Labour’s devolution plans: centralisation in disguise

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

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

14 Comments

  • David Warren 17th Dec '24 - 4:16pm

    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.

  • David Evans 17th Dec '24 - 4:26pm

    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.

  • Ken Westmoreland 17th Dec '24 - 5:08pm

    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.

  • Ken Westmoreland 17th Dec '24 - 5:09pm

    Correction: with the mayor elected from the assembly no different from the ‘minister president’ (first minister or premier) in the other larger regional states.

  • Nigel Jones 17th Dec '24 - 8:34pm

    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.

  • Nonconformistradical 17th Dec '24 - 10:35pm

    “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.

  • Cllr Fran Oborski 18th Dec '24 - 9:02am

    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!

  • David Garlick 18th Dec '24 - 9:04am

    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

  • Nigel Quinton 18th Dec '24 - 1:35pm

    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.

  • Laurence Cox 18th Dec '24 - 2:34pm

    @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.

  • Peter Hirst 21st Dec '24 - 5:18pm

    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.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Jack Nicholls
    I would accept the basic thrust of this argument but for one thing - the problematic creed you identify is not liberalism, though I agree it gets mislabelled as...
  • nigel hunter
    If we have to turn away from US protection those 2 aircraft carriers MUST be fully active as an umbrella for all of Europe.The effort to make them fully service...
  • Christopher Haigh
    @SimonR, quite agree with you. China is undemocratic and a massive polluter with its obsession with coal mining. Vince however, seems to be obsessed with tradin...
  • Anthony Acton
    Thank you Vince Cable for this. The Brexit debate was always about a strategic choice between Europe and the USA. We chose USA. What a disaster. Only the LDs h...
  • Thelma Davies
    Theakes; 'We're in the south to help and protect the Afghan people to reconstruct their economy and democracy. We would be perfectly happy to leave again in t...