For more than a decade, London has lingered in a curious limbo on England’s devolution journey: too big to ignore, yet too politically sensitive to fully empower. In “Simon Kaye: Putting London back on devo map,” Local Government Chronicle spotlights a growing argument that the capital must be brought back to the center of the devolution debate. As national attention swings once more towards localism, Kaye contends that sidelining London is not only short-sighted but undermines efforts to rebalance power across the country. His intervention raises a pointed question for ministers and civic leaders alike: can England genuinely renew its democracy and economy while leaving its largest city off the devolution map?
Assessing the case for renewed devolution in London’s fragmented governance landscape
Any fresh push for deeper powers in the capital has to start from an honest diagnosis of how scattered authority currently is. Londoners navigate a landscape where the Mayor and Assembly, 32 boroughs, the City of London Corporation, combined authorities-in-waiting and myriad Whitehall departments all overlap, sometimes cooperating but just as frequently enough competing. This patchwork frequently blurs accountability: when transport funding stalls, housing targets are missed or skills programmes fail to connect with local employers, duty can be passed endlessly between tiers. A renewed devolution settlement offers a way to clarify who does what,but only if it moves beyond piecemeal deals and addresses the core question of where power,money and democratic voice should ultimately sit.
For reformers, the test is whether new arrangements can create a more balanced ecosystem in which City Hall, boroughs and local civic institutions have the fiscal and policy autonomy to respond quickly to local realities. That case is strongest where London’s unique scale and economic role collide with hyper-local inequalities that national policy struggles to address. In practice, this could mean:
- Consolidated funding streams for infrastructure, skills and housing, replacing short-term competitive bidding rounds.
- Statutory frameworks that protect borough discretion while enabling stronger pan-London coordination on strategic issues.
- New civic platforms – citizens’ panels, neighbourhood forums, and digital participation tools – to anchor any extra powers in visible local consent.
| Current Feature | Devolved Option |
|---|---|
| Fragmented funding pots | Multi-year, single settlements |
| Opaque accountability chains | Clear, locally understood mandates |
| Central control of key levers | Locally shaped priorities and delivery |
How Whitehall’s central grip constrains borough innovation and local accountability
In London’s town halls, ambition routinely runs into the unmoving wall of central diktat. Borough leaders can see where targeted investment, tailored regulation or smarter service integration would make a difference on their streets, but the levers sit in Whitehall departments with national templates and risk-averse sign‑off cultures. Funding flows are still dominated by tightly specified grants, ringfenced programmes and competitive bidding rounds that force councils to chase ministerial priorities rather than citizen needs.This doesn’t just slow down experimentation; it actively punishes it, sidelining bolder ideas in favour of proposals that best mirror the current Whitehall mood music.
The impact on public trust is equally corrosive. Residents are encouraged to hold their council to account, yet many of the biggest decisions on housing, transport, skills and policing are shaped elsewhere, through opaque negotiations between officials and ministers. Local politicians carry the blame for underpowered services without the tools or fiscal autonomy to fix them.Rather of a clear line of responsibility, Londoners face what amounts to a democratic blur, where:
- Priorities are set at a national level, far from neighbourhood realities.
- Funding rules dictate project design more than local evidence does.
- Innovation is constrained by short-term pilots and central sign-off.
- Accountability is fragmented between multiple agencies and tiers.
| Current Model | Devo-Oriented Alternative |
|---|---|
| Ringfenced grants | Locally raised, flexible revenues |
| Central target regimes | Locally agreed outcome compacts |
| Whitehall-led pilots | Borough-led experimentation |
| Blurred accountability | Clear local democratic mandates |
Reimagining the Mayor borough balance to unlock genuine place based decision making
For all the rhetorical power invested in City Hall, London’s real untapped strength still lies in its patchwork of boroughs, neighbourhoods and civic networks. The current settlement often casts the mayor as the principal actor and boroughs as delivery agents, blurring accountability and muting local voice. A more enterprising settlement would hard‑wire shared sovereignty into the capital’s governance: the mayor setting clear, strategic outcomes for the whole city, while boroughs hold genuine discretion over how those outcomes are realised on the ground. That shift demands not only political will, but also a re-engineering of funding flows, data sharing and scrutiny so local leaders can shape services around the grain of their communities rather than around Whitehall or City Hall silos.
- Strategic direction from the centre, operational freedom for boroughs
- Devolved budgets tied to place-based outcomes, not narrow service lines
- Joint accountability frameworks, with residents able to see who decides what
- Shared data infrastructure to support local experimentation and rapid learning
| Today | Reimagined |
|---|---|
| Clear, negotiated powers by tier | |
| Centrally designed programmes | Locally designed, city-aligned missions |
| Short-term, siloed funding | Multi-year, place-based settlements |
Rebalancing in this way would not diminish the mayoralty; it would recast it as a convening force that brokers agreements between boroughs, anchors institutions and communities, rather than as a rival power centre. In practice, this could mean co-produced investment plans for housing, skills and climate action, signed off jointly by City Hall and borough leaders, with residents involved in setting priorities. It could also mean formalised borough “clusters” around shared challenges – from outer-London transport deserts to inner-city health inequalities – each equipped with the freedom and resources to prototype new approaches.By allowing power to flow down as well as across,London could move from a model of contested competence to one of collaborative problem-solving,putting genuinely local decision making at the heart of its devolved future.
Practical steps for policymakers to strengthen fiscal powers and community level participation
Turning warm words on devolution into durable change starts with rewiring how money moves through the system. Policymakers should prioritise multi‑year, place-based settlements that collapse dozens of ring‑fenced grants into a single, flexible pot, negotiated transparently with city and borough leaders. That needs to be underpinned by locally controlled taxes – such as a reformed council tax, modest localised tourism or green levies, and a broader share of property and income tax yields – so that London government can make long‑term commitments without waiting for annual Whitehall bidding rounds. Alongside this,ministers can hard‑code baseline protections in legislation,preventing sudden central cuts that destabilise local budgets and erode trust.
- Co-design fiscal frameworks with mayors and boroughs, publishing clear rules for borrowing, prudential limits and risk‑sharing.
- Institutionalise community influence through participatory budgeting, citizen assemblies and neighbourhood forums with statutory consultation rights.
- Open the books locally via ward-level dashboards that show spend,outcomes and who made the decisions.
- Reward collaboration by linking a portion of devolved funds to cross-borough partnerships on housing,skills and transport.
| Policy lever | Central role | Local & community outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Single funding pot | Merge and devolve grants | Less bidding, more planning |
| Local tax flexibility | Enable new local revenues | Stable, accountable funding |
| Participatory budgeting | Set minimum national standards | Residents shape priorities |
| Data transparency | Fund common digital tools | Better scrutiny, higher trust |
Concluding Remarks
As ministers weigh the next phase of England’s devolution journey, Kaye’s proposals offer Whitehall a route back to London that does not simply replay past battles between City Hall and central government. By elevating the boroughs and carving out a clearer, more balanced settlement with the mayoralty, he argues, the capital could once again become a test bed for institutional innovation rather than an exception to national policy.
Whether that vision gains traction will depend on political appetite as much as policy design. But with the government signalling a renewed interest in place-based governance, and with London’s leaders increasingly vocal about the limits of the current model, Kaye has ensured that the capital is back in the national devolution conversation – not as an awkward outlier, but as a potential blueprint for what comes next.
