Devolution, for and against: a tale of many cities

Image: The Dickens Museum, by Peter Curbishley via Creative Commons

Image: The Dickens Museum, by Peter Curbishley via Creative Commons

By Rebecca Riley

In his classic quote, Dickens describes a time of great change, and the conditions which were forcing that change: industrial and technological revolution; growth in knowledge and education; oppressed conditions of the working class and lack of hope within a time of great progress. In France this led to revolution, in Britain it led to eras of philanthropy, growth in a new middle class, and extensive governmental and democratic reform within a broader struggle by the establishment to retain power.

Today, we are faced with similar conditions: huge technological change; growing inequality; uneven distribution of power and funds – but the demand for change is coming from the cities and local leadership, not from an oppressed working class. This is creating a resurgence in the call for greater devolution, which has gathered speed since the end of the 20th century. So what are some of the arguments for and against devolution, and what will be the impact?

The ‘for’ argument

Currently Britain has a patchwork of devolved powers, with devolved nations having greater control over local issues. Here local government already makes decisions on local issues and this ensures discussions and decisions are made at the appropriate spatial level. However, unlike other countries such as Canada, this is a combined self- and shared- rule, with central government still able to legislate in the devolved areas (in practice they don’t without the consent of the devolved government). This does, however, lead to one of the greatest arguments for further devolution, as England does not have a similar structure and there is no opportunity for any self-rule. In demographic terms, areas such as Manchester and Wales have similar populations, but Wales has much greater control over its own destiny.

This concentration of effort can streamline the decision making process as decisions are made by the people who know the issues and can implement the solutions. National government is freed up to discuss issues of national importance and the ‘bigger picture’. There is also the potential that decision making at a local level is more effective, because of the greater belief in a common goal by decision makers as they focus on the enhancement of their own local area.

Currently the devolved nations don’t have their own tax raising powers and are still funded via a block grant from central government. Greater powers over taxation could lead to greater competition and ensure money raised in an area is reinvested in that area. However, this could also continue to widen the gap between rich and poor areas.

The ‘against’ argument

One of the arguments against devolution is cost. Devolving decision making from a central system, which has been doing this effectively for a long time, would increase the time taken for decisions and the associated structure changes needed to implement them. And there is a possibility of constitutional instability. What happens if the city or regional government clashes with national government? How does this get resolved? Who do we appeal to? National government?

Current devolution structures are not all the same. Scotland has control over policing, Northern Ireland doesn’t. In Wales some powers are devolved to the assembly not the government, so structures, powers and legislation varies, and therefore the devolved governments are not all equal. This uneven devolved decision making can also lead to a postcode lottery. One of the starkest examples of this is university tuition fees, where a student in England looks at debts in excess of £27k for fees, while Scotland has not introduced them.

Many also see devolution as the start of the break-up of the United Kingdom which would lead to a weakening of the national government, and its position in world politics.

But what do the people want?

The recent Scottish referendum which asked “Should Scotland be an independent country?” returned a no vote with a 10% majority, on an unprecedented 84% turnout. Other referendums on devolution-related topics have fared less well on voter engagement: the Greater London Authority was established with a 72% majority on a 34% turnout; and the last limited devolution referendum in England was in the North East in 2004, where it was rejected, by nearly 80% of voters on a 47% turnout.

The Scottish question was a single issue campaign which people understood and engaged with, unlike the devolution debate in general. This has become enmashed in other policy areas such as health, education and planning, rather than being a single policy debate in its own right.  Generally, there is a lack of discussion with the electorate about what devolution could be trying to achieve:

  • A democratic voice for local areas and the structures needed to do that consistently and fairly;
  • Ensuring decision making is based on knowledge or the needs, requirements and opportunities of the local population;
  • Ability to create competitive local economies, that play to strengths and tackle micro-economic issues;
  • Streamlining government structures and preserving the whole country as an economic power;
  • The need to develop transparent decision making structures, which everyone can engage with;
  • A planning system which ensures strategic decisions are made which support local place development;
  • Ensure access to services, such as education, health and social care meet consistent, national standards but respond to local requirements;
  • Ensure a fair, place-based spending approach, which invests in places without widening the gap between them, and is balanced by social justice.

There are clear arguments for and against devolution, and whereas Dickens popularised political discussion in the nineteenth century by creating a narrative people related to (serialised in ‘cheap’ papers which the growing educated population and new middle classes could access) the majority of the electorate today is not engaged in these discussions. In the run up to the general election, there is a lack of populist narrative about devolution and, as a result, change could be implemented without full democratic participation and an understanding of the impacts.

The Idox Information Service can give you access to a wealth of further information on devolution, democracy and political engagement. To find out more on how to become a member, contact us.

Further Reading:

Manifesto for Local Economies

Devolution: the basics

Devo Met: charting a path ahead

The future of planning and place making

Getting to the heart of devolution in Manchester (new approaches to integrated health and care)

A healthy new direction or a costly gamble? (devolution of health and social care budget to Greater Manchester)

Governing in an ever looser union: how the four governments of the UK co-operate, negotiate and compete

The agenda: devolution (devolution to non-metropolitan areas)

The implications of devolution for England

6 thoughts on “Devolution, for and against: a tale of many cities

  1. Pingback: Metro mayors – what is their worth? | The Knowledge Exchange Blog

  2. Pingback: Supercouncils: questions raised about new powers for England’s combined authorities | Idox iview

  3. Pingback: Supercouncils: questions raised about new powers for England’s combined authorities | The Knowledge Exchange Blog

  4. Pingback: Top down ‘devolution’ or a bold new era for local government? An update on the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill | The Knowledge Exchange Blog

  5. Pingback: Election season nears a close … but what’s the longer-term outlook for democracy? | The Knowledge Exchange Blog

  6. Adding to to your ‘against argument’ are the issues of variable performance standards for public services – when asked, most folk rail against ‘postcode lotteries’ – and business nightmares about managing the complexities of local taxes.

    However, these questions only arise as a result of unimaginative thinking about devolution – assumptions that this is only about tax and spend issues.

    Empowerment is a far more positive way to approach the need for local economic growth and community development. Recent levels of micro-management from Whitehall/Westminster – arguably for the constraint of national debt – have reduced many aspects of local government to mere service delivery agencies for national policy – as referenced in a memorable quote by Michael Heseltine in my essay last year on Municipal Enterprise ( ).

    Even Lord Heseltine’s Local Enterprise Partnerships find themselves ‘competing’ for funds via expensive submissions to central government. If successful they then use the funding to subsidise enterprises rather than co-create new ventures and retain shareholdings to ensure that the dividends of that investment are returned to the public purse. This is massively important in matters of infrastructure (and particularly digital infrastructure) because those investments enable yet further growth.

    So empowerment/freedom to make sensible local investments in local economies and communities should not be confused with governments passing the buck on seriously national issues.


What do you think?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.