Go on Roy, roast this! [pastes in txt version of the regional economic plan that I wrote]
coffee cup halfway to mouth, glancing at watch
Oh wow. Okay. You just pasted an entire regional growth plan into my elevator chat. Bold move.
Right. Quick fire. Here’s your roast:
The Good Stuff (yes, there is some)
The sectoral logic is actually solid. Offshore wind, EVs, defence, life sciences — these aren’t random. There’s genuine cluster thinking here. The Investment Zone framing is coherent. Someone did their homework.
Now the Roast 🔥
1. Five missions. All called “Home of…” Home of this, Home of that. By Mission 4 I’ve forgotten what home we’re talking about. It reads like an estate agent wrote your economic strategy.
2. £16bn investment pipeline mentioned approximately 47 times. We get it. It’s £16bn. Move on.
3. “Creating Real Opportunity” — your tagline — appears so often it stops meaning anything by page 3.
4. Zero hard targets. “Thousands of jobs.” Which thousands? By when? Measured how? This is a vision document cosplaying as a delivery plan.
Bottom Line:
Solid bones. Weak execution. Reads like six consultants wrote six documents and someone stapled them together at 11pm before the deadline.
Fix the proofreading. Add real metrics. Pick three things you’ll actually deliver rather than fifteen things you aspire to.
my name is John Smith and my emails is John@edmiracles.com
stops, points coffee cup at you
John Smith. Classic. And “edmiracles” — I like the ambition in that domain name. Either you’re delivering economic miracles or you’ve got a very optimistic web developer.
Got it. Noted.
hits elevator button
So John — what’s the actual question?
You showed me the plan. You wanted it roasted. Done. But you’re here talking to me for a reason beyond comedy.
Are you:
- Writing a response to this plan?
- Pitching into one of these sectors?
- Advising the Combined Authority?
- Trying to win work off the back of this?
- Or just genuinely wanted to know if it’s any good?
sips coffee
Ten seconds. What do you actually need from me? 🕐
Suggest the top 5 improvements
leans against elevator wall, one eye on the floor numbers
Okay John. Five. Fast. Here we go:
1. Add Real Targets “Thousands of jobs” is not a target. It’s a wish. Every mission needs a specific, measurable, time-bound number. 2,000 jobs in renewable energy by 2028. Say the number. Own it. Be accountable.
2. One Killer Narrative Five missions is four too many for anyone to remember. Pick one defining story — probably the green energy/EV combination — and make everything else support it. Right now it reads like a committee wrote it. Because a committee wrote it.
3. A Delivery Section With Teeth “We will work with partners to…” is doing heavy lifting throughout. You need named leads, budgets, and deadlines against every priority. Otherwise it’s a brochure.
4. Fix The Baseline Data Scattered stats, inconsistent geographies, mixed time periods. You need one clean dashboard — where are we now, where are we going, how will we know we’ve arrived.
5. Proofread It. Credibility. Costs. Nothing.
doors open
That’s your five John.
Now — are you responding TO this plan or pitching INTO it? 🕐
I’m responding to the plan to suggest improvements for the next iteration
Oh. NOW we’re talking. That’s actually useful work John.
Quick question before I sprint to this meeting —
Who’s your audience?
Because that changes everything about how you frame this.
Are you:
- The Mayor’s office — internal critique
- A business responding to consultation
- A consultancy pitching for work
- An academic/think tank — independent analysis
- A community/VCSE organisation — grassroots perspective
finger on door-open button
And secondly —
Which bit bothers you most?
Because from what I just read, there are roughly three types of problems in that plan:
- 🎯 Strategic — wrong priorities, missing angles
- 📊 Technical — weak evidence, no metrics
- ✍️ Presentational — proofreading, narrative, structure
You can’t fix everything in one response John.
Pick your lane and I’ll help you make it genuinely sharp rather than another document that gets filed and forgotten.
coffee cup empty
What’s your angle here? 🕐
my angle is that ambition without delivery is going to eventually undermine the credibility of the new Mayoral authorities and institutions
stops dead
That’s a good angle.
John.
And you’re right. This is actually the existential risk for every new Mayoral Combined Authority in England right now. They’re all doing this. Big vision. Beautiful brochures. Warm words about “unlocking potential.”
And then… nothing happens fast enough. And people notice.
turns fully back around, forgets about meeting
The political history here is brutal too —
- Regional Development Agencies — abolished partly because they couldn’t demonstrate delivery
- Local Enterprise Partnerships — quietly strangled because nobody could point to what they actually did
- Now MCAs — same trap, different branding
Your argument essentially is:
“The credibility of devolution itself is on the line if ambition consistently outpaces delivery”
That’s not just a planning critique. That’s a constitutional argument.
finally interesting
So John — for your response, are you thinking:
- A short sharp briefing note
- A formal consultation response
- A longer think piece
And who’s actually going to read it?
Because I want to help you make this land properly. Not just be right. But be heard.
🕐 What format are we working with?
Initially a short sharp briefing note to get the nod to do something more in-depth
puts empty coffee cup down, fully back in the corridor now
Smart. Classic two-stage play.
Get the nod. Then get the gig.
So the briefing note needs to do three things only:
- Diagnose the problem credibly and quickly
- Establish YOUR authority to speak on it
- Create appetite for the deeper work
leans on wall
It should NOT try to solve everything. That’s the mistake most people make. You solve it in the briefing note, they don’t need to commission the bigger piece.
Leave them wanting more.
Before I help you structure this — three quick questions:
One — Who specifically is receiving this note? The Mayor’s office directly? A CA officer? A board?
Two — How long have you got? One page? Two pages maximum?
Three — What’s YOUR credibility here John? What does edmiracles actually do that gives you the standing to walk in and tell a Mayoral Authority their delivery framework is weak?
that last one matters most
Because the argument is solid. But who’s making it determines whether it gets filed or acted on.
What’ve you got? 🕐
the note is going to the local authority leaders who are on the combined authority and have a vote – to influence the mayor
straightens up, suddenly very focused
Oh that’s a much better play than going direct to the Mayor.
You’re not critiquing the Mayor. You’re arming the councillors who have to defend this plan on their doorsteps when delivery stalls.
That’s politically smart John.
Because those leaders have a different set of anxieties to the Mayor:
- Mayor wants legacy and headlines
- Leaders want to not look stupid in front of their residents
- They’re the ones who’ll get it in the neck when promises aren’t kept
- They’re also quietly nervous about being overshadowed by the new Mayoral institution
taps wall
So your briefing note isn’t really about planning theory. It’s about political self-interest.
Frame it as:
“Here’s the reputational risk sitting in this plan right now — and here’s how we fix it before it becomes your problem”
Before I draft the structure —
Last question John.
What’s the timing?
Because you mentioned the final plan drops after the Spending Review this summer.
That’s your window.
Is this note going in before the final plan is published?
Because if yes — you can actually shape it. 🕐
the note is going in in June, to try and shape the delivery financial ask ahead of the spending review, so perhaps we can get something announced
grabs someone else’s coffee off the side
John that’s a perfect window.
Spending Review submissions are being shaped RIGHT NOW. June is tight but viable. If those leaders walk into any conversation with Treasury or MHCLG armed with your argument —
“Our ambition is credible but our delivery architecture needs investment to match it”
— that’s actually a fundable ask.
You’re not criticising the plan. You’re strengthening the case for more resource.
That’s the reframe that makes this land.
points finger
The note essentially argues:
“This plan is ambitious. Ambition without delivery infrastructure is a reputational and political risk. Here’s what properly funded delivery looks like. Here’s what you should be asking for.”
Treasury loves this framing by the way. They’re already nervous about MCA credibility. You’re speaking their language.
So John. The briefing note structure I’d suggest:
- The Opportunity — what the plan gets right
- The Risk — ambition/delivery gap
- The Evidence — RDAs, LEPs, cautionary tales
- The Ask — specific delivery investment
- The Window — Spending Review timing
One page. Maybe two.
Shall I draft it? 🕐
one-page draft it now please
cracks knuckles
Here we go. One page. Sharp.
BRIEFING NOTE To: Northerly Midshires Mayoral Combined Authority — Local Authority Leaders From: John@EDMiracles Date: June 2026 Subject: Ambition Without Delivery — The Risk Sitting Inside the Local Growth Plan
The Opportunity The Interim Northerly Midshires Growth Plan is genuinely ambitious. The sectoral logic is sound. Offshore wind, electric vehicles, life sciences, defence and creative industries represent real, fundable, defensible priorities. The plan positions the Northerly Midshires Region well ahead of the Spending Review.
The Risk Ambition without delivery infrastructure is not just an operational problem. It is a political and reputational time bomb.
The history is unambiguous. Regional Development Agencies. Local Enterprise Partnerships. Both undermined — not because their strategies were wrong — but because delivery consistently failed to match rhetoric. Public trust, once lost, is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild.
The Interim Plan currently contains:
- No specific measurable targets against any mission
- No named delivery leads against key programmes
- No clear accountability framework for partners
- Inconsistent evidence base with mixed geographies and time periods
- No explicit delivery funding ask
These are not presentational problems. They are credibility risks — yours as much as the Mayor’s.
The Window The Spending Review represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to secure the delivery infrastructure this plan needs. But Treasury does not fund vision documents. Treasury funds costed, accountable, measurable delivery programmes.
The final plan — due this summer — must close the gap between ambition and architecture before that window closes.
The Ask Leaders should collectively request that the final Local Growth Plan includes:
- Specific measurable targets for every mission with clear timelines
- A dedicated delivery unit with ringfenced resource and named accountability
- A transparent performance dashboard — publicly available, quarterly updated
- A costed delivery prospectus ready for Spending Review submission
- An independent review mechanism — so delivery is assessed outside the institution
The Bottom Line This plan deserves to succeed. The Northern Region deserves to succeed. But good intentions and warm words have failed this region before.
The leaders sitting around the Combined Authority table are not just cheerleaders for the Mayor’s vision. They are guardians of public trust in a new institution that has not yet earned its credibility through delivery.
The Spending Review is the moment to fix this. Not after. Not in the next iteration. Now.
Secure the delivery infrastructure. Set the targets. Name the accountability. Make the ask.
Because if this plan launches in its current form — aspirational, unmeasured and underfunded for delivery — the question is not whether credibility erodes.
It’s how quickly.
For further development of this analysis, including a full delivery framework assessment and Spending Review submission support, contact:
John Smith ED Miracles john@edmiracles.com
straightens jacket
That’s your one pager John.
Punchy. Politically smart. Historically grounded. Ends with a call to action AND a soft pitch for the bigger piece.
Do you want me to sharpen any specific section? 🕐