No won, but the deeper verdict was about trust rather than devolution itself. The chamber accepted more local authority only if it could believe local authorities were competent, accountable and constrained; the floor’s most-respected No case said its experience of councils was “sadly true” to the charge that decision-making was poor.
The No side argued that Westminster’s override was not an antique reflex but a safeguard against inconsistency and capture. Its sharpest formulation warned that “One law for the country” was necessary, while another experienced local-government voice opposed giving councils “more unsupervised authority”. The language was wary, sometimes severe, but the core concern was clear: power closer to home is not automatically power better used.
Yes voters were not arguing for unlimited municipal sovereignty. Their strongest cases stressed local knowledge, arguing that MPs who work in London “don't have a clue about other areas”, while another said councils should have freedom locally but that “there still needs to be national rules”. Their case was for tailored control over transport, housing and investment; No heard the same proposal as a route to uneven standards and political favouritism.
That is where the two sides talked past one another. Yes treated Westminster approval as a bottleneck — “You can't fix regional Britain from a desk in SW1” — while No treated national supervision as the constitutional floor beneath local discretion. The result therefore sits inside the UK’s live devolution argument, but with a distinctly English anxiety attached: parity with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was invoked by Yes, yet the room remained unconvinced that expanded powers could be trusted without firmer safeguards.
The chamber did not reject local knowledge; it rejected confidence without supervision.
21 Opinions
As someone from Scotland devolution has been a disaster and everything is worse, localise laws and politicians just seem to be more populist and less competent
If its a law it can be enforced anyway. Maybe it's about what should be allowed as a regional law. Can you ban asylum camps. Deny local housing to foreigners. Shut dodgy barbers. Ban others councils sending homeless to take up local housing.
No. My experience of local politicians (and I've dealt with a lot) is that they are even worse than the ones we get to choose from to elect nationally. What laws are we talking about? Who scrutinises them? Imagine the scenario in some cities where there is a large cultural divide and many of the politicians, who have sectarian views, might implement laws along religious lines to appease sections of their communities. It might only seek to accelerate a growing divide.
We don't need anymore halfwits enacting laws. Try using the ones on the books and behaving like sentient human beings.
Yes, as many MPs who live and work in London, don't have a clue about other areas.. They don't understand it's geography, it's culture, they think all areas are like big inner cities where you can charge high rents, for shops and accommodation and do little to help. This, I believe, is why rural towns and villages struggle to survive.
Both Tories & Labour have been implementing UN’s Agenda 2030 & one part is destroying local democracy & installing huge gerrymandered authorities which can override citizens rights. Funded by the likes of Sorus & Bloomberg etc All part of eventually confiscating all our wealth & our slavery.
No as you can't trust councils to treat each area fairly, not that the government do. My local council would prioritise islamists and their wants over everyone else.
Law making is for parliament but by laws such as no consumption of alcohol outwith a licensed premises in public areas yes
It will to disparity inequality & discrimination
The vast majority of law makers don’t seem to grown up in their local constituencies, and therefore don’t understand fully the consequences and ramifications of their legislation in relation to the areas they are supposed to represent.