Andy Burnham’s launch speech in Manchester raised hopes of a sustained plan to devolve power away from Whitehall.  If the reality matches the rhetoric, that will be a massive achievement and will greatly improve our system of governance.

But any Liberal Democrat who has been battling for decades for genuine local, community-based decision making and against the infantilisation of local government is entitled to some scepticism.  My own formative experience is somewhat different: serving in the Coalition Cabinet which first launched the idea of devolving powers to elected mayors for city-regions broadly on the London model (prompted by a report for the Coalition by Michael Heseltine) ; and having earlier served as a  – then, Labour – City Councillor in Glasgow) in the early 1970’s, before Scottish devolution, and when councils had serious powers (inter alia, we could appoint head teachers, build council houses and set the rents).

The fundamental idea that decisions by public. authorities should be made as close as possible to local communities – subsidiarity- is not in dispute. As a leading force in local government- and, at times, the leading force, Liberal Democrats have sought to apply that principle and have often tried to devolve further to lower, ward, levels.   But they have been swimming against the tide of gradual centralisation as successive governments have stripped away local powers in the interests of a national ideology or of financial control. As a result, we are highly centralised (and especially so in England after substantial devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).

Devolution of power is not the same thing as decentralisation or relocation. Various governments have despatched government departments to the provinces to be administered locally. Under the Boris Johnson administration, Darlington became a northern outpost of government. Andy Burnham envisages some Cabinet Office activities being based in Manchester. In the day, I recall advocating the relocation of the Treasury to Liverpool as a means of shifting thinking regionally. But none of these approaches empower people in towns and cities outside London.

There is an important distinction between devolution of power to spend central government tax revenue on local priorities and fiscal autonomy with responsibility for local revenue raising. British devolution is largely the former albeit with very limited (income) tax raising powers for the Scottish and Welsh governments. There is nothing like the revenue raising responsibility of Danish local government or German Lander, let alone US states and, so far, city mayors have none. Arguably, city mayors have become popular- or at least unobjectionable – precisely because they can spend without having to tax, though spending discretion is better than none. 

Nothing Andy Burnham has said, so far, suggests a serious willingness to shift major tax raising responsibility to Mayors and other devolved bodies. By contrast, councils carry the odium of raising an unpopular local -council – tax within government approved limits while being required to pay for statuary duties such as social care or educational special needs even if it is at the expense of popular local services like parks, libraries and leisure centres or social housing or environmental improvements. Andy Burnham has hinted at necessary reform of the council tax system through proportionate banding, but the commitment is vague. And there is little to suggest a re-empowerment of local government.

But let me be more generous and imagine that Manchesterism is just the first step towards something big in devolution: more freedoms for elected mayors and for councils to spend and raise revenue; less power for Whitehall to impose policies and priorities. Would that help to revive the economy and raise overall living standards and public satisfaction as Andy Burnham believes? Quite possibly, but not necessarily. If a powerful tier of devolved government is built up at the expense of local government it may have the opposite effect, producing a different form of centralisation. Arguably, Scotland faces this problem.

More devolution may also be at the cost of more ‘postcode lotteries’; indeed, it is the point of devolution to allow more variety and experiment. Successful city regions may produce dynamic city centres at the expense of surrounding small towns and suburbs. Devolved government may produce worse outcomes by pursuing wrong-headed policies. Critics of the Nationalist government in Scotland argue that experimentation with a new school curriculum may have damaged school performance – at least as measured in declining PISA scores.

The success of Manchesterism depends in part on the public having a sense of identity with devolved government. One of Burnham’s achievements has been to create consensus as between the combined authorities of Greater Manchester who do not dispute the leadership of Manchester. London is London, and, despite some grumbling in the suburbs, its identity is not in doubt. Scotland is an even clearer case of identity based on historic boundaries, law and custom. Birmingham has assumed leadership of a West Midlands authority with a high profile and respected first mayor, Andy Street. Liverpool too. There is less obvious cohesion in the Northeast, subject to endless squabbling between authorities, or in the East Midlands as between Nottingham and Derby, or in an amorphous area like the West of England. Identity at a lower level of unitary local authorities is clear in some cases – Cornwall for example – but is currently being brought into doubt by English local government reorganisation, which is creating bigger units of local government and, in some areas – Hampshire for example – bitter disagreements over seemingly arbitrary borders. 

Furthermore, there are areas of policy where decentralised decision making may undermine wider objectives. The government has an industrial strategy; but what if devolved governments compete when a clustering or concentration of innovation initiatives may be much more effective? There are suggestions that skill training should be devolved; but different standards and qualifications could undermine mobility. The government has – rightly – set ambitious national objectives for council housing but council housing is a council matter, and it is not clear how councils will gear up for a major building programme, most of them having disbanded direct labour departments. Nor will councils necessarily deliver good outcomes. I have vivid memories of voting for massive council housing some of which- like the Red Road multi-storey flats – was so bad it had to be demolished.

None of these questions should stand in the way of a badly needed devolution of decision making but they underline the complexity of the problem and the fragility of the Burnham promise that everyone will be better off as a result. Liberal Democrats with experience of serious devolution need to be heard.

* Sir Vince Cable is the former MP for Twickenham and was leader of the Liberal Democrats from 2017 until 2019. He also served in the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills from 2010 to 2015.