word ‘combined’) is made up of the seven local authorities - or councils - in our region. Four Labour, three Conservative - for now at least. Every major decision needs their agreement. In most cases, that means not just a simple majority, but a two-thirds vote or even unanimity. And I actually don’t get a vote, as I’m the Chair. It’s my role to bring the ideas, projects and opportunities to the board.

As Mayor, people sometimes assume I can just decide what happens. Then I can click my fingers, the money is allocated and my officers get on and do it. The reality is actually very different.

So, a lot of the job is shuttle diplomacy. Conversations. Meetings. Picking up the phone. Sitting down with leaders from different parties and working things through properly. You don’t see that on social media - because it’s frankly rather mundane - but it’s how things get done. I make a decision on what I believe, based on my mandate, should happen - but I need two-thirds of the constituent authorities to vote it through.

And to be fair to those leaders, whatever their politics, they take the job seriously. We don’t always agree. That’s part of the job, and it helps you define your politics clearer sometimes. But when it comes to the big decisions - investment, housing, transport, public services - people understand what’s at stake.

Nothing I’ve taken to the board has been voted down. Not because it’s an easy or obvious choice, but because the work goes in beforehand from myself and my team. We talk things through around a shared understanding that this region needs to move forward.

That collaboration and seriousness matters.

Because the decisions we’re making aren’t small ones. They shape whether people can get a decent home or get to work - or whether they can even get a job. It’s our responsibility to make sure public services are there when they’re needed.

And those decisions shape whether the West Midlands finally gets the growth and investment it deserves after years of being overlooked and left behind.

Delivery over division

Since I was elected, that’s been the focus. Less PR, more delivery. More jobs. More homes. A stronger regional economy that actually works for everyone. That may come with criticism, and I do realise that the job of Mayor is about being visible. But I couldn’t honestly stand next to things and tell you how great they are if I didn’t believe we’d fundamentally changed the machinery of delivery.

Maybe I’m too serious or too focussed on the delivery, I don’t really try to antagonise the media or pick fights with Government. The reality is that I’ve never put an ask to the Prime Minister, Chancellor or a Secretary of State that has been turned down. Because of that quiet shuttle politics. So far, I’ve never needed to pick a fight.

This election has brought something to the fore though. Like many people, I see some of the rhetoric coming from the sidelines. It can be loud, divisive and designed to get a reaction. And it feels like people are picking fights for the sake of it.

Part of me is wary of even repeating some of the rhetoric because giving it airtime risks giving it more weight than it deserves. But there’s a bigger concern, because what looks like noise from the outside can become something very real if it’s handed power.

It’s one thing to throw soundbites out from the sidelines. It’s another to sit in a council chamber, or a committee room and make decisions that affect people’s lives. That’s when words turn into consequences. The decisions we have to make are sometimes very difficult, and you have to defend those difficult decisions in the face of a public backlash - because you know deep down it’s the right thing to do.

I do not agree with a politics that pits our communities against each other. That tells one group their problems are caused by another. That divides neighbour from neighbour and chips away at the sense that we’re all in this together.

That kind of approach doesn’t solve our problems. It makes them much worse.

It’s not that I just disagree with that kind of politics, I actively despise it.

Because once you start governing like that, those instincts don’t disappear. They show up in decisions and in priorities. It defines who gets listened to and who doesn’t - and which communities are supported and which are left behind.

That’s how power gets used to deepen divisions, not fix them. And fundamentally it is a risk to our democracy.

We’ve got enough challenges here as it is. The West Midlands needs leadership that brings people together and focuses on delivery, not rhetoric that pulls people apart.

Politics will always have noise. Big promises. Eye-catching announcements. People telling you they can fix everything quickly and easily.

It’s worth asking a few simple questions. How and when will that actually be delivered? What choices sit behind it? What gets cut to make it happen?

Because every decision has trade-offs. Every promise has a cost and a timescale. And the people making those decisions need to understand that.

Doing the work - together

The future of our towns and cities depends on serious leadership. People who are willing to do the hard work, make the difficult calls and stay focused on what actually improves people’s lives. Not be batted around by the latest culture war or social media moment. Change can only be delivered with a relentless focus. That means backing me on social housing. Building up our young people’s skills. Bringing in the investment we need. And protecting the public services people rely on every day.

It also means working with others, even when it’s not easy. We don’t need more shouting. We need more doing.

There are a lot of voices in politics right now. Some louder - and occasionally more toxic - than others.

But there are also councillors and leaders across our region who take this responsibility seriously. People who turn up, do the work and focus on delivery - at a regional, authority and ward level.

They don’t always make the most noise. But they’re the ones who keep things running.

And you would, of course, expect me to say that the very best councillors are Labour. And it is easier for me to work with Labour partners because our politics is shared - no doubt.

In fact, I wouldn’t have managed to get as much government support and funding if I wasn’t working with a Labour Government. And I do know from experience that when it’s a Labour Council, with a Labour Mayor and a Labour Government - it’s really easy to get things done, because we’re all pulling in the same direction.

I support unity over division. I want stability, not chaos.

As you think about your vote, it’s worth looking beyond what people say - and thinking carefully about what they’ll actually do. Because that’s what makes the difference in the end.

And it always has.

Richard

Avoiding the soundbites and slogans - I’d like to properly explain what we’re doing and why, in a bit more detail.

A lot of politics ends up squeezed into a few seconds on TV or a short clip online. I understand why - attention spans, headlines, all that. But it doesn’t leave much room to explain the actual choices behind the decisions.

And most of the decisions really aren’t simple.

If we’re serious about change, we should be just as serious about explaining it. What we’re doing. How it’s paid for. And what it means in real terms.

Why this space matters

I believe that local journalism really does matter because it holds people like me to account, and it keeps things grounded.

But we can’t ignore the fact that newsrooms have had a tough time over the years. Fewer people, less time, more to cover. So the detail sometimes gets lost.

At the same time, a lot of the national coverage is focused on Westminster - or it frames everything as a north versus south argument.

That’s not how life feels here. And it’s not how decisions get made in Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull or Walsall.

Why I’m doing this

So this is my attempt to fill a bit of that gap.

I’ll write honestly about what’s going on - locally and nationally - and why we take the decisions we do. Particularly, why I’m making the decisions I am. Sometimes, that means talking about trade-offs. Sometimes it means admitting things take longer than any of us would like (often including me).

I’ll also focus on what we’re actually delivering.

• We’re investing in the creative sector - what does that look like in practice?

• We’re focussing on building more social homes - why and how is it funded?

• We’re retrofitting homes - how does it work on the ground?

• We’re bringing buses back under public control - what happens next?

I want to make those things clearer. Because if you’re anything like me, you’ve probably read a government announcement before and thought, “That sounds good… but what does it actually mean?” or “How much will that cost?”

You’ll also hear about the work behind the scenes - our taskforces, plans, the people involved. And where I can, I’ll share stories from across the region, not just my own take.

This is a conversation

You won’t agree with everything I say. That would be a bit odd, to be honest.

But at least you’ll hear it directly from me, in full, with the reasoning behind it. And hopefully understand the choices we’re making.

This won’t be daily. I know inboxes are busy enough already. Just occasional posts when there’s something worth explaining.

Opening things up

Politics should feel a bit closer to everyday life than it often does. I’ve always been much more of a doer than a talker - and you may say that my role as a politician requires me to shout a bit more.

But this will hopefully help.

More open. More straightforward. A bit easier to follow.

That’s what I’m aiming for here.

And if there’s something you want me to cover, let me know.

Richard