The Disraeli Room

The Disraeli Room

Blog Post

Comprehensive Spending Review: What does it mean for devolution?

7th December 2015

The devolution proposals within the Comprehensive Spending Review have been labelled by some as a recipe for increased regional inequality. The limited and growth-focussed nature of the powers devolved in the CSR make these a legitimate concern, so long as city and county devolution does not make available the powers needed to achieve true place-based public service reform.

There was good news for the Core Cities group in the CSR, with confirmation of the 100% retention of business rates that they had long argued for. Others, however, were more wary. Sonia Sodha, the Observer’s chief leader writer, who spoke at a New Local Government Network panel discussion on the Spending Review last Tuesday, expressed concern that the measures announced were likely to lead to serious divergence between rich and poor regions.

Looking at the measures announced in the CSR, this is a credible fear. The Chancellor’s focus on economic growth has led him to apply the bulk of his devolution efforts to the largest core city-regions, with dense urban characteristics which offer the potential for significant future growth through agglomeration effects.

The concern for post-industrial areas and sparse rural counties is that not only do they lack those characteristics, but that the core city-regions will no longer be sharing the fruits of growth in their productive, dense economies with the disadvantaged periphery and its citizens. The new infrastructure levy, for example, is only available to mayoral combined authorities and in any case would raise far less outside of the cities.

However, it is now widely acknowledged that as a means to tackle economic weakness and deprivation, the history of inter-regional redistribution is one of abject failure. Neither the ‘spatial Keynesianism’ of the 1960s, nor Blair’s relocation of large public sector employers to the North-East, nor higher levels of spending per head in deprived areas has been able to tackle the fundamental long-term drivers of high demand for public services and insufficient high-skill jobs.

But devolution need not mean leaving the local state to wither in pursuit of growth in the metropolises. The real promise for localities with poor growth and high levels of need is the opportunity for a total re-think of the way public services engage with the citizen. Local authorities, as democratic place-based guardians, should have the powers to devise interventions which tackle the root causes of deprivation and low productivity in a holistic way, whether that be through early years, adult skills, infrastructure, mental health, or housing provision. Stopping divergence between regions means giving them the powers to break the link to their troubled economic past, person-by-person.

Unfortunately, this was not on the table at the CSR. Housing benefit, for example, is staying with the Treasury, subsidising buy-to-let landlords when councils could be using it to provide affordable housing. So too is stamp duty. The plethora of challenge funds and departmental silos remain, with different budget holders at different levels of the state pursuing different goals.

The biggest danger is if devolution continues to be seen by the Treasury as essentially a tool to edge up GDP. Place-based public services offer a realistic chance of ending the current waste of economic and human potential that cripples once-proud counties. But not without meaningful powers.


1 comment on “Comprehensive Spending Review: What does it mean for devolution?”

  1. Julia says:

    The chancellor, George Osborne, today unveiled his Comprehensive Spending Review, outlining how he means to achieve a 20bn surplus by 2020. Find out where the axe will fall across all government departments and spending

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

COVID-19: Are we truly free or merely enslaved to ourselves?

‘Through discipline comes freedom’. Over two thousand years ago Aristotle warned that freedom means more than just “doing as one likes”. Ancient Greek societies survived...

Airtight on Asbestos – A campaign to save our future

On the 24th of November 1999, the United Kingdom banned the use of asbestos. Twenty years later and this toxic mineral still plagues public health,...

Rationality & Regionality: A more effective way to dealing with climate change | by Hamza King

Liberalism relies heavily on certain assumptions about the human condition, particularly, about our ability to act rationally. John Rawls defines a rational person as one...

The Disraeli Room
What are the Implications of proroguing Parliament?

During his campaign, Boris Johnson made it very clear that when it comes to proroguing Parliament, he is “not going to take anything off the...

ResPublica’s submission to CMA

Download the full text of the submission On 3rd July 2019, the CMA launched a market study into online platforms and the digital advertising market...

The Disraeli Room
Productive Places | WSP and ResPublica

On Wednesday 31st October ResPublica and WSP hosted a panel discussion in Parliament to launch WSP’s Productive Places paper and debate its findings. The report...

ResPublica’s Response to the Autumn Budget 2018

The 2018 Budget delivered by Philip Hammond was the first since 1962 to be delivered on a day other than a Wednesday, and was moved...

ResPublica Response to changes to the National Planning Policy Framework

The Government’s housing announcements on the 5th March were the first substantial change to the planning system since the Coalition reforms six years ago. The...

Food poverty: Time to lift the veil?

A century on from Charles Booth’s famous Poverty Map of London, accurate information on poverty has never been more important. So the findings of...