And so here we are again, back to a place I inhabited for three years of my life between 2007 and 2010. Local Government reorganisation. Not the most popular of conversations over the dining table or bar, I suspect, but important nonetheless. The reorganisation of municipal England is expected to form part of the forthcoming devolution White Paper. It appears as though this will be underpinned by assumptions of unitary local government^⁠1, where those parts of England currently still operating under the two tiers of county and district councils would be reviewed and reorganised into single tiers. 

I think this is an overdue conversation. My preference would be to remodel the whole map of English [Different arrangements exist in the devolved administrations and therefore this bill will focus only on English local government.]  local government not just some areas, otherwise we are again in the preserve of incremental and inconsistent approaches that render different levels of political accountability in different areas. But that’s me jumping straight into the weeds of the issue; for now, let me answer the headline question: why should we care? 

I think thus issue gets to heart of some fundamental societal and political issues: to what extent do we value local democracy, want to empower local communities, invest in the future of our people and places, address local issues and provide essential services to those who need them? The answers that you arrive at will be informed by a mix of values, ideology and experience. 

Local places and communities are where our lives intertwine with the lives of others and enmesh with our local geography, climate and environment. The interplay of these factors generate local culture and the reasons we live there. It’s where the strengths of communities can be celebrated and needs addressed. It’s where the future can not only be imagined but actively shaped. It’s also where the policy rubber hits the road: responding to and implementing the demands of national government alongside identifying and meeting the needs of these localities. And Local Government, at its best, is the conductor of this orchestra. 

I’ve written before about the complexities of our current structures of political engagement and accountability; to all intents and purposes a visitor from another country might think they have been deliberately designed to obfuscate accountability and marginalise community voice – that is, if they could be persuaded there was any planning behind our current structures at all. Each merger or restructure or additional regional tier or abolition of a council has incrementally led us to a smorgasbord of political and administrative arrangements. They are hard enough to navigate when you work within them, let alone for the general public to figure out. Is it any wonder that turn out at local elections is so low? 

It is long past time that we implemented and operated a coherent system of local government. One that is no longer on its last legs as a result of austerity policies and rising demand, but one that is set up to thrive. Is it not too much to ask that, in 21st Century England, we can move home without having to learn a completely new language and structure of local government to engage with? I don’t have high hopes for a new round of reorganisation, primarily because I fear a continuation of the incremental approach to change and that the rationale for change will be primarily economic. But this doesn’t have to be the purpose of a restructure. If this is the case, why is an incremental approach insufficient to create structures that are fit for purpose and why do we need to consider a broader range of factors in such a process? And can the final proposals for change be designed and implemented through a coherent, transparent, engaging and accountable process that is far more than simply redrawing administrative lines on a map? 

These are critical questions I will unpack in subsequent articles. 

¹ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/unitary-local-government-an-explainer/