I thought Paul Carter’s proposals in the Localis report published last month were bold – and pretty brash as well in their directness, and the focus on efficiency. The report may be an attempted landgrab for localism, but it is one designed to appeal to an incoming Conservative administration in straitened times.

I am not surprised, however, by Philip Hammond’s reported lack of enthusiasm for the proposals, for two main reasons.

First, he has alighted on the issue of the relationship with the Kent public. Hammond asks how comfortable Kent residents would be with council involvement in benefit entitlement. Yet we know from decades of research that the public knows little and cares less about which arm of the state delivers which service.

If any authority has the credibility to do this, then KCC does. It has long been admired for its ability to surf the wave of every initiative for the good of its residents, and to be at the forefront of many important innovations. And, from residents’ point of view, it delivers good services, which is still a pre-requisite for having ‘permission’ to do more than just deliver core services.

However, in my view, the main weakness of Carter’s proposals is that they don’t really address how the proposed changes would play with the public. There is little talk of the impact devolution could have on citizens, little attempt to get Hammond asking a different question: “how will residents relate to local services if this transition is successful?”.

Second, how can I say this? It seems like we’ve been here before. Is this the first sign of the patterns that will be established under a Conservative administration? These patterns are familiar now. A Treasury minister who does not want to let go of the reins equals ‘dog bites man’ in shock value; given the expected outcome of the General Election, we shouldn’t be surprised that a shadow Treasury Minister already feels the same.

Personally, my own view hasn’t changed for years. Centralism is so ingrained in the central-local relationship and in people’s expectations of what’s delivered and how decisions are made, that I just can’t see Philip Hammond’s implicit (and not, on the face of it, unreasonable) pre-condition ever being met.

How could a public whose media constantly emphasises the primacy of Westminster and demonises ‘postcode lotteries’ ever express substantial support for the type of devolution of decision-making called for by Carter, in advance of it happening? The truth is, such devolution would have to be on a ‘build it and they will come’ basis.

The question is: do we believe in (new) localism in principle, but never in practice? If we always put unwinnable test in the way, then the answer is yes. The truth is that real devolution is risky. Real localism means more variation and, yes, in some cases, confusion and error. Those of us who bang the localist drum should be prepared to say so, and prepared to say that the risk is worth it.