The plans go with the grain of the current government’s devolution agenda

Labour’s proposals are not a radical departure from the current government’s plans. Starmer explicitly praised the Levelling Up the United Kingdom white paper, launched during Boris Johnson’s premiership, for getting much of its diagnosis right. And there is little in these plans that levelling up secretary Michael Gove would disagree with: the government has a mission for every area in England that wants a devolution deal to get one by 2030, and is also committed to simplifying funding and agreeing deeper devolution deals with existing combined authorities.

This proposed continuity should be applauded. Too often regional policy has been undermined by excessive churn as governments have ripped up the plans and institutions of their predecessor. For example, in 2010 the coalition government scrapped New Labour’s regional development agencies. If Labour forms the next government, building on the success of combined authorities and mayors will allow it to make more progress and increases its chances of success.

At the same time, there are differences between the government’s and Labour’s plans. Labour’s rhetoric at least indicates it would look to go faster than the Sunak administration, especially on simplifying funding. And the focus on national strategy – linked to local strategy, with a clear coordination plan – is a notable gap in the current government’s approach.

A Labour government would need to navigate key trade-offs to make this work in practice

Understandably, Labour’s plans do not yet represent a comprehensive programme for devolution in government. But there are several key decisions that Labour will need to make on how it will implement these proposals. In several cases, this may require bold choices that are unpopular with some people.

First, to complete the devolution map Labour has focused on asking every part of the country without a deal to propose one, working together at sensible geographies. This is understandable, and our research shows that a clear local vision is a key component of successful deals. However, local agreement will not lead to a complete map. In some areas, there are competing views of the correct geography, and small areas risk being left out if decisions are all made from the bottom up. Labour will need to decide how and when it intervenes to ensure the map makes sense overall. We have proposed that the next government should set out the boundaries of a complete map within three years, starting with deals in the remaining big urban areas that have been left out so far. Labour rightly recognises this as key to improving regional productivity performance.

Second, Labour’s document often refers to local leaders and mayors, but it has not yet said explicitly whether the adoption of a mayor or other directly elected leader will be a condition for devolution, or what powers will be available without one. This has been a barrier to doing some deals in the past. 

Finally, Labour lays out plans for mayors and combined authorities to have responsibilities making key decisions in areas like planning. Some of these decisions will be contentious. And as it stands, mayors are in a relatively weak constitutional position with unanimity or two-third majorities among local authorities often required. As combined authorities take on more power, Labour should review and reform combined authority governance to streamline decision making and remove unnecessary roadblocks and veto points.

Labour’s plans for devolution are on the right track. If it forms the next government, it will need to make tough choices to ensure the governance of England is set up to deliver on its missions.