England is the largest of the UK’s four nations and also the exception in the union because it is administered centrally from Whitehall and overseen by politicians whose constituencies are not based in England. However, unelected quangos such as National Highways and outsourcing companies such as Serco, G4S, and Capita are allowed to set policy and service standards in England with very little democratic control or oversight. Angela Rayner’s plans for a “devolution revolution” aim to give more control, and power, to local leaders.
Devolution among local councils
Local government is weak and failing because it is starved of resources. The resulting mess is dysfunctional and increasingly resented by the public who are losing faith in the organs of the state – the legislature, executive, and judiciary branches of government. The public in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland may not be happy with their governments, but at least the lines of accountability are clear.
The Grenfell Tower disaster shows how broken England is. This was a comprehensive failure of regulation from the UK Government, local government, and the building industry. Accountability, trust and, above all else, leadership at all levels of the English state, are sadly missing.
Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister and secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, has written to the leaders of Kent County Council (KCC) and Medway Council asking for their views on local devolution for Kent. However, the district, town, parish and community councils – and the public – have not been asked for their opinions.
I will predict what the two leaders of those councils will say: Roger Gough leader of the council at KCC will say that Kent ought to be run by KCC, as they have been since 1889. Vince Maple, leader of the council at Medway, will strongly disagree and say that Medway is managing on its own, although it could do with more funding and powers of authority. I doubt that either option would be acceptable to Rayner.
Norfolk and Suffolk councils tried a similar approach and received approval from Rayner’s predecessor, Michael Gove, but has since been dropped by Rayner leaving the two councils angry and bereft of devolution despite continued discussions.
Two routes to devolution
There appear to be two routes to devolution. The first is to create a combined authority led by a mayor. This will garner more power and money, but will probably mean franchised bus services, for example, as part of the devolution deal. This is what both Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire councils have achieved.
The second is the Lancashire County Council option with fewer powers and probably an amended and tiered local government structure, which is evolution rather than devolution. Looking at the devolution map of England, we can see how a patchwork of local devolution deals looks:
The map above is already obsolete as Rayner is replacing 14 years of crony politics with an updated version. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have some form of assembly for the entire country. In England, it is a postcode lottery as to what sort of government one might receive. It is quite possible for houses in the same street to be administered in completely different ways due to political deal-making.
The experience of devolution
There is no English parliament, nor any likelihood of one soon. Instead of a national or federal parliament and assemblies for the member states of the United Kingdom, there are two Houses of Parliament which legislate on a national basis and handle English affairs.
The national government is often formed based on a minority of votes cast in a general election for the House of Commons. The other chamber – the House of Lords – consists either of appointees or those born into nobility.
Britain has a habit of chaotic achievement, and some – mainly members of the establishment – think this is a sign of genius and part of our character. They point to Britain’s docility and its lack of revolutions, riots, or disorder.
But Britain’s history is not one of continual happiness and contentment. We are not calmly accepting every policy handed down from above. In 2024 voter turnout dropped to 60%, the lowest since 2001.
Labour won the election with 411 seats and 34% of the vote across the UK; less than 21% of the electorate voted for a Labour government. Brexit and the recent riots show that things are not as stable as they might appear.
Who decides on devolution?
It is not the public. When asked to decide on regional parliaments for England, and on proportional voting systems, the great British public was swayed by a lot of smoke and mirrors. This suggested that the former would mean more paid politicians and that the latter was somehow undemocratic and untraditional. Because of those two failures under previous Labour and coalition governments, no politician wants to repeat the process.
This means either Whitehall or local politicians will decide, with mixed results as we have already seen. Local interests will always try to keep the status quo, but are we benefitting?
In Kent, councils have been won or lost by different political parties but the service remains the same. Higher council tax, a series of expenditure cuts, a distrust of the planning system, and growing public indifference towards local councils. Replacing unsuitable councillors is not getting us anywhere.
So, what do we do?
Is there anything worth saving from the current structure? Yes. Town, parish and community councils should be retained and given more control over their immediate areas. This means they should maintain local parks, gardens, footpaths, allotments and run community bus services.
Reform here means active localism, as seen in Frome’s flatpack democracy. Flatpack democracy is where independent groups vote against the “big political parties and lead their communities from a local level,” which might help communities such as those in Sheppey who feel they are not being listened to gain a voice and more power in decision-making.
The small community councils can only take limited local action, making it necessary to have an intermediate body. A possible solution is dividing Kent into two or more unitary bodies such as separate councils for East and West Kent.
These new councils would replace districts and administer waste, parking, street lighting and other area-based services. This is what the Redcliffe-Maud report proposed back in 1968. Rural interests made sure that it never saw the light of day, district councils were substituted, and we have lived with the consequences ever since.
Some in the Conservative Party have concluded that change is required with the suggestion to scrap all small councils in Kent and replace them with a single unitary authority. How do they define small? Under this plan, we return to 1889 and have an all-powerful Kent County Council running everything. But even in 1889, there were corporations, county boroughs and boroughs. Can we honestly say that KCC is, or has been, a good thing for the wellbeing and economy of Kent?
Is combining local councils the answer?
We need to do something about the council tax system and fair funding, which is outdated, regressive, and hated by those on fixed incomes. Changing local taxation is possible, but it must be achieved in a way that is seen as fair and has a transition period. Margaret Thatcher found this out the hard way when imposing the poll tax on an unwilling nation in 1990.
If Kent County Council wants devolution, it may be necessary to combine with Surrey and East Sussex County Councils and have a mayoralty with a regional assembly elected by proportional representation. This would cover transport, planning, economic development, education, and the police. Such a proposal would do away with National Highways within the region and would have the power to manage transport in a combined and effective manner. The role of the police commissioners in each county would also devolve into this new body.
This also means compromise. I do not like the idea that only a single individual can dispense effective leadership, but it may be a price worth paying to rid ourselves of the quangocracy and the necessity for police commissioners. Adopting this system means that we must hope that the mayor will be similar to Andy Burnham or Andy Street. It will probably attract the Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage type of character, but it is the risk we must take.
The existing system is broken and discredited. Shuffling along and hoping that something will somehow turn up will be the worst of all options.
