Does anyone understand the local government reorganisation announced yesterday?
It didn't seem to get a lot of news coverage, despite potentially getting rid of lots of councils.
https://www.local.gov.uk/parliament/briefings-and-responses/devolution-white-paper-day-factual-briefing
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-devolution-white-paper-power-and-partnership-foundations-for-growth/english-devolution-white-paper
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30n72j4nrqo
As far as I can tell, they want to get rid of district councils, combining them into councils covering at least 500,000 people ("town and parish councils" are barely mentioned, so I presume they stay as they are - ie a local council that looks after parks and recreation, and that's about it). Above those, I think, will be "strategic authorities" of 1.5 million or more (only just larger than my county council), but it seems (again, I think) that these won't be elected, just appointed from the new councils that make it up. And they'd like an elected mayor for each strategic authority.
So I would go from an elected borough council (covering about 140,000) to a council over 3 times the size; and from an elected county council to a marginally larger appointed "strategic authority", plus an elected mayor.
This is presented as "devolution" away from "one of the most centralised countries in the developed world", even though the net effect would be me voting for a council covering a much larger area, and switching from a county council with my local representative to a single mayor. This was not what I thought "devolution" was.
= new reply since forum marked as read
https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/12/17/britains-government-plans-drastic-changes-to-local-democracy
https://archive.ph/WHAPG
THINK YOU know Britain really well? Here is a quick test. Where in the country is Three Rivers? It has a population of 94,000—almost exactly the same as Bath. Or how about South Kesteven, which is even more populous? “Next to North Kesteven” is not an acceptable answer. Those places, which are respectively north-west of London and in the East Midlands, were created in 1974 during a reorganisation of local government. Three Rivers, South Kesteven and 160-odd other places are governed by district councils, which organise rubbish collections, manage playgrounds, give or refuse permission for housing developments and in general do the sort of things that people notice when they walk their dogs. The new Labour government wants all such councils to disappear. On December 16th it proposed to sweep away “two-tier” structures, which task district councils with picking up the rubbish while county councils handle things like running children’s homes and maintaining highways. The government wants to cover England in unitary authorities that will do everything. If necessary, it will legislate to achieve this.
The resulting authorities, expected to contain at least 500,000 residents each, will be obliged to form regional clumps known as strategic authorities. Ideally, all the residents in each clump will elect a single mayor. Strategic authorities will be given some new powers and a little more freedom over how they spend the money that comes to them from the Treasury. No great giveaways are envisaged, though. Among large, rich countries, England stands out for its extreme political and fiscal centralisation. That will remain the case. Many people living in the north of England and London will hardly notice these changes, because they already live in unitary authorities and vote for mayors. People who live in the counties of south-eastern England will notice. That is where two-tier structures are most common. It is also where property prices are high because of the wealth generated in London, and where fights over housebuilding can be exceptionally vicious.
Perhaps that is not a coincidence. Labour wants to reform local-government structures largely because it thinks that the existing arrangements are blocking development. English local authorities have few powers: they cannot levy income taxes or sales taxes, for example. But they do have control over planning, and many wield it like a club, eagerly knocking down proposals for new suburbs and other projects. In theory, the more local the level at which planning decisions are made, the greater the tendency to squash: nimbys oppose development in their back yards, after all, not in their counties or metropolises. Make councils bigger and the clubs might come out less often. Other reforms proposed by the government ought to favour building, too. In places where combined authorities and elected mayors already exist, ambitious regional-development plans can be wrecked if just one or two authorities refuse to participate. That happened in 2022 in the West of England Combined Authority, which includes Bristol, Bath and some nimbyish rural councils. In future, spatial-development strategies could be approved by a majority vote of the councils in a strategic authority. The mayor will have a tie-breaking vote.
Labour talks a good game about meddling less in local affairs than previous governments did, and no doubt means what it says. But its offer of somewhat greater power for local authorities appears to be contingent on them doing what it wants. In countries where local and regional governments are truly powerful, such as America, they are wildly different: small, large, high-tax, low-tax, pro-development, anti-development. The British government wants all councils to be organised similarly, and to be focused on building. Apart from a short spell in 2020, when covid-19 raged, Britons have grown less and less happy with their local authorities (see chart). An obvious reason is financial. During the period of austerity that followed the financial crisis of 2007-08, the Treasury cut grants to councils and discouraged them from raising council taxes, levied on homes. At the same time, local authorities have been forced to spend more money on social care for adults and children. As a result, they have cut spending in real terms on nice, noticeable things like road-mending and libraries. And council taxes could not be restrained for ever. They are currently rising by 5% a year.
Still, local councillors are more trusted to act in the interests of local people than mps or the national government are. Inconvenient though it is, people seem to want many decisions made close to where they live. The government’s reforms will no doubt increase the efficiency of local government; perhaps they will remove some of the obstacles to building. The danger is that they will make local politicians more remote and even less popular. Angela Rayner, the housing and local-government secretary, is a woman in a hurry. She wants to see large unitary authorities created as quickly as possible, and promises “an ambitious first wave” in this parliament, which is likely to end in 2029. A government with an enormous majority can do more or less what it wants. The likes of Three Rivers and South Kesteven will complain bitterly, but many of them are doomed. A 50-year innings is not too bad. ■
whilst I studied law at the uni. I work there now 