Google Search requires user consent to function. That simple technological gate — the click of an “Allow and Continue” button before a search box can load — encapsulates a far larger question about who controls access to information, services, and decision-making. In British politics, a similar debate over consent and permission is playing out not on a website but across the country’s governance architecture, as Angela Rayner throws her weight behind Andy Burnham’s ambitious plan to rewire the relationship between Westminster and the regions.
The consent mechanism for Google Custom Search, which uses cookies or similar technologies, is a routine example of how digital services depend on a deliberate act from the user. The same principle, Rayner and Burnham argue, should apply to how central government hands power to local communities. Instead of towns and cities having to beg for basic functions from Whitehall, the default should be that power sits locally unless there is a compelling reason to hold it centrally. Rayner, as the senior Labour figure formerly serving as Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Local Government, has been a persistent critic of what she calls Westminster’s tendency to “hoard power”, and she has now explicitly backed Burnham’s agenda for “the biggest rebalancing of power our country has seen”.
Consent as the new default for local government
The concept of consent is central to the devolution push. Rayner has repeatedly said that she wants to end what she describes as a “begging bowl culture” where regional politicians had to seek permission from Whitehall for basic functions. Her proposed remedy is to make devolution the “default setting” for councils, replacing the current ad hoc system in which powers are granted “at the whim of a minister in Whitehall”. Under this approach, local consent would be presumed, and central government would need to justify any retention of control — a reversal of the current dynamic. The Labour Party’s 2023 promise of a “Take Back Control Bill”, later outlined in the King’s Speech as the “English Devolution Bill”, represents a statutory attempt to embed this principle. The 2026 English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act has since established a new framework, while a Devolution Priority Programme aims to accelerate the process in areas that have historically been left out — designated “devolution deserts” by the government.
For Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester who is widely expected to become the next Labour leader and UK Prime Minister, consent is not merely a procedural nicety but a constitutional necessity. He has called Westminster “broken” and demanded a “circuit breaker” to decentralise power. His flagship proposal, “No. 10 North”, would create a second base for the Prime Minister’s office in Manchester, intended to serve as the “nerve centre of a rewired Britain”. This symbolic gesture is paired with a concrete agenda: a 10-year plan for reindustrialisation and regeneration, a commitment to the “biggest council house building programme since the post-war period”, and greater local control over essential utilities such as water, energy, and transport. All of these rely on the principle that local communities should consent to — and shape — the policies that affect them, rather than receiving dictates from Whitehall.
What the search for power looks like
The search feature on a news website is a minor convenience, but the search for a new governance model is a structural transformation. Burnham’s vision involves a “place-based approach” that prioritises local needs and collaboration between the public, private, and community sectors. This is already being tested in Greater Manchester, which pioneered the first Combined Authority in 2011 and has since secured “trailblazer” devolution deals, including a significant one in March 2023 that granted new responsibilities over transport, housing, and regeneration. The region also obtained an “integrated settlement” — a single funding pot similar to those enjoyed by Scotland and Wales — giving the Greater Manchester Combined Authority greater autonomy to prioritise local decisions.
Yet the search is far from complete. While Combined Authorities have expanded across England, critics argue that the devolution process so far may not always lead to meaningful decentralisation. Westminster retains ultimate discretion over devolved powers, and without fiscal powers — control over tax and revenue — local leaders can remain mere “delivery agents of central policy”. Burnham and Rayner are both pushing for deeper cultural change within central government institutions, which Rayner has accused of “micro-management and control”. The ambition is to move from an era where regions search for permission to an era where they already have it.
Privacy in the balance of power
The privacy policy that accompanies the Google Search consent notice is a legal shield for the user’s data. In the devolution debate, privacy has a different meaning: the right of local communities to make decisions away from the glare and interference of Whitehall. Rayner has argued that structural change is necessary for Labour to effectively counter its political opponents, and that a “deeper cultural change” is required so that power is not just transferred but genuinely owned locally. The Labour manifesto pledges to “deepen devolution settlements for existing Combined Authorities” and “widen devolution to more areas”, while Rayner herself has said she wants to make devolution the “default” and move away from an ad hoc system.
Accountability is a key part of this privacy argument. Devolution aims to make leaders more directly answerable to the people they serve, but ensuring clear accountability mechanisms for both central and local government is crucial. Studies suggest that if the rest of the UK matched London’s productivity levels, the national economy could be significantly larger — a potential prize that makes the privacy of local decision-making not just a matter of principle but of prosperity. Burnham’s reindustrialisation plan, for instance, would consolidate public and private investment at a local level, strengthening UK-based suppliers and tailoring strategies to regional strengths. Without the privacy to experiment and innovate away from central oversight, such local strategies risk being diluted.
The tension between centralisation and decentralisation remains the defining fault line. Critics note that without true fiscal autonomy, local leaders may still be dependent on Whitehall’s approval — a form of ongoing consent that falls short of the real thing. The “integrated settlement” secured by Greater Manchester is a step forward, but it covers only one region. Rayner and Burnham both want that model expanded, alongside a wider cultural shift in how Whitehall views its relationship with localities. As Burnham put it, the goal is to make “No. 10 North” a conduit for redistributing power and resources across the UK, rather than a symbolic gesture.
All of this hinges on a simple idea that the Google Search consent box makes explicit: before anything happens, the user — or in this case, the community — must be asked. Clicking “Allow and Continue” is a small act, but in the context of governance, it represents a fundamental reordering of who holds the keys to the search for a better, fairer Britain.
