The government’s White Paper on devolution within England proposes unitary local authorities with a minimum population of 500,000, as discussed in part one of this article. The other significant structural proposal is for Mayoral Strategic Authorities (or Combined Authorities) to be rolled out across all of England over time. The Paper suggests a minimum population of 1.5 million for MSAs where practicable.
This proposal is a dog’s dinner at many levels. Where to begin? Nationally, we will continue to see Greater London as a single authority of nearly 10 million people whilst most of non-metropolitan England will likely see a multitude of smaller MSAs, perpetuating the imbalance set about by the abandonment of regionalisation plans in 2004, a few years after the creation of the Greater London Authority.
Labour and Conservatives aren’t interested in decentralisation, only faux-devolution and obfuscation of accountability. Mayors will operate on tax precepts that are miniscule compared to their grants from Westminster. The White Paper is full of nonsense jargon such as “Integrated Settlements”, “local growth allocations” and “consolidated funding pots”. This is not a recipe for good democratic government.
Liberal Democrat policy, on the other hand, is empowering, rational, far-reaching and forward-looking. We call for powerful regions with parliamentary government: proper, pluralistic democracy with full accountability. Legislative decentralisation will be accompanied by fiscal decentralisation: taxation will move away from Westminster and directly to the regions. That is real devolution.
Our call for regionalisation of England is tied to our policy for a federal UK because the two issues are somewhat interdependent. Similarly, the structure of local government is tied somewhat to the nature of the regions or sub-regions that contain them. Both large-scale regional government and unitary local councils are good ideas in their own right, but only if done properly. Sadly, the current government are implementing neither well.
If unitaries are foisted upon us with a target population of 500,000, many MSAs may end up comprising only three or four such unitaries in an effort by local councils to cobble together regions via the path of least resistance. Given that the boards of Combined Authorities typically comprise the leaders of the constituent councils and co-opted members such the Police & Crime Commissioner, just ask yourself whether Labour thought for even a minute about the absurd granularity they propose. Compare that to the more sensible structure of Greater London with its 32 boroughs and an elected assembly (albeit on the small side).
Having been directly involved in shaping party policy on regional government, I fear I must make further criticism of the Liberal Democrat responses to government policy. Take Oxfordshire, where Liberal Democrat MPs wrote to Angela Rayner to ask for a Combined Authority for Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire (BOB), alongside their call for a single unitary for Oxfordshire. The BOB proposal primarily focuses on the authority being coterminous with the Integrated Care Partnership for the three counties. Yes, this is a significant factor, but I am puzzled by this rather singular focus. What’s more, some Liberal Democrats in Berks and Bucks have expressed surprise at the lack of consultation, as the BOB concept is apparently not widely supported by all three county groups.
Having poor communication between our local parties detracts from the real fight against the centralising and undemocratic tendencies of other parties. Further to that, I would like to see Liberal Democrats espousing our policies in a forthright, co-ordinated fashion. Yes, in terms of devolution, it is true that what is on offer is not what we would want. There is little choice but to ask for the best solution within the framework available, whether that is a BOB region, a wider one or a smaller one.
But surely Liberal Democrats writing to Ministers should take the opportunity to point out that proper, powerful, democratic regional government is the way forwards, and a structure that produces balanced regional powers across the country? Why do we have party policies if they are not defended? Whilst remaining positive and engaged, we should avoid appearing to endorse wholeheartedly a centralising approach, for our policies have localism, empowerment and rational structures at their core.
* Michael has had a role in forming party policy on the UK constitution and regional government, and has been an English Council representative for the East of England
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Sparrows Can't Sing Q&A with Barbara Windsor and Murray Melvin
A bargain at 23 guineas?
20C night
Lessons from 1936 and 2026 for the Liberal Democrats (LDN#211)
Richard Flowers
George Thomas
Tristan Ward
Chloe
GWYN WILLIAMS
3 Comments
We complain as a Party that Labour under Keir Starmer is not being bold or radical enough to implement the ‘Change’ it promised in the run-up to the election. Always afraid of frightening the horses, it may have some sense of direction but no intended or agreed destination. Mayoral Strategic Authorities (MSAs) are half-way to Regional Government, which would embrace all areas of the UK equally, unlike the piece-meal approach that is currently being adopted.
As Liberals we need an overall vision of how our policies fit together for the common good. Decentralisation and devolution to regional government with a strong network of local government closer to their communities should be an essential part of enhancing our democracy. It faded out following the referendum in the NE, because it was seen as an expensive additional tier of government that didn’t offer any specified benefit ; like the possibility of rejoining the EU faded out after our disastrous 2019 general election.
Our Conferences have approved many worthwhile policies that would offer benefits to the general public, but they need an emotive justification rather than a rational one.
How would it make them better off, socially and financially? Reform UK appeals to people’s frustration with the two main parties, who think that siding with their right-wing views will somehow restore their popularity!
While appreciating the improvements that regionalism would bring to devolution in England, it is important that our policies do not diverge too far from reality. We run the danger of seeming irrelevant with nothing useful to say on an important subject if we stick wholeheartedly to our present position. Shouldn’t we also engage on how mayoral combined authorities can be improved by for instance more accountability and combined with enhanced town and parish councils?
I must admit, it is a severe disappointment to me that there has been so little engagement with this article. It is as if we think that the continued destruction of local government structures, structures that have been the political bedrock that Lib Dems have built their success on over decades, are or no importance whatsoever.
What we have is an authoritarian, power hungry government, taking the mantle from a corrupt, incompetent and self-serving predecessor, and are once again dressing up centralising, party political benefit as devolution.
The sole purpose of Angela Rayner’s proposals is to establish one man or one woman power bases (for party toadies can be or either sex these days) selected by party head office and then voted on by FTTP in huge constituencies, where only big parties with huge resources can compete to get their elected mayor or tyrant. A person who will then set up a personal bureaucracy made up of party loyalists at a cost of over one million pounds to keep them loyal, and in many cases will be unremovable other than by the party hierarchy or the grim reaper.
This person, despite only running a few “strategic services” will become de facto the spokesman/woman for the new combined authority and council leaders, despite running much bigger organisations, will be completely sidelined.
However, we have no party policy to oppose or even just warn against this, and simply leave each local area to do its own thing.