Show the Working

Deepen Devolution Across England and Support Local Government

Labour · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Labour’s policy “Deepen Devolution Across England and Support Local Government” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Affordable housing — Mixed picture

minor · low confidence

This policy gives local leaders new powers over housing and planning, which could help tailor affordable housing decisions to local need — but the evidence suggests outcomes will vary widely by area, and devolving powers without enough funding may not translate into more affordable homes being built.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether devolved housing and planning powers will be backed by sufficient funding and local capacity to actually increase affordable housing supply, especially in areas with weaker institutions.

Our reading: The policy's most direct connection to affordable housing is the stated transfer of powers over housing and planning to local leaders, potentially including the ability to set strategic direction for affordable housing programmes and call in strategically important planning applications. In principle, this could allow areas to better match housing supply decisions to local need — a genuine potential benefit. Multi-year funding settlements could also give councils the stability to plan and invest in housing over longer timeframes, and the funding is stated to be better aligned with deprivation, which could help lower-income areas. However, the evidence does not support confident optimism. The critical flaw is the gap between devolved powers and the resources to use them. The NEF warns explicitly that powers without commensurate funding produce poor outcomes, and council budgets have been severely squeezed. Research also flags that devolution works unevenly — areas with weaker institutions or less collaborative history may not benefit, and Westminster retaining discretion over devolved powers could limit real local autonomy. The policy does not set any housing delivery targets or affordability benchmarks. Powers over planning and housing strategy are necessary but not sufficient — local areas still need planning capacity, land, and finance to build affordable homes at scale. There is no direct mechanism in the stated policy to guarantee new affordable tenures or protect social housing stock. On balance, the direction is mixed: there is a genuine upside pathway through better-tailored local housing and planning decisions backed by more stable funding, but the unevenness of likely outcomes across areas, the funding adequacy concern, and the absence of direct supply or affordability commitments mean the net effect on affordable housing is likely minor and will take a long time to materialise, if it does at all.

Prosperity & living standards — Helps

minor · low confidence

Giving local leaders more power over skills, transport, and planning could modestly boost economic opportunity over the long run, but evidence that devolution reliably fires at scale is mixed and the effect depends heavily on governance quality and adequate funding. Near-term gains are unlikely.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether devolved powers come with sufficient fiscal capacity — without commensurate funding, evidence suggests poor outcomes rather than growth gains.

Our reading: The policy bundles several instruments — deeper Combined Authority powers over skills, transport, planning, and employment support; required Local Growth Plans; governance reviews; and multi-year funding settlements — each with a plausible channel to O13 indicators (productivity, business investment, economic opportunity). The measurable baseline is unfavourable: councils currently spend only 9% of budgets on economic development, and years of funding pressure (a £4bn gap estimated in 2023) have reduced local capacity. Multi-year settlements, already partially implemented, address financial stability and can enable longer-horizon investment — a genuine, if modest, improvement over annual uncertainty. On powers: the skills and transport instruments have the clearest theoretical link to productivity and living standards, and adult education is explicitly identified as a core growth lever. The Greater Manchester example provides some real-world evidence of positive devolution outcomes, though it is a single case in a high-capacity city-region. Critically, evidence warns that weaker-institution areas may not replicate this, and English devolution has historically reinforced central control rather than transferring it meaningfully. The mechanism is plausible and partially supported, but the population-scale effect is uncertain. Without fiscal devolution beyond grant funding, the policy's own evidence (E28) flags that powers alone produce poor outcomes. The near-term effect is negligible — institutional reform takes years to translate into measurable living-standard gains. Over a 10-year horizon, a genuine but modest improvement to economic opportunity and productivity is credible, particularly in regions with existing CA capacity, but is far from guaranteed in weaker-governance areas. No advocacy sources drive this verdict; the main evidence is institutional (Resolution Foundation, IFS, LGA). Confidence is low given the conditional, heterogeneous nature of devolution outcomes.

Inequality & fair shares — Helps

minor · low confidence

Funding targeted at deprived areas and public-sector pay improvements could modestly narrow income and regional gaps, but delivery risks, potential urban bias, and retained central control mean the redistributive gains may be small in practice.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether multi-year funding settlements are genuinely weighted toward deprived areas at sufficient scale, or whether urban-area bias and central retention of discretion blunt redistribution.

Our reading: The policy contains two mechanisms with genuine redistributive potential for O14. First, the multi-year funding settlements include a Recovery Grant explicitly targeted at deprived areas, and are stated to align funding with deprivation and local need — a direct transfer toward lower-income localities that would tend to narrow regional inequality. Second, improving public sector workers' living standards addresses a documented real-terms pay gap relative to the private sector; public sector workers skew toward lower and middle earners, so a catch-up would modestly compress the income distribution. Evidence from Greater Manchester suggests devolution, when well-funded, can improve outcomes in high-deprivation areas — a proxy for narrowing regional inequality gaps. However, several factors constrain the magnitude. The £600 million Recovery Grant is relatively modest against the £4 billion funding gap the LGA estimated. The urban-area bias criticism from the District and County Councils Networks suggests the redistributive targeting may be uneven, potentially bypassing deprived rural areas. Westminster retaining ultimate discretion over devolved powers means redistribution is contingent on central choices rather than structurally embedded. Devolving powers without commensurate funding — a live risk given fiscal pressures — would worsen rather than narrow regional gaps. Absent the policy, deprived councils face continued fiscal pressure and widening service gaps relative to wealthier localities. The policy's direction is modestly 'improves' on O14, but the magnitude is minor and confidence is low given the delivery uncertainties, the scale of funding relative to need, and the structural limits on genuine fiscal devolution identified by the Resolution Foundation and others.

Good work & fair pay — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy would give local areas more control over skills, employment support, and economic development, and commits to improving public service workers' pay — both of which can help people earn a decent living. However, the benefits depend heavily on whether devolved areas get enough funding and have the institutional capacity to use their new powers well.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether devolved areas will receive genuinely commensurate funding and have the institutional capacity to translate new powers into better jobs and pay — without these, evidence suggests poor outcomes are likely.

Our reading: The policy has three main levers that bear on O4. First, devolving adult education, skills, and employment support powers to local leaders addresses a well-documented gap: local economies are hamstrung partly because councils spend almost nothing on economic development and lack the strategic levers to tailor skills provision to local labour markets. If these powers are used well, they can improve job quality and match workers to better opportunities — a meaningful improvement to fair pay and secure work. Second, the commitment to improving public service workers' living standards directly addresses a measurable baseline problem: real public sector pay has fallen while private sector pay rose, producing recruitment and retention failures. Even a modest restoration matters for the roughly one in five workers employed in public services. Third, multi-year funding settlements are already being implemented and provide councils with the stability to plan longer-term employment support and adult skills programmes rather than lurching between annual cuts. The main downside risks are real but do not reverse the direction: devolution may underperform in areas with weak institutions; funding may not keep pace with new responsibilities; and pay improvements focused on the lowest-paid could create professional shortages elsewhere. These risks justify a moderate rather than major magnitude — the policy's effect is genuine but conditional on implementation quality and funding adequacy. The time horizon is this-parliament because the funding settlements and pay improvements are near-term commitments, while the skills and employment support benefits will take longer to fully materialise. Confidence is moderate because the causal chain from devolution to better jobs is well-supported in theory and by some evidence (e.g. Greater Manchester), but delivery risk is substantial.

Education & opportunity — Mixed picture

minor · low confidence

Giving local leaders more control over adult education and skills could help tailor training to local needs, but the evidence that devolution alone reliably improves educational outcomes is thin, and areas with weaker institutions may see little benefit.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether devolved areas will receive genuinely commensurate funding for adult education and skills — without it, new powers are likely to produce poor outcomes.

Our reading: This policy's relevance to O7 rests chiefly on the devolution of adult education and skills powers to local leaders, backed by multi-year funding settlements. The case for improvement is structural: England's fragmented local government currently spends very little on local economic development, and adult education and skills are recognised as core levers for growth. Multi-year funding certainty enables better planning, which in principle supports sustained investment in skills provision. However, the policy is largely a governance reform — it transfers powers and mandates plans, but does not itself deliver a curriculum, set attainment targets, or commit ring-fenced education spending. The soft-verb concern applies in part: 'require Local Growth Plans' and 'review governance' are process commitments, not outcome guarantees. The evidence is mixed: devolution has shown some positive effects in stronger mayoral areas but is projected to underperform in regions with weaker institutions and governance capacity — precisely those areas that may most need skills improvement. The critical crux is funding adequacy: the New Economics Foundation explicitly warns that new powers without commensurate funding produce poor outcomes, and critics note the multi-year settlement design may favour urban areas. On balance, there is a plausible but modest upside for adult skills and education opportunity in well-governed areas, with real risk of negligible or even negative effect elsewhere. The direction is mixed at minor magnitude, felt only in the long term as institutional capacity develops.

Compare all parties on affordable housing →Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on inequality & fair shares →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Compare all parties on education & opportunity →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home