Devolution and Diplomacy: The Shape of British Power

Parliament & Policy · Memo · 6 min read

Executive Summary

Britain’s power abroad and its governance at home are usually discussed as separate subjects. They are not. A state that cannot deliver growth, infrastructure and competent administration in its own regions will struggle to project influence beyond them. English devolution, still half-built, is now a question of national capability. Those who want to shape policy need to understand that power is moving, slowly and unevenly, away from Whitehall.

Context

For most of the last century England was one of the most centralised countries in the developed world. That began to change with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at the end of the 1990s, and in England from the 2010s. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority, created in 2011, became the test case. A directly elected metro mayor followed in 2017, and later deals gave the largest city regions more control over transport, skills, housing and investment budgets.

Governments of both main parties have since promised to extend devolution across England. The direction is consistent. The pace, the money and the willingness of departments to let go are not.

Assessment

Devolution is a capability question. Regions that can plan transport, attract investment and train workers produce the tax base and industrial strength that national security and foreign policy rest on. A country whose second cities underperform is a weaker country.

Mayors are becoming political actors in their own right. Metro mayors have national profiles, direct mandates and the ability to convene business, universities and investors. Foreign governments and international firms increasingly engage them directly.

Whitehall still holds the money. Most devolved power remains conditional on funding settlements negotiated with the centre. Authority without fiscal autonomy is influence on licence.

The settlement is uneven. Some areas have deep deals and established institutions. Others have little or nothing. That patchwork creates winners, losers and a constant renegotiation of who decides what.

Implications

For organisations seeking to influence policy, the map has changed. A strategy aimed only at ministers and departments will miss decisions now taken by mayors, combined authorities and regional partnerships. For investors, regional institutions are increasingly the counterpart that unlocks land, infrastructure and planning. For national politicians, regional leaders are both allies and rivals.

What Decision-Makers Should Do

1. Map decision-making by place, not just by department. Know which powers sit with the combined authority and which still sit in Whitehall.

2. Engage mayors as principals. Treat them as political leaders with their own agendas, not as delivery agents of central government.

3. Follow the funding. Where the money is negotiated is where the real influence lies.

4. Build regional coalitions. Businesses, universities and local institutions acting together carry more weight with both mayors and ministers than any single voice.

Forward Look

The direction of travel is towards more devolution, but each step will be contested between departments, local leaders and the Treasury. Expect continued argument over fiscal powers, the shape of new strategic authorities and the accountability of mayors. The regions that build strong institutions now will have the most leverage in that argument.

Bottom Line

British power is built at home before it is projected abroad. Anyone who wants to shape national policy now needs a regional strategy as well as a Westminster one.