Campaign 5
Power Local Britain
Devolution is happening. Now make it work.
Important decisions should be made at the level where they can be made most effectively.
England is now going through a significant expansion and standardisation of devolution.
The question is no longer simply whether powers should move out of Whitehall.
Has real power moved, and can citizens see who is responsible for the results?
The campaign in 30 seconds
Government policy
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 establishes Strategic Authorities and a statutory framework for devolved functions. (Legislation.gov.uk / GOV.UK)
Funding
The 2026/27 to 2028/29 Local Government Finance Settlement is the first multi-year settlement in a decade. (Legislation.gov.uk / GOV.UK)
Our test
Are authority, funding, capability and accountability moving together?
Success looks like
Local leaders can act and citizens can clearly see who controls what.
The Local Power Scorecard
Track:
Power
What decisions have actually been devolved?
Money
What funding comes with those responsibilities?
Certainty
How far ahead can local leaders plan?
Promises
What outcomes have local leaders committed to?
Performance
Are those outcomes improving?
Accountability
Can citizens tell which institution is responsible?
Participation
Do citizens and civil-society organisations have meaningful opportunities to contribute?
Responsibility without power is a trap
It is unfair to hold local leaders responsible for outcomes they cannot meaningfully influence.
It is equally wrong to give leaders more power without stronger scrutiny.
Authority should travel with responsibility.
Stronger local communities
We also want the principle of Contribution to sit inside this campaign.
Formal monthly volunteering in England stood at 17% in 2024/25, compared with 27% in 2013/14. (GOV.UK)
The Government's Civil Society Covenant explicitly includes participation and inclusion and transparency and data, and commits to annual reporting on actions and impact. (GOV.UK)
That creates an opportunity to ask whether local devolution is bringing citizens closer to decisions as well as moving powers between institutions.
Compare places to learn, not to shame
Comparable local data should identify areas doing unusually well.
The first question should not always be: Who's failing?
It should also be: Who's doing this well, and what can everybody else learn from them?
What we are asking government to do
Create a Local Power and Accountability Standard showing:
Power → Funding → Promise → Result → Responsible Body → Citizen Participation
And make it easy for the public to understand where responsibility lies.
What would change our mind?
If evidence demonstrates that a particular function works better when organised nationally, we should be willing to say so.
Local is not automatically better.
Central is not automatically better.
Put decisions where the evidence says they work best.
Policy in Practice
Devolution creates a particularly interesting accountability problem. Government may transfer responsibility without enough money, or transfer powers in ways that make it harder for citizens to understand who is responsible.
Track:
Potential consequences worth testing include:
- Has devolution actually accelerated decisions?
- Has it created another institutional layer?
- Are areas with stronger administrative capacity benefiting more than weaker ones?
- Do citizens know whether Whitehall, a mayor, strategic authority or council is responsible?
Compare the alternatives
We apply the same test to every party: is the proposal costed, independently verified, and does it define how success will be measured?
Current Government
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 creates a statutory framework for Strategic Authorities, with powers spanning areas such as transport, housing, planning, skills and economic development.
Expected benefit
Strategic authorities can coordinate transport, housing and growth across functional regional economies.
Potential trade-off
Larger authorities may feel more distant from residents, and reorganising councils creates transition costs and disruption. Outcomes still depend on adequate funding and clear accountability.
Conservatives
The Conservatives are reviewing devolution, including its effectiveness and financial stability, but have not yet published a complete replacement framework.
Expected benefit
An evidence-led review could identify which powers and structures work best before further reform.
Potential trade-off
Until detailed proposals are published, citizens cannot assess the likely distribution of power, funding or accountability.
Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democrats propose more fiscal and economic power for local authorities, while opposing imposed council reorganisations and elected mayors where communities do not want them.
Expected benefit
Greater local autonomy could make decisions more responsive to local needs and preferences.
Potential trade-off
Different local tax bases and capabilities could widen variation between areas unless funding equalisation and minimum standards are maintained.
Reform UK
Reform opposes large-scale local-government reorganisation where it believes new unitary authorities would move power further from communities.
Expected benefit
Retaining existing councils can preserve local identity, representation and institutional continuity.
Potential trade-off
Fragmented structures can make region-wide transport, housing and infrastructure harder to coordinate and may retain duplicated administrative costs.
Green Party
The Greens have opposed giving mayors powers to override local councils on planning, arguing that this centralises power rather than devolving it to communities.
Expected benefit
Keeping decisions close to councils and communities may strengthen participation and local accountability.
Potential trade-off
Some housing, transport and infrastructure decisions cross council boundaries and may be harder to coordinate without strategic authority.
Where there is common ground
All five approaches accept that local areas need meaningful power, adequate funding and clear accountability. The disagreement is mainly about how much authority should sit with strategic bodies versus individual councils, and whether reorganisation helps or hinders local democracy.
Britain on Purpose: The Test
Power → Funding → Responsibility → Result → Citizen Understanding → Participation. Authority should travel with responsibility.
More local power. Clearer accountability. Stronger communities.