Luke Graham was the Conservative Member of Parliament for Ochil and Perthshire South from 2017 to 2019, the candidate in Perth and Kinross-shire in 2024, and a former head of the Downing Street Union Unit.
The nights are drawing in and, in the wake of Labour’s “is that it?” Budget, the country is left wondering what happened to the “radical, bold change” Andy Burnham promised back in the balmy heat of the summer.
Beyond temporary household relief, the unfunded promise of 3 per cent defence spending and virtually nothing for our struggling farmers, one substantial budget measure stands out: the next wave of English mayors and the commitment to retain all business-rate revenues and some income tax receipts within mayoralties by the end of the decade.
This is a significant constitutional change. Building on his experience in Greater Manchester, the Prime Minister wants to extend mayoral government across England. But Scotland and Wales provide an important warning: devolution does not automatically lead to better results.
After more than a quarter-century of devolution, neither Scotland nor Wales offers an unqualified success story. In the key devolved areas of education and health, Scotland and Wales have not outperformed England or even closed historic gaps. For example, in education, we can see performance through the objective PISA scores comparing their original early devolution scores with the most recent 2025 scores: Wales is -28 points behind its 2006 score in maths, while Scotland is -57 points; in science Wales is -29 points and -24 in Scotland. Meanwhile, in health, Scotland continues to miss the majority of its own health performance targets and Wales has lost ground to English health outcomes. Key pieces of evidence that show more layers of government does not necessarily equal better outcomes.
These trends cannot simply be blamed on devolution. Nevertheless, they demonstrate that transferring responsibilities away from Westminster in our small country is no guarantee of better public services. What matters is accountability, institutional effectiveness and measurable improvement for local people
England’s proposed arrangements differ from national devolution. They group counties and cities into strategic authorities responsible for transport, economic development and other regional priorities. A model that, although nationalists resist, could be beneficial for some of the cities of Scotland and Wales, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh.
The difficulty is that England is not simply a collection of metropolitan areas waiting to become Greater Manchester. Consider Wiltshire. The latest proposals place Swindon within a Thames Valley mayoralty alongside Oxfordshire and Berkshire, while the remainder of Wiltshire would look towards Wessex.
This creates an artificial division across a county with longstanding economic, cultural and transport connections.
Swindon is an important employment centre for surrounding Wiltshire communities. Its manufacturing, technology and defence-related opportunities matter to people living in Marlborough, Royal Wootton Bassett and surrounding rural areas.
Yet strategic decisions on transport, skills and economic growth could increasingly be taken by two different mayoral authorities. Instead of strengthening local coordination and opportunities relationships, the proposed arrangements risk making coordination more complicated.
This is not an argument against local decision-making. Quite the opposite. Decisions affecting communities should be taken as close to those communities as possible. But why should bringing power closer to people require creating larger administrative structures that divide existing relationships?
Greater Manchester has a dominant economic centre and an established metropolitan transport network. Historic counties such as Somerset, Wiltshire, Dorset and Poole have dispersed settlements, multiple employment centres and different infrastructure needs.
Applying broadly similar governance arrangements to fundamentally different places risks creating institutions that work well for metropolitan areas but less effectively for rural and semi-rural communities.
There is an alternative. Rather than grouping historic counties into ever-larger strategic authorities, government could devolve meaningful powers to directly elected county-level leaders, supported by existing councils. These leaders would be accountable for transport, infrastructure and economic development across recognisable communities, while retaining the flexibility to cooperate with neighbouring counties where necessary.
Such an approach would require clear responsibilities, appropriate funding and safeguards against unnecessary bureaucracy. But it would start with existing communities rather than designing administrative boundaries around Whitehall’s preferred model. There could still be scope for cross-county coordination and even amalgamation, but that should come from the bottom-up rather than top-down.
The Budget also raises a wider constitutional question.
The Government intends to retain business-rate revenues locally and assign mayors a share of income-tax receipts. These changes could reward economic growth and give local leaders greater financial independence. However, the details of fiscal equalisation will matter enormously.
Prosperous areas have stronger tax bases than poorer communities, while the Treasury must continue funding UK-wide commitments and supporting services across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If increasing amounts of revenue are assigned locally, ministers must explain how redistribution will operate, how less well-off areas will be protected and how the financial solidarity underpinning the Union will be maintained.
Without credible answers, fiscal devolution risks creating new tensions between communities and levels of government.
Bringing power closer to local people is a worthy cause. But the British state has a habit of rewiring itself in haste and lamenting the consequences at leisure.
The real test is not how many mayors are created or how much revenue is reassigned. It is whether services improve, communities become more prosperous and local people gain more opportunities and meaningful control.
As we Conservatives know, more government does not necessarily mean better government.