‘Devolution without redistribution is just delegation’

Devolution is the central idea of British politics under this Prime Minister.

The principle is simple and sound: Decisions are often better made closer to the people they affect. 

Greater powers for elected mayors, combined authorities and local councils can sharpen accountability, spur innovation and produce policies shaped by local realities rather than national assumptions.

Yet there is nothing new about this insight.

In 2019 a newly installed Prime Minister launched “Levelling Up”. That agenda was about power but it was also about resources. The two are linked. They are not the same.

READ MORE:‘Five things the Labour Chancellor should do to deliver good growth in every postcode’

Britain’s regional inequalities did not arise because local leaders lacked authority. The North South divide cannot be explained by centralisation alone. Decades of uneven growth, investment and opportunity created the disparities we see today. 

Some regions enjoy stronger economies, higher productivity and greater wealth. Giving ‘weaker’ areas more control over transport, planning, housing and skills may help. By itself, it will not close the gap.

An elected mayor cannot spend money that does not exist.

Local autonomy matters. Resources matter more. Poorer regions need investment as well as influence, better infrastructure, stronger public services and sustained economic development. In short, levelling up requires redistribution.

That is the contradiction at the heart of the current devolution drive.

Devolution is sold as power moving away from the centre. Genuine levelling up demands a centre still capable of raising and redirecting wealth. The more serious a government is about reducing regional inequality, the more it must actively transfer resources to less prosperous parts of the country.

This raises awkward questions.

When one region receives extra investment, where does the money come from? Economic and social gaps cannot shrink unless some places contribute more than others. Regions may gain greater control over spending decisions, but many will still depend on Whitehall’s ability to move resources if living standards are ever to converge.

Taxation makes the argument sharper still.

Council Tax rests on property valuations more than thirty years old. Few MPs would call it a good system for funding local government. Yet reform remains politically toxic: any meaningful change will always create winners and losers.

The same applies to land value or property-based alternatives. They could produce a fairer settlement. They would also require wealthier areas to pay more.

My own region, the South East, shows why these questions are so sensitive. It contains some of Britain’s most prosperous communities and areas of real deprivation. Poor housing, low wages and social need sit alongside extraordinary wealth. Banbury alone has three wards in the most deprived 20 per cent nationally.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

Treating the South East as a uniformly affluent bloc ignores this reality. Regional averages hide local hardship. Much of the area’s wealth is locked in property and other assets, leaving many residents asset-rich but cash-poor.

For Labour this creates a particular dilemma. The party has long argued for reducing economic disparities across the country. Yet the path to a parliamentary majority now runs through southern England. Success in the South depends on voters who may resist higher taxes or policies that appear to shift resources elsewhere. The economic case for redistribution and the electoral need for coalition building do not always align. Politicians cannot ignore the next election.

None of this means devolution is a mistake. There are strong arguments for giving local leaders greater control over the decisions that shape their communities.But power without resources achieves only so much. 

Devolution answers who makes the decisions. Redistribution decides whether those decision-makers have the means to act. Any serious programme of levelling up requires both: local autonomy and national solidarity. 

Reconciling those two principles remains the unresolved question at the heart of British politics. Until it is answered, the promise of a genuinely devolved and more balanced United Kingdom will stay just that; a promise.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].