More power but less local? The paradox of England’s new devolution agenda
In some parts of the country, English devolution is about to become a teenager. The Northern Powerhouse was announced in 2014, and the first raft devolution deals were signed in 2015. Like any teenager, the established Mayoral Combined Authorities are starting to know their own minds, and the Mayors – some of whom are nearing 10 years in office – are increasingly using the powers available to them to forge their own agendas on transport and economic development. Such is the success in some parts, that Manchester is now the fastest growing city in the UK economy.
Upon taking office in 2024, it became clear that whilst the incoming Labour Government wanted to drop some of the rhetorical flourishes of the previous governments (e.g. all ‘Levelling Up’ branding), the fundamentals of the English devolution agenda would remain in place. It was an implicit indication that the fundamentals of city-regional devolution were good and worth keeping. It also meant that, for the first time in decades, an incoming government would not seek to rebuild English local government in its own image.
This did not, however, mean that English local government wouldn’t be subject to a fresh round of reform. Through the auspices of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, a new raft of Strategic Mayoral Authorities would be created – each sweeping away County Council and district structures and replacing it with a unified single tier of mayoral government. In other words, the teenage City-Regional Combined Authorities are soon to be getting some new baby brothers and sisters.
As these new areas get to grips with their new powers, and get ready for Mayoral elections slated in many areas for 2027 there are two big questions we can pose of this new phase of English devolution: What does ‘devolution’ look and feel like for those places, and what are the prospects and challenges for success?
More or Less Local Control?
The headline of this new expansion of Mayoral governance in England is the abolition of the County and District structures which have (largely) remained unchanged for more than 50 years. Yet, this immediately lays bare the fundamental ironies of this new brand of devolution.
At its heart, devolution is commonly understood as the transfer of power from the centre (i.e. Westminster) to the local. In the broadest sense this is the case. Not only will there be direct electoral accountability in the form of a new Mayor, but these new Mayors and their Combined Authorities will also be able to unlock more powers which have been previously unavailable to them. This includes powers to designate Spatial Development Strategies which afford greater control over housing allocations, as well as broader powers to control transport and economic development.
So far, so good. But the trade-off for this, is a sweeping reorganisation that will get rid of district councils, along with hundreds of local councillors. Therefore, residents might be forgiven for asking if they are getting more democratic representation in the form of a directly-elected mayor, or less representation through the loss of their district councillors. In the case of the latter, district councillors can often be very fine-grained and provide a real and incredibly local points of contact. Therefore, over the next few years, there will be a real need for social science analysis to explore how both the new Mayoral Authorities and, more importantly, residents deal with this fundamental shift in how local democracy works for them.
What does this mean for policymaking?
As hinted at before, the incoming Mayors will be able to bring more tools to bear on their areas than their county or district predecessors will have had available. However, in doing so it is worth noting that quite often the devolution deals reached between local and national government are very heavily dependent on the ability to ‘negotiate’ powers away the state. This, in turn, is very heavily premised on trust and track record – perhaps best evidenced by the expansive deal Greater Manchester signed which included things like health powers, and deepening of powers available to Greater Manchester and Liverpool city region to take on things like bus franchising.
However, broader evidence suggests that there has consistently been quite a great deal of uniformity in the devolution deals that have been struck with government over the years – quite often in itself revealing a reluctance to release powers wholesale, and a distinct lack of ‘local’ flavour. There is also evidence which suggests that the release of powers comes baggage with central targets.
Nevertheless, amidst the ‘basic package’ of powers there are some very important tools. Perhaps the most important of all is the power to designate Spatial Development Strategies as part of a return to regional spatial planning thinking. These spatial strategies will be important, not least as part of efforts to tackle the ongoing housing crisis. Importantly this will include where housing allocations are made. However, this isn’t an easy process and even Greater Manchester, as the standard bearer of devolution, found creating its Spatial Development Strategy to be a bruising process.
Crucially, as we analyse these new Mayoral Combined Authorities over the coming years, we should rightly be thinking about how they deploy the new tools, and how they work for local people. We should equally be thinking about what ‘success’ looks like, and what our benchmarks are. Greater Manchester is currently a roaring success story, but it also has other factors which cannot realistically be recreated in the Shire Counties, not least its huge agglomeration effect.
Therefore our measures might be different, and we might also look to the success of schemes like Pride in Place which, like the levelling up and Towns Funds before it, have attempted to divert resource into places most at-need for regeneration and focus, and which are inextricably linked with England’s current electoral volatility.
Improving Local Lives?
Combined, devolution and the broader localism agendas which preceded it are framed about giving more control to local people as a means to make their lives better. There are clear suggestions that the first crop of Combined Authorities can succeed on those terms. As our city-regional mayoral teenagers continue to grow into fully-fledged adults, their younger siblings will face the challenge of not wanting to copy them whilst forging an identity in their own right. It is obvious to me that the role of the social sciences remains fundamental in understanding this agenda as it continues to develop and grow.
About the author
Alex Nurse is Reader in Urban Planning in the Department of Geography and Planning, University of Liverpool. His research interests include Devolution, City Governance and the Northern Powerhouse. He has broad areas of interest in how local actors are able to use national policy structures to deliver for their own ambitions, and how local authorities can overcome barriers to policies which are seen as a normative good. Alex co-authored Rescaling Urban Governance: Planning, Localism and Institutional Change.
Photo credit: Joe Cleary on Unsplash