Commentators often say that politicians are good at promising to decentralise power as an election approaches – but less good at delivering on those promises once in office.
This time around, all three main Westminster parties are promising to devolve significant power to local areas if they are returned in May. But as the General Election draws closer, a cynic might argue that this familiar pattern is being repeated once more.
While the past five years have brought us closer to meaningful decentralisation, with major powers being transferred to both Scotland and Wales – this process has moved at a slower pace for local areas in England. There has been a steady trickle of additional funding and policy flexibilities through the place-by-place, negotiation-driven City Deals process but these have fallen short of many areas' demands for decentralisation, particularly by failing to offer real fiscal devolution.
With the creation of the far-reaching ‘devolution deal' for Greater Manchester (and subsequent, smaller packages for Leeds and Sheffield), a more radical approach has emerged that may bode well for further decentralisation after May.
Through this deal, Greater Manchester will gain powers over transport, policing, housing and some skills provision.
Recently, it was announced that in addition, all £6bn of the local NHS spending would be devolved to help integrate health and social care provision in the area. This example has generated demands for equivalent powers from other areas – counties as well as cities – and seems to have galvanised the political parties to offer plans for further decentralisation in the next Parliament.
The Greater Manchester deal – part the chancellor of the Exchequer's plan to create an economic ‘Northern Powerhouse' – is being pointed to by the Conservative Party as an example of its commitment to further devolution in the next Parliament.
Details of future plans are still thin, but it seems that the party is committed to a continuation of the deal-making approach to decentralisation exemplified by the ‘City Deals' and ‘devolution deals' processes.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats, partners in the deal-making approach of the last Parliament, have committed to a new, different ‘devolution on demand' offer.
Under this approach, groups of local authorities representing a population of over one million could approach central government to ask for a bespoke package of powers and would be met with a presumption in favour of devolving.
The Labour Party, which released its proposals for devolving powers within England in February, have proposed a different approach again.
Labour wants to extend the use of the ‘combined authority' model of local government more widely among cities and counties in England.
It has promised to devolve to these bodies £30bn of funding over five years, as well as additional powers over employment, housing, transport, skills and business support.
So, the three main Westminster parties have promised more decentralisation to come. How can we tell if these are more of the same promises that we are used to political parties making, but which they fail to deliver?
At the Institute for Government we have studied past attempts to decentralise by governments of all stripes and have concluded that one of the main reasons for such a mixed record on decentralisation in the past is that it isn't as easy to do as many people think.
Successful decentralisation cannot simply be ‘done' by Whitehall; instead it requires a great deal of co-ordination and negotiation between groups with competing interests and preferences.
Over the coming months, we will be using four main tests to assess whether the parties' plans could overcome these barriers and become successful.
The first test will come with the publication of the parties' manifestos. To demonstrate their seriousness, clarity of vision is vital.
Ministers and civil servants who will lead reforms after the election need to know what they are trying to achieve and that the costs of doing so have been agreed. So, any party promising decentralisation needs to have a compelling case for change, a clear understanding of the scale of change they desire and to recognise the trade-offs and political capital that serious decentralisation will require.
A well-specified manifesto pledge is a good way of communicating this vision.
Such a pledge should set out: the powers on offer, the ‘ask' of local government, a means through which the public can express their approval (or not) and a timeframe for implementation.
The second test is about clarity of leadership. Meaningful decentralisation will cut across several policy areas, many of which sit – under current arrangements – beneath different prospective ministers.
Parties may run into trouble if spokespeople responsible for policy that could be devolved – such as skills policy, in fact commit to national strategies or centrally-driven programmes.
Once a government is formed, Whitehall boundaries can become sharper and ministers more defensive of their terrain. That is why it is important that party leaders actively co-ordinate their prospective ministers, making sure that decentralisation is not seen as an unexpected land grab on an individual minister's portfolio, but a clear commitment made by the whole party.
Decentralisation will also not happen without the support of the chancellor, who must ultimately sign off departmental spending allocations and the overall local government funding envelope.
The third test is about local governance in a more decentralised England.
Most current local authority boundaries and structures do not offer the scale necessary to get the most out of significant additional powers – particularly the ones that could help to improve local economies.
Many decentralisation proposals involve working at a greater scale – through combined authorities, single-tier government or other forms of joint working. But with greater scale and power comes a need for stronger accountability to local people.
As well as being a positive step in itself, strengthened accountability is necessary in order to assuage ministers and civil servants' fears that they will shoulder the blame if local governments use their new powers irresponsibly.
We will be looking to see how the political parties propose to overcome this accountability challenge, with directly elected mayors an often-discussed, but not universally popular option.
The final test is whether the parties have considered ways in which central government should act differently to support decentralisation efforts.
For example, which department will lead the reforms – will it be the Treasury, the Cabinet Office or the Department for Communities and Local Government? It may seem like a technical point, but the way that this responsibility is divided will greatly affect the reforms' prospects for success.
Another issue is the strength of local areas' voices within Whitehall – will England's major cities, for example, have a voice during the post-election spending review discussions?
A party that is serious about decentralising will need to recognise in its plans that this isn't just another policy to be delivered, but is a more far-reaching issue that could – and should – affect the way that government operates.
This is an exciting time for those interested in devolving power within the UK.
At the moment, the attention in the decentralisation agenda is on headline announcements about what each of the parties plans to do for local areas. But, more detail on how they plan to decentralise may soon emerge as manifestos are published.
Even then, it may not be up to one party alone. Given that there is widespread agreement between the parties on the need for decentralisation, we can be sure that this agenda isn't going to fade into the background any time soon.
Joe Randall is a researcher for the Institute for Government think-tank
