begging bowl – Regional leaders say promised devolution reforms still keep them chasing Whitehall money and approvals—highlighting a power-and-accountability gap.
Promises of devolution reform can sound bold in a lecture hall, but the day-to-day reality for regional mayors is more grinding—and more political—than the rhetoric suggests.
The debate centers on a basic tension: authority without real control.. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has argued for breaking “Whitehall orthodoxies” and “liberating” regions. but mayors and devolution experts say the current system still limits local power over long-term financial decisions.. Their frustration isn’t just about funding levels; it’s about who sets the rules. who can say yes or no. and how quickly decisions can be made.
A key point driving the criticism is fiscal centralization.. Misryoum analysis of the numbers described in the reporting shows the UK’s model is unusually centralized: compared with other OECD countries. the UK’s regions have far less autonomy over revenue than counterparts abroad.. Reeves’ stated goal—to give cities “control over long-term, self-sustaining capital”—is therefore not a tweak at the edges.. It is an attempt to redraw the balance of power between the center and local government. and that kind of change tends to collide with longstanding administrative instincts.
Alex Walker. a researcher at the think tank Re:State. captures the political problem in plain terms: spending responsibilities have been devolved. but revenue raising has not.. For him. the consequence is a democratic deficit—local leaders may be held responsible for outcomes. yet accountability and leverage still flow upward to central departments rather than outward to local voters.. In practical terms, that means mayors can be judged locally while the levers remain in Whitehall.
“Begging bowl” culture becomes a trust issue
Akash Paun of the Institute for Government frames the complaint as a trust failure embedded in the funding system.. Misryoum notes that when budgets are pieced together from grants routed through multiple departments. mayors spend more time accounting for money than designing integrated strategies.. It’s the kind of bureaucratic workload that discourages long-horizon planning—exactly what devolution is supposed to enable.
The frustration is amplified by the way grants are structured.. Even reforms intended to simplify decision-making can carry new conditions, eligibility tests, and timelines that make change feel slow.. Paun points to a “consolidated budget” approach—an integrated settlement model—meant to bring together areas like housing. regeneration. transport. skills. retrofit. and employment support.. In theory, it should help mayors build coherent plans instead of juggling fragmented streams.
Integrated settlements: faster in theory, slower in practice
Yet the integrated settlement comes with thresholds that keep many authorities out of the immediate benefits.. As described in the reporting. only certain “established” mayoral strategic authorities qualify. leaving other regions working through eligibility criteria before they can access consolidated funding.. Misryoum understands the political logic here: governments want assurance that devolved budgets will be managed responsibly.. But for local leaders, the effect is a different message—one that feels like central approval is still gatekeeping devolution.
Claire Ward, mayor of the East Midlands Combined County Authority, illustrates how eligibility rules translate into real delays.. She says she has been waiting to move from established status to an integrated settlement pathway. and she frames the result as a duty-based frustration: if she is promising growth and opportunity. the timeline matters.. Her argument is not abstract.. When decisions about funding flexibility are delayed. projects that require multi-year investment can lose momentum—or get redesigned around short-term constraints.
Oliver Coppard, the Labour Co-op mayor in South Yorkshire, pushes the critique further.. Misryoum sees the core claim as less about paperwork and more about principle: he argues the process is not “in the spirit of devolution. ” describing it as government holding “the reins” while local leaders are asked to achieve outcomes with limited freedom.. That is where the trust question lands—whether Whitehall views local government as capable partners or as administrators to be monitored.
What this means for the next phase of devolution
Misryoum interprets the political stakes as larger than the administrative fixes now being debated.. A reform program that moves power unevenly—or only after long qualifications—risks becoming a loyalty test rather than a decentralization project.. If mayors feel they are always one approval away from meaningful discretion. the public narrative can quickly sour: devolution becomes a promise deferred.
There is also a risk of backlash.. Misryoum expects tensions to rise if Whitehall attempts to correct problems by tightening control.. Walker warns that when local implementation falters. the instinct in central government can be to pull decisions back toward the center.. That dynamic—common in many systems—can gradually undo the gains of devolution by shifting the balance of risk management back to ministries.
Government representatives. including an MHCLG spokesperson. argue that integrated settlements are already expanding. bureaucracy is being cut. and further steps are planned through an English Devolution Bill. a fiscal devolution roadmap. and a “Right to Request” approach.. Misryoum reads this as a defense of the direction of travel: reforms are underway. but the government believes safeguards and staged progress are necessary.
But the mayors’ counterargument is ultimately about pace and power.. Devolution is not only about who administers services; it is about who can decide the priorities and fund the choices that shape local life—housing growth. transport connectivity. skills pipelines. and regional opportunity.. If the system keeps leaders in a “begging bowl” relationship to central departments. then the politics of distrust will outlast the policy paperwork.
For now. the immediate question facing regions is whether the “next steps” arrive quickly enough to matter. and whether fiscal devolution delivers the kind of accountability shift local leaders say is missing.. The longer the eligibility barriers and stipulations persist. the more the reform agenda risks being seen not as a break with the past. but as another chapter in the same centrally managed story.