The UK government’s long-awaited devolution white paper for England has finally landed, promising a new era of empowered local leadership to drive economic growth and level up left-behind areas. But a closer look reveals a document heavy on sticks and light on carrots for councils, prescribing sweeping reorganization rather than genuine devolution of powers and funding.
Abolishing Districts: Modernization or Disruption?
The most controversial proposal is the wholesale abolition of district councils, to be merged into larger unitary authorities aligned with county borders. Ministers argue this will streamline services, end confusion over split responsibilities, and create economies of scale.
But is bigger really better in local government? The evidence is mixed at best. Larger councils may spend less per resident, but often at the cost of reduced responsiveness and accountability to communities. Nor is the duplication between districts and counties as wasteful as portrayed – it allows key services like social care to be managed strategically while keeping others like planning and waste collection closer to residents.
Disrupting local democracy is not a thing to be done lightly, especially when public trust in politics is widely understood to be fragile.
Abolishing districts also risks weakening local identity and democratic representation for towns and rural areas that are culturally distinct from their surrounding counties. With U.K. politics already dangerously centralized in Westminster, cutting out localities’ most immediate elected voice could further fuel disillusionment.
Collaboration Over Coercion
More fundamentally, does Whitehall know best how to configure every corner of England’s complex local government map? Previous technocratic restructurings like the Redcliffe-Maud report failed for good reason – imposing optimal-sized units in theory proved hugely disruptive in practice to organic place-based identities and working relationships.
Instead of unilaterally abolishing councils, ministers could incentivize voluntary mergers, lead by example in devolving services Whitehall currently duplicates, and focus combined authorities on strategic coordination challenges local leaders agree need collective clout – from transport to skills to securing inward investment.
Funding Gaps Unaddressed
Crucially, reorganization does nothing to give councils the fiscal firepower they need to become genuine engines of growth and deliver on levelling up. Even unitary authorities will still have to go cap in hand to central government departments for the vast majority of their funding and freedoms.
Without fiscal devolution, councils will struggle to drive development proactively by capturing and recycling local property taxes, or to join up services innovatively around prevention. Tackling the social care funding crisis overwhelming even existing top-tier councils is surely a more urgent priority than inventing new ones.
Even the new unitary authorities will not be placed in charge of decisions such as housebuilding numbers and energy infrastructure. Local councils risk being reshaped not to make their own choices but the better to carry out Whitehall’s orders.
A Missed Opportunity?
There are some positive moves in the white paper, such as allowing combined authority mayors more power over local rail services and bus networks, and testing new models of integrated neighbourhood delivery. But overall it represents a missed opportunity to decentralize England sustainably.
Overriding council sovereignty on development to meet housebuilding targets from on high may generate backlash, not buy-in. Real devolution would allow local leaders to shape housing and infrastructure priorities bottom-up, and to integrate services around their community’s unique needs.
If this white paper puts as much energy into devolving real power as disrupting structures, it might live up to its promise to let places take back control. By dictating centrally while claiming devolution, it risks achieving only upheaval – not lasting empowerment or economic growth.