What stands out here is not the margin but the mood — this was less a vote for devolution's virtues than a vote of no confidence in the centre. The most-respected Yes argument barely mentioned mayors or income-tax shares at all; it was a verdict on Westminster itself, distrust of "the London-centric thinking" that, one voter argued, "too often assumes or promotes a multicultural diversity that is irrelevant or downright damaging outside the bubble." A second Yes voice made the more conventional fiscal case, that councils have been starved while "money that should have been going to councils has been staying in London & disappearing," though even this voter wanted strings attached, insisting funds be "ring fenced" for housing, transport, schools and hospitals.
The No side, for its part, never argued against devolution's principle so much as its plumbing. The floor's highest-rated No opinion warned that shifting power creates a new bureaucracy without adding a penny, cautioning that "possibility of fraud, theft, incompetence or error will rise multi-fold" as a state machine is built to manage the handover, when the real need was for government to "spend less, a lot less than now." A second No voter made a leaner version of the same point, that "every time something is moved, the cost of managing it goes up," and reached for efficiency rather than centralisation as the fix. Neither side really engaged the other: Yes voters argued trust and geography, No voters argued cost and machinery, and the vote split without much overlap between them.
That fault line is a familiar one in UK politics, the old tension between the English devolution project — city-region mayors, fiscal devolution, "levelling up" under whatever label survives it — and a residual Treasury instinct that new tiers of government mean new leakage. Healey's Budget lands into a chamber that trusts Westminster less than it trusts the alternative, even without much conviction the alternative will be cheaper.
The verdict, in short, was less "send the money out" than "we no longer believe in where it currently goes."
4 Opinions
The amount of money will not change, possibility of fraud, theft, incompetence or error will rise multi-fold. In addition a state machine will need to be build (more people engaged) to distribute and control the money. IMO, the state should spend less, a lot less than now - this doesn't look like money saver or way to improve spending.
Every time something is moved ,the cost of managing it goes up. Streamline everything cut as much as possible, with AI costs would drop
Without doubt for to long central government has been cutting its funding to local government. Money that should have been going to councils has been staying in London & disappearing! The balance needs to be redressed, giving money to councils to run & fund what's needed in their areas. Although the money should be ring fenced to be spent on public services (housing, transport, schools, hospitals etc) not vanity or pointless projects
Yes - but that's more because I don't trust the Westminster bubble to accurately understand and respond to regional needs. Rather, the London-centric thinking too often assumes or promotes a multicultural diversity that is irrelevant or downright damaging outside the bubble.