If Whitehall trusts councils, who do councils trust?

The focus on – and expectations of – Zohran Mamdani, the Mayor of New York, was palpable during a recent visit to the area. As I spoke to people across the city, I kept returning to three questions: what is this administration about, what feels different and what do people think comes next?What struck me was that the policy priorities themselves did not feel radically different to those we debate in local government here in England – safer streets, affordable housing, public transport, public space, cost of living and food affordability and greater citizen participation.While the issues were familiar, what appeared different was the combination of powers available to the city leadership and the emphasis being placed on neighbourhoods and place-level citizen participation to both shape and become part of the delivery.That combination of stronger powers and stronger community engagement is perhaps the most important lesson England can take from New York. We have spent much of the last two decades debating devolution, yet New York made me wonder whether the next phase of that debate should be about something even more fundamental: not simply trusting local government with greater powers, but trusting citizens with a greater role in shaping the places where they live.Starting with communitiesOne of the main drivers for my visit was not housing or transport, but democracy. More specifically, I wanted to observe the participative element of democracy alongside representative democracy.During the election campaign, the Mayor's team mobilised significant numbers of citizen volunteers, both as part of the campaign and working directly in neighbourhoods and communities, understanding what mattered to residents and creating an active infrastructure on the ground.What interested me was what happened next. Rather than allowing that infrastructure to disappear after the election, an innovative approach has emerged that integrates and builds on that community energy through an Office of Community Engagement and mainstream neighbourhood working. This builds on existing community boards, local organisations and non-governmental organisatons (NGOs) already embedded across New York.The ambition is not to replace those structures but to complement them, creating greater resident participation and more direct citizen engagement. There have understandably been questions about how campaign activism translates into ongoing governance and whether long-established community infrastructure continues to retain influence. The real test over the coming years will not be whether participation exists – it already does – but whether influence, resources and decision-making increasingly move closer to neighbourhoods and citizens genuinely feel they are shaping the services and places that matter to them.Perhaps this is where England should be looking.Representative democracy remains the cornerstone of local government, but could we now complement it with a stronger model of participative democracy? Could parish councils, neighbourhood forums and community organisations become the foundations for much wider citizen engagement rather than simply ‘consultees'?Power and deliveryAnother thing that struck me was the difference in powers.Compared with our system in England, and particularly compared with London, city leadership in New York can rely on much stronger tax-raising powers together with wider fiscal, executive and legislative levers.The Mayor of London depends far more on partnership, influence and softer forms of power to deliver outcomes. By contrast, New York's model provides stronger direct tools for delivery, as seen through the ability to introduce new taxes and use fiscal policy to support wider priorities.That matters because too often we compare outcomes without comparing powers.As England's devolution agenda gathers pace, I believe the conversation now needs to move beyond governance structures alone. Greater fiscal autonomy – whether through property taxation, tourism levies or other locally- determined revenues – would allow city regions to invest with greater certainty, accelerate regeneration and respond more quickly to local priorities. With greater powers must, of course, come greater transparency and democratic accountability, but local leaders should increasingly be trusted to shape the future of their places.Housing and affordabilityHousing was one of the areas I found most interesting given my own involvement in this agenda at both local government and national policy levels.Again, the issues themselves felt familiar. But the response felt different.Alongside market rents sits a model of rent stabilisation across parts of the private rented sector designed to manage affordability pressures and control the level of rent rises. The economics of housing also work at extraordinary scale. If discussions in London often focus on million-pound homes in prime areas, New York operates at values that make even those numbers appear modest.Against that backdrop, the administration announced measures to address disparities in the taxation and valuation of higher-value and investment property, increasing taxation on second homes and investment properties. Part of the intention is to raise additional revenue to support wider priorities while addressing affordability.At the same time, the administration inherited a difficult fiscal position. During my visit, budget stabilisation had become an immediate priority and balancing the budget was presented as an important early achievement that created the platform for wider delivery. It demonstrated that financial discipline and social ambition need not be mutually exclusive.Compared with England, where much of the conversation centres on housing supply, the emphasis here appeared more weighted towards affordability interventions alongside development. Both matter.Affordable living and foodOne of the more unusual areas of discussion was affordability beyond housing – with particular attention being given to access to food.Part of the approach involves making greater use of publicly-owned estate to open affordable food retail outlets and improve access to lower-cost groceries.Supporters see this as practical intervention in response to cost of living pressures, while critics question whether public authorities should compete with private markets. Whatever one's view, it demonstrates a willingness to think differently about how public assets can be used to address everyday challenges facing communities.Streets tell you what mattersIf housing tells you what a city values, streets tell you what it prioritises.Some of the administration's ambitions were visible directly in the public realm. There appeared to be greater emphasis on cycling infrastructure, public transport and investment in public space. This could be seen around major avenues and transport hubs, including changes associated with major events and wider urban priorities.What struck me was the willingness to reallocate highly contested urban space. The aim did not appear to be removing reliance on the motor car entirely but creating a different balance between public transport, cycling and road use.Again, a familiar conversation for local government here.Beyond devolution – trusting citizensReflecting on New York, I found myself thinking that England has perhaps reached the next stage of its own devolution journey. For many years we have rightly focused on devolving powers from Whitehall to local government. Local government reorganisation (LGR) and strategic authorities are now creating stronger places with stronger leadership. I support that direction.But perhaps we should now be asking another question. If Whitehall is learning to trust local government, who is local government learning to trust?For many years we have talked about double devolution – moving influence beyond principal councils to parish councils, neighbourhoods and community organisations. I increasingly believe that should become a central feature of public service reform rather than simply an aspiration.Throughout my own career I have become convinced that one of our greatest untapped assets is the capacity that already exists within our communities.Some of the most significant improvements I have witnessed have come not simply from better organisational structures, but from changing behaviours and unlocking community leadership: peer champions with lived experience supporting people recovering from mental ill health, community champions helping neighbours lose weight and improve their health, volunteers rebuilding confidence among those returning to work, residents supporting older people to remain connected and independent.These are not simply examples of volunteering. They demonstrate that lasting change often happens through trusted relationships rather than institutions acting alone. In my experience, they make a significant contribution to improving social mobility, reducing health inequalities and building stronger communities.England already has many of the building blocks – parish and town councils, NHS neighbourhood teams, neighbourhood policing, housing associations, even voluntary organisations and community groups.The opportunity now is to connect them around neighbourhood outcomes rather than organisational boundaries.Imagine parish councils working alongside the councils, combined authority, NHS, police, housing providers and voluntary organisations around a shared neighbourhood plan. Imagine citizens becoming genuine partners in shaping healthier communities, stronger local economies, safer neighbourhoods and greener environments.Across the country we already have inspiring examples of communities helping to run libraries, theatres, parks, leisure facilities and community buildings. Professional staff do not become less important; their role evolves. Increasingly they become facilitators, co-ordinators and convenors, enabling communities to do more for themselves and each other.Perhaps that is the real opportunity presented by devolution.I came to New York interested in the role of NGOs, the voluntary sector and citizen participation. I left thinking equally about power, delivery and trust.The challenges themselves felt remarkably familiar to those we face in local government here in England. The difference was the willingness to combine stronger executive powers with a greater ambition to involve citizens directly in shaping the future of their neighbourhoods.Perhaps that is where England's devolution debate should now evolve. The first phase of devolution has been about trusting local government with greater powers, the next phase may be about trusting citizens.If LGR simply creates larger councils, we will have missed a once-in-a-generation opportunity. If it creates stronger neighbourhoods, more empowered communities and citizens who increasingly shape and improve the places where they live, then we will have achieved something far more significant than institutional reform. We will have strengthened local democracy itself.Manjeet Gill is former chief executive of Wokingham BC, West Lindsey DC and Salisbury DC

Title

DEVOLUTION

If Whitehall trusts councils, who do councils trust?

By Manjeet Gill | 09 September 2026

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING