The debate over English devolution has returned to the political agenda, with renewed discussion about creating a Wessex Strategic Authority covering BCP, Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire.
Supporters argue that such a move would unlock investment, secure additional Government funding and give local leaders greater influence over transport, planning, skills and economic development. Those are ambitions that deserve serious consideration. However, before residents are asked to embrace another major reorganisation of local government, there is one simple question that must be answered: will this genuinely improve people’s lives, or are we simply creating another layer of government?
Conservatives have never believed that bigger government is automatically better government. Whether power sits in Whitehall or closer to home, the same test should always apply: will it improve services, strengthen accountability and deliver better value for taxpayers? Creating another tier of governance, supported by its own mayor, officers and administrative structures, is not, in itself, an achievement.
Across BCP, local government has become increasingly layered. Christchurch already had a town council. Bournemouth, Poole and Broadstone have now joined it with town councils of their own. Many residents questioned whether these additional councils were needed, yet before these new arrangements have even had time to bed in, we are already being asked to support a Wessex Strategic Authority and a directly elected mayor. Importantly, this would sit alongside existing councils rather than replace them. At what point do we stop adding new layers of government and start asking whether government itself is actually improving?
Supporters of Wessex argue that mayoral devolution would unlock additional funding and powers that areas without a strategic authority may struggle to access. If that is the case, ministers should explain why investment in local communities depends on creating another political structure. Funding should be based on need and opportunity, not on whether an area adopts a particular model of governance.
Residents are entitled to ask some straightforward questions.
1. What additional powers will Wessex receive that cannot be delivered through better cooperation between existing councils?
2. What responsibilities will transfer from existing organisations?
3. Which existing structures, if any, will disappear?
4. How much will the new authority cost?
5. What additional governance structures, officers and committees will be required?
6. Will there be any additional costs to local taxpayers, either directly or indirectly?
These are not political questions. They are common sense questions every taxpayer should ask. There is also the issue of accountability.
When residents report potholes, object to planning applications, raise concerns about anti social behaviour or want better public services, they deserve to know who is responsible. Every additional layer of governance has the potential to make accountability less clear. If decisions are shared between town councils, BCP Council, a Wessex Strategic Authority, a directly elected mayor and central Government, where does responsibility ultimately lie? Good government depends on clear accountability, not overlapping institutions where everyone shares responsibility and no one accepts it.
There is also the question of geography. A Wessex Strategic Authority would cover a vast and diverse area stretching across multiple counties. Bournemouth’s priorities are not always the same as those of rural Wiltshire or Somerset. Councils should absolutely work together where it benefits residents, but collaboration does not automatically require another permanent layer of political governance.
Local government should not resemble a set of Russian dolls, where every time one layer is opened another appears underneath. Real devolution should result in simpler government, clearer accountability and better public services. It should not become an excuse to expand bureaucracy, create more political offices and make local government even harder for residents to navigate.
Conservatives support reform where it demonstrably improves the lives of residents, but reform should always pass one straightforward test: does it make government work better? If the answer is yes, make the case.
If the answer is simply another authority, another mayor and another layer of administration, then residents are perfectly entitled to ask whether this is genuine devolution or simply bigger government by another name.
