Andy Burnham’s political appeal is easy to understand. At a time when Westminster appears remote, ineffective and disconnected from much of England, his call for devolution speaks directly to a widespread belief that power is too concentrated in London.
Burnham’s argument addresses a genuine problem. Britain is one of the most centralised democracies in the developed world. Decisions affecting communities hundreds of miles from Westminster are routinely made by ministers and civil servants with little understanding of local circumstances. The frustration this creates is entirely justified.
Yet supporters of constitutional reform should be careful not to confuse devolution with democracy.
The question is not whether power should leave Westminster. It should. The question is what happens to that power once it arrives elsewhere.
In “Head North”, Burnham and Steve Rotherham set out a vision of stronger regions, more powerful metro mayors and greater local autonomy. It is an attractive idea because it promises to rebalance the country and revive local decision-making.
The danger is that it may simply replace one concentration of power with another.
Supporters of the current settlement often present metro mayors as a democratic counterweight to Westminster. However, the institutions surrounding those mayors are frequently weak. In many cases, the primary check on mayoral authority comes from Combined Authorities that possess limited democratic legitimacy, attract little public attention and are largely unknown outside political circles.
This should concern people across the political spectrum.
Conservatives who value accountable government should worry about concentrating power in individual political figures. Liberals who value checks and balances should question whether sufficient scrutiny exists. Social democrats who believe in democratic participation should ask whether citizens have meaningful ways to influence decisions between elections.
The issue is not Andy Burnham himself. The issue is the system.
A constitutional settlement should never be designed around the assumption that today’s office-holder is competent and popular. It should be designed on the assumption that tomorrow’s office-holder may not be.
This is why federalism offers a more compelling alternative than the current model of devolution.
Federal systems do more than decentralise power. They divide and balance it. Authority is distributed between different levels of government, each with its own democratic mandate and constitutional protections. The aim is not simply to move power but to prevent its excessive accumulation anywhere.
Britain’s current arrangements often achieve the first objective without achieving the second.
Rather than creating a genuinely federal England, they risk creating powerful regional executives whose authority is only partially constrained by institutions with little public visibility or democratic weight.
A better model already exists within Britain.
In London, the Mayor is scrutinised by the elected London Assembly. While far from perfect, it provides a visible mechanism through which decisions can be challenged, budgets examined and power held to account.
The contrast with many Combined Authorities is striking. Most voters could not name their members, explain how they operate or identify their powers. That is not a criticism of those individuals. It is a criticism of a constitutional structure that lacks democratic visibility and engagement.
If England continues down the path of devolution, scrutiny must evolve alongside executive power.
That means directly elected regional assemblies with meaningful oversight powers and a clear democratic mandate. It means creating institutions that can act as genuine counterweights rather than merely advisory bodies. Most importantly, it means ensuring that regional leaders remain accountable throughout their terms, not just on election day.
Burnham deserves credit for identifying a real weakness in the British state. The debate he has stimulated about regional inequality and constitutional reform is both necessary and overdue.
But constitutional reform should never become a matter of personality. The popularity of a particular politician is not proof that a constitutional arrangement is sound. History repeatedly shows that systems built for trusted individuals are eventually inherited by less trusted ones.
The case for decentralisation remains overwhelming. Britain needs stronger local government, greater regional autonomy and a more balanced distribution of power. But decentralisation alone is not enough.
The real objective should be democratic federalism: a system in which power is dispersed, institutions are balanced and authority is subject to robust scrutiny at every level.
If power is to leave Westminster, it should not simply be handed to new political barons. It should be shared with the people themselves.
* Iain Donaldson is the treasurer of the Rochdale Liberal Democrats.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
After Dark podcast on the R101 airship disaster
After the murder of Ann Widdecombe, we must all be more careful of the language we use in political life
Burnham starts with the low-hanging fruit
Political history points against early general elections
Working 9 to 5
Pawel Urbanski
Jana
Alex Macfie
Jenny Barnes
Rupinder Singh
31 Comments
By Iain Donaldson | Mon 29th June 2026 – 11:08 am…The danger is that it may simply replace one concentration of power with another…
What danger? Westminster/London will remain the major seat of power; devolving more power to those who know ‘local’ issues has long been this party’s policy..
As for, ” It should be designed on the assumption that tomorrow’s office-holder may not be.”
That assumption is the strongest argument FOR devolved power
expats, the issue with concentration of power being that ‘devolution’ to mayors may involve the upward expropriation of powers or budgets from councils to mayors.
Just watched Andy Burnham’s speech.
I hope this is the opening shots in a General Election that may occur in the Autumn.
Here’s a combined response that addresses both comments while reinforcing your federalist argument:
Thanks both. I think you’re actually highlighting different aspects of the same concern.
My argument is not that Westminster would somehow cease to be the dominant centre of power. Britain remains highly centralised, and I agree that decisions should be made closer to the communities they affect. The question is whether devolution is genuinely dispersing power or simply relocating it.
As Matt points out, devolution can sometimes involve powers and budgets moving upwards from local councils to metro mayors rather than directly to local communities. In those circumstances, we are not necessarily decentralising power so much as creating a new layer of executive authority.
That links directly to the point about future office-holders. Constitutional systems should not be designed around the assumption that today’s mayor is competent and popular. They should be designed to withstand the possibility that tomorrow’s mayor is not. The best protection against poor leadership is not simply moving power from one institution to another, but ensuring it is balanced by strong democratic scrutiny and meaningful local representation.
There is also a further problem with England’s current devolution model. The powers enjoyed by metro mayors ultimately exist because Westminster allows them to. A future government with a more centralising outlook could choose to reclaim many of those powers and bring them back to Whitehall. In other words, powers can be devolved, but they can also be repatriated.
That is why I believe the long-term answer is not merely devolution but federalism. A federal settlement would not only decentralise authority but also constitutionally protect it, preventing power from being pulled back to the centre whenever a different government takes office. It would create stronger local autonomy while also ensuring that no individual office-holder, whether in Westminster or a mayoral office, exercises power without effective democratic checks and balances.
The issue, therefore, is not whether power should leave Westminster. It should. The issue is ensuring that once it does, it is genuinely shared, properly scrutinised and protected from being concentrated again, whether at the regional or national level.
Big problem on council housing is that local authorities just do not have the organisational resource or expertise to manage big projects. It calls for a big expansion of housing associations and revenue raising powers for them.
Excellent points Ian. Local Government has been eroded for a long time but is now being replaced by local administration of Government policy at break neck speed.
In our area the last Conservative Government imposed a ‘Combined Authority’ Mayor on Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Now Labour are imposing vast, Unitary Authorities and abolishing all the local Councils.
So local representation and decision making is moved to higher, more remote and much less accountable levels. Whatever it is this is not Devolution.
The new Mayor’s have been dubbed Santa Clause Mayor’s. They receive cash from the Government which must be spent on Government priorities and they hand it out like Santa. Our new Mayor for example is given money that previously went direct to Colleges and Councils and then hands it on to the Colleges and Councils, usually after top slicing it.
A disaster for local democracy which our leaders have been far too accepting of because ‘it’s the only offer in town’. I always thought that the role of the opposition in a democracy was to argue for the better alternatives.
Alex, you are not seriously suggesting that unelected and entirely unaccountable Housing Associations should be given tax raising powers?
Also, can you point me to the evidence of their large scale building projects? Mostly they now manage housing that the last Labour Government (which Burnham was a Minister in) forced Councils to hand over. They even complain that they don’t have the money to buy the so called affordable housing that private developers have to provide as part of their developments.
High time the “Party of Middle England” got out of its comfort zone and looked again at some of Jo Grimond’s ideas on regionalism.
Jana, if Burnham’s speech marks the beginning of a wider national debate, that can only be a good thing. England’s over-centralisation is a genuine problem. However, there is an important distinction between devolution and federalism. Devolution often means relocating power from Westminster to regional institutions, whereas federalism disperses power through multiple democratic layers, bringing decision-making closer to the people and ensuring it is properly balanced and scrutinised.
Paul rightly highlights the risk that Combined Authorities, metro mayors and larger unitary councils can make government feel more remote rather than more local. Simply moving authority from Whitehall to a regional mayor is not the same as empowering communities. Federalism should strengthen local democracy, not just create a new tier of administration.
On housing, Alex is correct that many councils have lost development capacity after decades of financial pressure and restructuring. However, I am not convinced that the answer is simply to expand the role of housing associations, particularly given concerns about accountability and democratic oversight. A more promising long-term approach may be housing co-operatives supported by seedcorn funding, land and technical assistance from local authorities. Unlike large housing associations, co-operatives are owned and governed by their residents, keeping control rooted in local communities. International experience suggests they can provide stable, affordable housing while building long-term community wealth.
Ultimately, the principle is the same in both constitutional reform and housing policy: power should not merely be transferred from one institution to another. It should be dispersed, shared and exercised as close to the people as possible.
Not tax raising but debt raising capability. Anyway my experience is that local councils have no experience of large scale building projects. So whichever way you look at it an organisation has to be built from somewhere. Cut out the seriously from your comment please.
Alex, wasn’t that how the conversion of council estates into housing companies started, with the mistaken idea that debt could be assigned outwith government so the Government debt seemed less than it was? Didn’t that, alongside the sub-prime mess, result in a bit of a financial pickle?
Well, “Shelter” seems to approve of his policy…
Shelter, the housing charity, says Andy Burnham’s call for the biggest council housebuilding programme in the postwar period (see 12.48pm) could “utterly transform” Britain. Sarah Elliott, its chief executive, said:
Andy Burnham is right on the money here. Any government that is serious about fixing life’s foundations must start by delivering a new generation of social rent homes and strengthening the arm of councils to get building.
Council-built social homes once provided a stable basis for millions of people across the country to get on in life and succeed. Politicians have ignored this fact for far too long, while people’s hope dwindled away and our supply of genuinely affordable social rent homes fell through the floor.
Delivering the biggest council housebuilding programme since postwar period has the potential to utterly transform our country and restore the building blocks of people’s lives. To make this vision a reality, the government must set councils up to build by removing unsustainable debt and delivering a big boost to investment.
Reality check:
Governments and civil servants have shown them selves to be poor at contracting and managing complex projects leading to huge waste of money. The contractual and project management expertise at local level is even weaker than in central government. Therefore, the devolution of powers and money needs the strengthening of local civil service (first), otherwise we will end up in an even deeper hole.
“That is why I believe the long-term answer is not merely devolution but federalism”
The USA is has a Federal System of government. We’ve all heard of the US Congress which comprises the Senate and the House of Representatives. I think we might know the name of the President too. Each State has a governor and most States have a two house legislative body.
How much do we know about them? How many governors can we name?
So isn’t a Federal system “merely a devolution” of sorts? How much power is really handed out to the individual states? Who really calls the shots in the USA?
Indeed Iain, Burnham’s proposal of money to elected mayors will be the final nail in the coffin Labour have built to totally undermine the Lib Dems from any chance of being in positions of influence or power in what will soon cease to be “local” government.
Every unitary proposal that destroyed district councils that we didn’t oppose, every combined authority we went along with, and every elected mayor that we pretended we could win, each one an open door for authoritarian centralisers like Labour to destroy almost any chance for real local people (who also have a family and a real life) to ever become councillors.
We have watched the big parties in government steadily destroy the very habitat that has sustained us as a party and a movement for over 50 years – real local councils, with manageable sized wards, where dedicated local councillors can keep down a proper job (i.e. just not a union rep) and still have time to keep in touch with their electorate.
And not the merest inkling in all those years of a Lib Dem policy motion saying
“Local government works. Stop messing with it.”
Over the last five years or so we have taken control of many councils that are effectively bankrupt. Councils with services cut to the bare bones by Conservative administrations, now faced with a financial settlement where a Labour government steals essential finance they need to feed to their voracious free spending urban authorities.
Could this be our last hurrah?
For devolution to have a long-term, the devolved regions have to have an *independent basis of authority*. Independent, that is, of a grant from the government. Without that, a future government and Parliament can simply withdraw power or dissolve the regional authority as soon as they dislike whatever they’re doing.
And that, of course, means getting rid of the bugbear of “parliamentary supremacy.” And that in turn most likely means giving the country a foundational constitution.
Several commenters have highlighted different aspects of the same underlying issue: not whether power should leave Westminster, but how that power is exercised and constrained once it does.
Britain is undoubtedly over-centralised, and Andy Burnham deserves credit for drawing attention to that problem. However, devolution is not necessarily the same thing as democracy. Simply transferring powers to mayors or combined authorities can replace one concentration of power with another, especially where scrutiny is weak and public visibility limited.
This matters whether we are discussing housing, transport or economic development. Local decision-making can often be better than Whitehall decision-making, but it requires strong institutions, professional capacity and effective democratic oversight. Power needs checks and balances wherever it sits.
That is why I believe federalism offers a better long-term solution than devolution alone. The key difference is that federal systems do not merely delegate power from the centre; they divide and protect it. Different levels of government have their own democratic mandates and constitutionally recognised authority, making them less vulnerable to the whims of future governments.
Several contributors have noted that devolved bodies remain dependent on Westminster for powers and funding. That dependency is precisely the weakness. A durable constitutional settlement requires institutions with an independent basis of authority and meaningful mechanisms for accountability.
Constitutional systems should never be designed around the popularity of current office-holders. The goal should be to disperse power, balance institutions and ensure robust scrutiny at every level.
For those who support decentralisation, federalism should be the destination. Devolution is only the first step.
So we have a contrived speech of “motherhood and apple pie” with zero detail, and financial accounting, given to his *lovey-lanyard* wearing “disciples” in a gated secure Manchester zone away from the public, , with strictly no media questions after his speech, and then he is hustled out of a side door to a waiting SUV by his “handlers”.
Seriously ?? You think this is our future?
I would add to David Evans’ valid concerns above. We are facing reverse-devolution via the abolition of our local (firmly Lib Dem controlled) Borough Council. While wait to see what shape and format of Unitary the Government will inflict on us, what is clear is that local residents within any given Division are collectively currently represented by 5 local councillors (1 County and 2X2 Borough Ward). This will likely be reduced to 2 Division councillors, effectively at least doubling the workload and responsibility, reducing the capacity to support and engage with residents, while paying an allowance not nearly enough to live on.
Add in the need to attend daytime meetings, and this effectively rules people out from standing if they have full time jobs and/or young children, unless they are blessed with the most understanding of employers and partners.
What will this do for the diversity of candidates and councillors? It can only further entrench the bias towards the retired, and well-off.
Greater devolution without greater funding is a poisoned chalice and that is what’s being offered in Wales. That and sly digs at the Senedd.
Then it leads to working population moving away, then to reduced population, then to reduced number of MPs and increasing Westminster feeling that this part of the UK can be short-changed.
It’s a gross version of politics. If the Lib Dems want renewal in Wales, this is an opportunity to offer better and far more respect for this nation.
AlexB – Housing Associations already have the power to borrow money against their assets, which are of course not subject to the wholesale Right to Buy (at huge discounts) threats which have denuded Council Housing and made new building a dubious prospect ever since the 1980’s.
Indeed, one reason the Blair/Brown Government tried to force every Council to offload its housing stock was the belief that Housing Associations would ‘sweat their assets’ i.e borrow against their stock and rental (revenue) income in order to pay for more house building. However, they then lamented that HA’s had failed to do so, seeming to be happier as property management companies once they had bloated on transferred Council stock. Thankfully our, then, Liberal Democrat controlled Council refused point blank to submit to Labour’s legal and financial pressure.
Quite a few Councils are now re entering the house building arena, albeit on a fairly small scale so far and usually through utilising private building companies. An expansion of Council House building, ‘if’ Burnham is true to his words, would see genuine Social Housing rather than the more expensive ‘affordable’ housing that is usually on offer these days. Which if done at scale over a few years would bring down the ridiculous Housing Benefit costs Government/Councils have to pay to private landlords and would also see a fall in the private buy to let market that drives up private rental costs and house prices.
I won’t hold my breath but I will keep my fingers crossed.
Lots of valid points, but to hold the London Assembly as a better model rather ignores the fact it has never for example vetoed a Mayors budget. There is scrutiny but no accountability. The place seems awash with unelected deputy Mayors.
The Government policy is a mess – Hampshire County Council, population 1.5m is being carved up into new unitaries too big to be local, to small to have clout. At the same time a combined authority is proposed for Hampshire, Southampton, Portsmouth and Isle of Wight, Population 1.9 m.
At the same time, Wiltshire/Somerset and Dorset population 1.8 million and being advised to have a Combined Authority Mayor, so the population meets the Government 1.5 million minimum, but it has no coterminousity with police and fire authority boundaries so is being delayed by the Government! The Police and Crime Commissioners are being abolished, but what will replace them? Meanwhile, Police Authorities could be merged, who knows? The whole PCC fiasco shows the flaw, in theory accountability, in practice limited powers, manifestos that are usually inaccurate and unread, the public unable to distinguish between between who would do a better job and who wouldn’t.
Yes, there should be a drive to build more council houses, social housing rather than just ‘affordable homes’, but the powers and funding should go to local councils not mayors. David Evans is surely right. Our party now runs so many local councils that the time seems overdue to expand their permissible powers and their funding for them to build and own council houses again for social rent.
Thanks Iain for another cautionary tale about the perils of assuming Burnham will be some sort of progressive messiah. He is not the messiah, but then he is not a very naughty boy either. Personally, I feel more hopeful about the future of the country hearing him speak espousing ambitions for a more equal and self-sustaining Britain with real power moved to regions/cities/CAs and a break with treasury orthodoxy and the Westminster knows best mentality.
As LibDems we should be applauding this, but we should also be highlighting the way we would do things better. Unfortunately I have never felt comfortable that we have a coherent message on constitutional reform, despite the amount some of us debate it. So I’m not too worried that Manchesterism is vague and ill defined, at least the debate can now be had and our message that power should be devolved ‘down’ as far as possible might finally be heard. Our local government structures are a mess, and will continue to be so after LGR, but there is more chance of improvement if there is focus on what powers they might get and how those can be democratically controlled.
Might the attached article be of relevance/use?
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/06/30/does-burnham-understand-economics/
Steve, Thank you for the link to Richard Murphy. Whilst I don’t always agree with everything Richard says, he is one of my *go-to* people for granular economics.
Burnham’s people are trying to keep him away from media scrutiny, but they cannot do that indefinitely. Once the public realise that Burnham is politically and economically clueless, probably from 21st July onwards, I think he [Burnham], will look at Liz Truss’s tenure of 49 days with envy.
Ref my earlier point a couple of days ago about ‘Santa Claus Mayors.’
Todays local press carries a classic example. The Derbyshire/Notts Combined Authority Mayor is complaining because yesterdays Defence Plan revealed that £900Million of money for planned major road improvements in this area was being diverted into defence spending.
Had the money turned up it would of course been proclaimed as a great success for the Mayor. If it doesn’t turn up then its the Governments fault. Yet the Mayor in reality does not really play any role in this other than to complain if Santa’s sack is not filled up by the Government with presents for the Mayor to hand out.
Devolution of this kind is not any meaningful form of devolution. Especially when the Mayor covers such a large area, is essentially unaccountable and the price of this is the abolition of all the local Councils with their role being pushed upward to large remote Unitaries and/or the Mayor.
Tom Bailey 30th Jun ’26 – 5:38pm…………Burnham’s people are trying to keep him away from media scrutiny, but they cannot do that indefinitely. Once the public realise that Burnham is politically and economically clueless, probably from 21st July onwards, I think he [Burnham], will look at Liz Truss’s tenure of 49 days with envy………
Did Andy Burnham offend you in a previous incarnation? I, and many others are prepared to wait before passing judgement on his probable leadership. You, however, have accused him and his wife of personal misuse of public funds, etc., etc.
Again do you have proof of this or is your negativity more personal?
Expats, I note your comment that Tom Bailey has ‘accused him and his wife of personal misuse of public funds,’ but I can’t see it in this thread. Is it somewhere else? If so can you point me to it?
David Evans 1st Jul ’26 – 11:25am With regards to your query…
From the article entitled “Burnham: Strategic implications”.. The following…
Tom Bailey 26th Jun ’26 – 7:28am
The Manchester Evening News was part of the Burnham fan club, and so, never delved too deeply in Andy Burnham & his wife’s relationship with public funds. Now that he’s stepped outside of his secure Manchester *compound*, real journalism is going to replace any thoughts of dewy-eyed decency with deep scrutiny.
“real journalism ” like the Daily Telegraph, Mail, Express? Oh my aching sides.