Is devolution more democratic for young people?
New Prime Minister Andy Burnham has presented his devolution agenda as a response to Westminster’s failure to listen to “normal people”. IF Senior Researcher Toby Whelton asks whether it will give young people a fairer hearing.
The biggest rebalancing of power
Andy Burnham has said he will enact a programme of devolution that will be the “biggest rebalancing of power the country has ever seen”. He believes that for too long politics has prioritised London and the South East, leaving other regions behind. To correct this, political power must be decentralised from the capital and given to local regions.
But why?
Advocates give many reasons for devolving power, but one of the most prominent is that devolution is more democratic. The argument is that decisions made locally, by local politicians, are more likely to reflect local needs and concerns. Devolution strengthens accountability by bringing policymakers closer to those affected by their decisions. This argument is especially appealing at a time when large swathes of voters feel ignored and misunderstood by Westminster.
Yet the assumption that devolved government is inherently more democratic should not go unchallenged. This is especially the case for young people. Although younger generations have undoubtedly been overlooked in national policymaking, more decentralised decision-making could leave them even less well represented.
Age representation
The underrepresentation of young people in local government is apparent in the age profile of elected representatives.
The average age of MPs elected in 2024 was 48. This is the same as the median age of the UK adult population. By contrast, the average age of local councillors was 60 in 2022.
Another way to illustrate this imbalance is to calculate a representation ratio for each age group. If people aged 50 to 54 account for 9% of both the adult population and local councillors, their ratio is 1, indicating proportional representation.
On this measure, younger age groups are starkly underrepresented. People aged 18 to 24 make up 10% of the adult population but just 1% of councillors, giving them a ratio of 0.1. People aged 65 to 69, meanwhile, account for 6% of the adult population but 15% of councillors, giving them a ratio of 2.5.
Combining these ratios shows that people aged 65 and over are represented among councillors at more than ten times the rate of people under 30. Although this data is from 2022, the scale of the imbalance is unlikely to have changed substantially since.
Why is this?
Several factors help explain this imbalance, some more defensible than others.
It may be that older candidates have typically developed deeper ties to their communities and accumulated more administrative experience over their lifetimes. Alternatively, it could be explained by councillor roles generally attracting modest allowances and offering no clear career path. This favours people nearing the end of their careers, those less dependent on earned income and those with more spare time.
Eligibility criteria based on local ties may also disadvantage younger candidates, who are more likely to rent and move frequently. Turnout among young people is also lower in local elections than in general elections, where it already trails that of older voters.
Ageism may create an additional barrier. Even after election, assumptions that youth means inexperience can undermine young councillors’ authority and make it harder for them to advance their priorities. Britain’s youngest council leader, for example, has been widely criticised for his policies and comments, often on very understandable grounds. Yet criticism of his views has often seeped into a general equation of age and unfitness for office.
Why does it matter?
Representation matters in its own right. Democratic institutions should broadly reflect the people they serve. Representation can also give citizens a greater stake in politics, which is particularly important as Gen Z becomes increasingly disillusioned with the political system.
People at different stages of life often prioritise different issues because their living standards depend on different sources of income and wealth. Housing is likely to be young people’s largest expense, while earnings are generally their main source of income. Pensioners, by contrast, are far more likely to own their homes and rely on state and private pensions. Policies that benefit one group will not necessarily benefit the other.
If local decision-makers do not experience the challenges facing young people, those challenges are less likely to be addressed.
Diffused benefits and concentrated costs
Underrepresentation is not the only problem. The structure of local decision-making can also make it harder to enact policies that benefit younger residents.
Consider a new housing development. Its costs are concentrated among a relatively small number of neighbouring residents, who may face construction disruption, additional congestion or the loss of a view. Because these residents live close to one another and share a material interest, they can readily organise against the development.
The benefits, by contrast, are dispersed. More housebuilding may improve affordability, but the gains are spread across thousands of prospective first-time buyers. Even those who come to occupy the new homes, and benefit most directly, will likely not be known when planning permission is applied for.
Devolution can therefore give disproportionate weight to organised local interests, whose members are often older and more settled. This can come at the expense of policies that would benefit younger people across the country.
Devolution alone is not enough
Devolution has potential benefits beyond strengthening democracy. Many believe devolution is good for growth. For example, effective industrial policy requires a deep understanding of the local economy. There is also an argument of sovereignty: that regions with distinct identities, cultures and traditions should have more autonomy to govern themselves. Other arguments point to simpler bureaucracy and greater policy experimentation.
Yet devolution alone is unlikely to give younger generations a stronger voice. Their interests have repeatedly been overlooked nationally, but without reforms to widen participation and representation, they may receive even less of a hearing locally.
If Burnham wants devolution to be genuinely democratic, transferring power out of Westminster must be accompanied by an effort to transfer power across generations.