The North East of England, still the most uneconomic region in a deprived North, remains trapped by decades of underfunding and neglect. The 2004 referendum on regional devolution offered a lifeline to break free from the Westminster stranglehold, yet it was denied by a campaign built on fabrication. Chief among them was the claim that devolution meant more politicians and expenses, a cynical distortion that denied the region a chance to control its destiny, tackle inequalities, and unleash its potential. Two decades later, the North East continues to pay the price for this missed opportunity.
The proposal, championed by then Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, sought to establish an elected regional assembly in the North East. The 2004 North East devolution referendum was set back by a lack of enthusiasm by Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and a potent campaign by the North East Says No group, led by John Elliott, a local businessman, and Dominic Cummings, who later went on to secure Brexit.
A cornerstone of their strategy was the claim that establishing an elected regional assembly would lead to “more politicians” and unnecessary expenses. While this argument resonated with many voters, it was fundamentally misleading and oversimplified. Here, we unpack why this claim was misrepresented and how it unfairly undermined the potential benefits of regional governance.
The “No” campaign argued that creating a regional assembly would increase the number of politicians, adding unnecessary bureaucracy. It would burden taxpayers with salaries, expenses, and operational overheads and fail to deliver tangible benefits in return for these additional costs. On the surface, these claims appealed to voter scepticism about politicians and government spending. However, a closer examination reveals that this narrative distorted the reality of the proposed reforms.
The proposed regional assemblies were designed not to add an extra layer of bureaucracy but to consolidate and replace existing unelected regional bodies, such as Government Offices for the Regions. These quangos already made decisions about the North East’s economic development, planning, and housing without direct accountability to the public.
Electing a regional assembly would have reduced the influence of these unelected officials and made decision-making more transparent and accountable. It would have ensured that resources were allocated by representatives chosen by local people, not distant bureaucrats. Far from increasing bureaucracy, this change would have streamlined governance by bringing decision making closer to the region.
While there would have been upfront costs associated with setting up a regional assembly, these were marginal compared to the ongoing expenditures of existing unelected regional bodies. The assembly could have reduced duplication of efforts by consolidating responsibilities under one elected body. This would have made funding allocation more effective, by tailoring it to the region’s specific needs. Saved money in the long term by addressing inefficiencies caused by the central government’s top-down approach
The “No” campaign’s financial projections ignored these potential savings and misrepresented the assembly as an unnecessary expense rather than an investment in better governance.
One of the most insidious aspects of the “more politicians” claim was the implication that politicians are inherently wasteful. This cynicism obscured the real issue: unelected regional bodies already made significant decisions without public oversight. By electing a regional assembly, voters would have had the power to hold decision-makers accountable at the ballot box, ensuring that regional policies reflect local priorities to increase transparency in how public funds are spent.
Far from creating a bloated political class, the assembly would have replaced opaque structures with democratic accountability.
Some argued that regional assemblies would undermine England’s unity and exacerbate regional divides rather than solve them. This is a misguided misconception. Due to inequality, this country has never been as divided as it is now. Devolution is about empowering regions to tackle their unique challenges, not dividing the country. Regional governance for the English regions would strengthen the union by addressing regional inequalities.
The low turnout and engagement in the campaign were used as evidence that the public didn’t see a need for regional assemblies. A lack of engagement may reflect the inadequate powers offered in the proposal rather than opposition to the principle of devolution. A more ambitious and clearer offer might have generated more enthusiasm.
Rejecting the regional assembly didn’t eliminate costs; it perpetuated the inefficiencies of central control and unaccountable regional quangos that make many decisions in Westminster, that fail to reflect the region’s unique challenge. The “No” campaign’s arguments against the assembly ignored these ongoing costs, presenting rejection as a cost-free choice when, in reality, it entrenched structural disadvantages.
Conclusion
The claim that devolution would lead to more politicians and expenses was a ploy to exploit voter cynicism and distrust. In reality, the proposed assembly offered an opportunity to streamline governance, reduce inefficiencies, and empower the North East with democratic accountability. By learning from the mistakes of 2004, future campaigns can build a stronger, more compelling case for regional devolved parliament and ensure that misleading arguments no longer hold back progress.
