Labour’s new devolution plans promise to “transfer power out of Westminster,” but don’t be fooled – this isn’t about empowering communities. Instead of genuine decentralisation, Labour is un-devolving power, stripping it from local councils and concentrating it upwards into the hands of regional “super mayors.” Far from fixing local democracy, this plays into Labour’s increasingly authoritarian approach, where control is centralised under a single figure while local voices are sidelined.
The plans follow the government’s review into local government organisation and devolution, but they take entirely the wrong approach. Labour wants to abolish smaller district councils—the ones closest to residents, who understand local issues like planning, housing, and bin collections—and replace them with vast mega-authorities. Bigger doesn’t mean better. It means more bureaucracy, less accountability, and decisions made further away from the communities they affect.
Labour’s proposal to force these changes through, even when local leaders disagree, is particularly troubling. Giving ministers the power to impose “Strategic Authorities” without consent is not devolution—it’s top-down centralisation dressed up as reform. If Labour truly cared about empowering local areas, they wouldn’t need to threaten to “knock heads together.” This heavy-handed approach is illiberal, undermines local collaboration, and shows Labour doesn’t trust councils to govern themselves.
Then there’s the issue of accountability. Labour’s plans remove consensus by allowing mayors to push decisions through with a simple majority vote. That might seem efficient, but it hands far too much power to one individual. Real democracy relies on collaboration, scrutiny, and pluralism—Labour’s plans do the opposite. They elevate a “strong leader” model that feels closer to autocracy than genuine local empowerment.
The claim that this will “save money” or streamline services doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Past reorganisations have often led to higher costs and disruption, not efficiency. Without real investment, Labour’s plans risk creating unwieldy structures that fail to deliver for residents.
At its heart, this is centralisation by stealth. By un-devolving power upwards, Labour erodes local democracy and weakens the connection between communities and decision-makers. Real devolution should be about trusting local councils, strengthening accountability, and giving communities the tools to shape their own futures—not imposing a one-size-fits-all model from Westminster.
If Labour genuinely wants to “rewire” England, it needs to rethink its approach. This isn’t about empowering residents; it’s about consolidating control. Local democracy deserves better, and so do the communities Labour claims to serve.
* Nick Da Costa is Chair of the Federal Conference Committee
14 Comments
The proposals are a Labour power grab designed to get rid of county councils which are mainly Conservative controlled and replace them with Mayors who the government hope will come from their party.
If introduced it will make parish and town councils even more remote. I really hope Lib Dem MPs raise this and at the same time call for increased powers for these councils. When I have lived in a rural area residents have seen the parish council as the most relevant to them not some district council based many miles away.
We all know that as usual Labour’s sole aim is electoral advantage for the Labour party.
They want to force through
1) An elected dictator (sorry Mayor) – a Labour party hack, but the odd Con will be tolerated,
2) huge councils,
3) with vast wards and
4) less councillors to serve local people.
Oh yes and
5) Have no elections in 2025 because
a) Labour are doing badly and will lose
b) the Cons are doing badly and will lose and
c) those pesky irritating Lib Dems will be on an up with their new MPs so less elections will be just fine for the time being.
Agreed – there is a move to a presidential model, similar to what exists in American states with governors, the difference being that they have elected legislatures.
I don’t even think the London model of a separately elected mayor and assembly is necessary for cities, as German city states like Berlin and Bremen use a parliamentary system with the mayor elected from the assembly different from the ‘minister president’ (first minister or premier) in the other larger regional states.
The proposed North East England Assembly in 2004 would have been just that, with the executive drawn from it, and just because that was rejected, doesn’t mean we should be lumbered with something even worse.
Correction: with the mayor elected from the assembly no different from the ‘minister president’ (first minister or premier) in the other larger regional states.
I don’t agree with the writer, and I broadly support Labour’s proposals.
Having two tiers of local government is fundamentally inefficient. It is right to ensure that local authorities cover a large enough number of people to have critical mass, and I read (I think in the FT) that the goal is that all local authorities should cover at least about 500,000 people.
I also support greater powers for elected Mayors. I live 50% of the time in Manchester. Greater Manchester is clearly one economic region, and I support the movement of power from the councils of the 10 metropolitan mayors to the elected Mayor of Greater Manchester.
The reason why nothing works in Britain is that we make it too easy for objectors to stop things happening. If the economy is to be revitalised, which I consider essential, we need mayors with strong powers in each of our major cities.
Otherwise leaving formal powers with multiple local councils in practice means actual effective power rests with the central government, which is the opposit of what the writer says he wants.
Mohammed, I think we do need two tiers in the form of Combined Authorities who make the strategic decisions, lobby central government on issues affecting their area including finance and coordinate the teams of experts and backroom supportive people (such as legal advisers, planning advisers etc.) These latter people would assist the district councils in their work. The Combined Authorities would vary in size according to each area; it makes sense in Manchester to have a large one, but other areas need smaller ones. Different parts of the country need different solutions and the precise form of the new arrangements should be with local consultation not a top-down approach, for example some areas will not want an elected Mayor.
Combined authorities would look after strategic issues on matters such as planning, housing and transport and possibly skills and adult education. The district councils would work with them but have powers over the detail and over matters such as bin collections, social care and administration of benefits and provision of community facilities. The combined authorities could provide cooperation and efficient operation of these services according to the wishes of people in the district councils.
“Different parts of the country need different solutions and the precise form of the new arrangements should be with local consultation not a top-down approach, for example some areas will not want an elected Mayor.”
Seconded wholeheartedly. The benefit of small area local authorities is the much better chance of the authority (staff and elected representatives) being in touch with local communities and understanding their needs.
Some government functions lend themselves to larger authorities e.g. some aspects of transport (not necessarily all local bus services).
Labour’s proposals seem an authoritarian approach to solving problems – why am I not surprised?
Regarding planning decisions – Angela Rayner would benefit from doing a lot more listening and a lot less dictating. Sometimes a local community may have very good reasons for objecting to a planning proposal such as lack of local services. If Angela asked them then there might be a better chance of the right sort of housing being built where it is needed.
These plans of Labour’s are rubbish.
One point, who will scrutinise these Mayors?
At least London has an assembly to do just this, but nowhere else will.
One of the most worrying things is there is absolutely NO mention of Social Care the costs of which is currently crippling County Councils and Unitary Authorities. As a District and Town Cllr and hopefully a Candidate for County next May, we need to see purely local services eg Parks, Street Cleaning, Bus Shelters, Public Conveniences devolved to Town and some Parish Councils. This is a centralising Labour “ power grab” from a deeply centralising, undemocratic, out of touch Government!
This has happened in Northamptonshire as the Conservatives led the County inti bankruptcy. It is a poorer more distant pair of Authorities with accountability a distant memory
Fight this proposal with everything you have in your power.
Give us back our Pokice Auhority whilst you are at it
The words are fine about Labour’s proposals the devil is in the detail. This is much more about sucking up powers from District Councils and County Councils. It will also get rid of hundreds of hard working Lib Dem councillors and further reduce the number of councillors to population.
Also do not fall for the trap of how well it all works in Greater Manchester the reality is sightly different ask any LD Cllr in GM. There is no accountability with the Mayor. There is a long tradition of some joint working in GM and the 10 authorities are about the same size that is why it works and had done long before the Mayor came along.
Cash and powers make the changes possible, so transport is better than the de-regulated model we have before but it is having much more cash spent on it so it should be better and better co-ordinated.
Can colleagues please remember who the enemy is and do not start throwing rocks at each other as we hopefully come to a local collective view of what is best for the communities we serve locally.
As seems to be the case throughout the new Labour government very little seems to have been thought through, or if it has, it is solely from a narrow Labour metropolitan viewpoint. I understand that the minister seems completely unaware that some towns are unparished, so will have no representative local democracy if these plans go through.
There is a massive opportunity to reform local government – and Paul Tyler and Nick Harvey have written plenty on this subject – but there are many local complexities and issues and one size almost certainly does not fit all. The case for a constitutional convention is surely compelling, and it should include voting reform too.
@Ken Westmoreland
Agreed. The London Assembly is a Scrutiny Committee on steroids and needs a 2/3 majority to reject the Mayor’s budget, so has little control over what the Mayor does. We saw this in the expansion of ULEZ, when two years’ notice was given for the extension to the North and South Circular Roads, and then it was delayed for a further 9 months, while the extension to the Greater London boundary was rushed through in months with an inadequate scrappage scheme.
@Mohammed Amin
If you really believe that local councils need to represent populations of 500,000 or more, then you would presumably also argue for merging London Boroughs as half of them have populations of 275,000 or fewer (2023 figures) and the largest (Croydon) has fewer than 400,000.
Will the elected english mayors eventually come together to form an english parliament? I doubt it though if it was comprehensive and inclusive, it would have as much legitimacy as the current arrangement. It is important that whatever form english devolution takes that it allows all areas to access the same powers if they wish to.