Catastrophic dangers await Burnham’s push for English devolution | Phillip Inman

Phillip Inman’s piece for The Guardian offers a sobering counterpoint to the optimism surrounding English devolution. The article’s central claim—that Whitehall’s anxiety about surrendering money and power will lead to half-hearted, incremental reforms—resonates with longstanding critiques of the UK’s over-centralised governance. The comparison to France is apt, as both nations have historically concentrated authority in their capitals, making any genuine redistribution of power a constitutional and cultural shift rather than a simple administrative adjustment. The Cornwall deal, described as lacking a mayor’s driving force, exemplifies the piecemeal approach the article fears. If true, it suggests a worrying pattern: devolution deals are being negotiated more to satisfy political timelines than to empower local communities. This raises questions about accountability, because without strong local leadership, new powers may simply be absorbed by existing council bureaucracies or remain underutilised. The article rightly highlights that such risks are often glossed over in the enthusiasm for "levelling up" rhetoric. However, a balanced view must acknowledge that devolution is not a binary choice between immediate wholesale transfer of power and continued centralisation. Many local leaders, including Burnham, argue that even imperfect, incremental deals are steps toward a more democratic and responsive system. The alternative—waiting for a perfect model—could mean indefinite delay while regional inequalities persist. The article’s warning is valuable, but it should not be read as an argument against devolution itself; rather, it is a plea for more careful design and genuine commitment from central government. Ultimately, the success of English devolution will depend on whether Whitehall can overcome its instinct to micromanage. The article’s pessimism may be justified, but it also serves as a useful pressure point for citizens and local leaders to demand more coherent and substantial agreements. As the process unfolds, the public should watch closely whether deals like Cornwall’s deliver real change or simply create new layers of complexity without meaningful accountability. The source article provides a timely caution, and its arguments deserve careful consideration in the broader debate over the UK’s constitutional future. (Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/sep/05/catastrophic-dangers-await-burnhams-push-english-devolution)