The House Article | The word devolution needs to actually mean something to people

4 min read17 min

When you hear the word devolution, what do you think? How do you feel?

If it’s confusion, you wouldn’t be alone. The word doesn’t exactly invoke inspiration in and of itself.

Anecdotally, I’ve heard people incorrectly thinking it’s the opposite of evolution, that it makes them think about reverting backwards. No, it’s nothing to do with Darwin!

Devolution, fundamentally, is about pushing decision-making power down from Westminster to communities, mayors, and councillors who know their areas inside and out.

It’s something long championed by IPPR North, where we strongly believe sharing power is the way to properly rebalance our historically unequal state. Just like Andy Burnham, IPPR North wants to see local leaders get a share of national tax with the powers to decide where they should spend it – also known as fiscal devolution.

That’s “taking back control”, to a much further degree than Brexit, yet when it comes to this kind of local politics, the public do not appear to have the same passion or interest.

And the public can’t get behind what they don’t understand.

So, since devolution will never have the same comms budget as the Brexit campaign, what does that mean for a new PM who has put devolution at the heart of his policy agenda?

Fiscal devolution as a concept isn’t necessarily unpopular; rather, it’s underexplained. Recent Ipsos polling found that over a third of UK adults believe giving local authorities or regional mayors more power over tax spending would lead to better outcomes for public services in their area.

That is fiscal devolution in a nutshell. Giving local leaders, who know their area much better than those in Westminster, powers to make decisions on transport, housing, skills, and reallocating national tax spending to fund them. It’s not about increasing taxes – it’s about using money better, locally.

But as Labour moved away from the Conservatives’ “levelling up” agenda to communicate devolution, we’ve instead seen a focus on regional growth strategies, integrated settlements, and local productivity, words that don’t feel particularly accessible.

It’s meant that devolution’s core message has been jumbled, discussed at various different levels in various different ways, and simply hasn’t connected with the broader public.

Tell me the last time you heard someone down the pub wax lyrical about devolution being their priority when deciding who to vote for, or better yet, fiscal devolution. 

Families struggling to pay their electricity bills or 20-year-old NEETs desperately looking for a job won’t be comforted by announcements that devolution’s bringing regional growth. The links are too weak, and the benefits are too intangible.

It’s the narrative, the story that tells us what devolution has done, what it can do, and how

Advertisement

And what does a future-focused regional growth strategy really mean for someone who just wants to be able to afford the basics right now?

The Ipsos polling backs this up. Voters aren’t rejecting devolution; they’re asking “how much will it cost and what do I get”.

If Burnham wants devolution to be his legacy, those questions must be answered clearly.

Since leading communications for a think tank whose key aim for over twenty years has been devolution, I’ve learned what has cut through.

It’s the narrative, the story that tells us what devolution has done, what it can do, and how.

That is something Burnham and England’s mayors have been very good at so far, but a track record of devolution only really works if it’s told as a story people can see themselves in.

First, there is a story of devolution’s real-life success. I live in Stockport. Once ranked one of the worst places to live in the UK, it is now totally unrecognisable thanks to a Mayoral Development Corporation that has funded transport links, new homes, and a transformed town centre. You can feel it in the air, you can see it on the streets, it’s even being called the new Berlin.

It only happened thanks to powers handed down to mayors and to councils to fund regeneration – otherwise known as devolution. There is nothing to stop Stockport’s success from being replicated across the country.

And secondly, a story of the ideal future. If devolution is used to its fullest potential, we’d see a day where someone could be born anywhere in the country – urban or coastal, north or south – and they won’t think the only route to success is packing up and leaving for London. Up and down the UK there will be good jobs, affordable houses, proud communities, and transport that rivals most European cities (one can dream).  

You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone arguing against that.

We have to paint a picture of exactly what devolution can do and how, without the techy buzz words or constitutional musings. Because we need public buy-in, and for buy-in we need the government to properly sell it.

Maeve Schaffer is communications leader at IPPR North, based in Manchester