With no compelling vision for local government or motivating reason for change we will be left to curate a purely technocratic exercise of drawing arbitrary lines on a map. So it is only having considered the purpose of local government in the 21st Century, and the purpose of any reorganisation of its structures, and sought to align the two, that we are ready to consider how we might proceed in practice.
Because we are early in the current Labour administration we have the luxury of being able to take some time to get the process right and still enact and embed any changes within this parliamentary term. We may be more likely to have a smoother period of transition if we surface and discuss relevant issues in order to reach a broad consensus around the best way forward. It’s important to spend time up front engaging the public, politicians, policymakers and wider stakeholders to unpack both the purpose of local government and how these can be realised through a restructure. Perhaps a national commission or enquiry is the way forward. Alongside this could be a national citizens assembly, convened to review and offer the views of a cross-section of society on the insights, ideas and ultimate proposals. The views of young people should also inform this process, for they will be inheriting its results, even if more young people than ever seem to be questioning the value of democracy <link>.
A critical adjunct is to consider: who gets to decide on the final structures? Any implementation will need to be on the back of legislation, but who ultimately signs off on the option that forms that legislation? In the 2000s it was the Boundary Committee that prepared the recommendations, the very ones it was my job at the time to influence. A similar body, convened for the purpose, may be a way forward, with an appropriate blend of expertise experience and perspectives. But a body that represents to Government the preferred way forwards, with sufficient powers to do so, in order that it does not simply act as a filter to the wishes of government.
Whatever happens, it is imperative that the solutions are not left up to local councils to figure out. I say that with respect. The process in the 2000s was famously botched1 for a number of reasons. Perhaps the assumption was that councils would come together to make proposals for change, but the reality was that as they were invited to apply for unitary status without considering the implications for their neighbours, thus triggering – at best – local competition, usually unwanted by those other councils dragged into the game as collateral damage. At worst it led to all-out hostilities between every tier of government: parish, district, county, national, some of which ended up in the High Court.
There were no winners. How can there be, when you are pitching a county council and its districts, all of whom bring a long history of ups and downs, successes and failings, rivalries and conflict, into a policy arena and inviting them to fight for their survival. The legacy of these battles loomed as a large shadow over so much that followed. It is also what has led, in large part, to the fragmented structures we have today. We have to move beyond that paradigm and embrace a more collaborative approach.
The question follows: what are some of the foundational challenges that arise when you do embark on such a process? I summarise some below, not to illustrate the complexity of the task (although it does do that), rather because within each challenge is a potential opportunity.
Governance. It follows that if we can simplify structures, relationships become clearer. Increased transparency, accountability and engagement follow. Enabling good governance is vital, applying those tenets set out in the Nolan principles of public life that seem to have fallen by the political and social wayside over the last decade or more. It also follows that simplified structures and better governance leads to more efficient functioning in service of the defined purpose.
Productivity. The NHS teaches us that when you are constantly lurching between new structures all the organisational effort gets absorbed in to two core areas. First is the overt nuts and bolts of reorganisation, making sure people, processes, systems, decision-making and governance are all as aligned as they can be, often with new organisations being constituted from the ashes of the old ones. Have we dissembled and reassembled all the parts in the new configuration in such a way as it will actually function as we hope it will? While behind the scenes the covert operation for many is, of course, the jockeying for position and power that goes on between senior staff and the loss of productivity among those who might at best feel deeply unsettled by the changes, and at worst fear for their own job in the restructure.
Standardisation. The centrifugal force that is Westminster does not let go of control easily, preferring instead to hoard rather than devolve. Sam Friedman2 offers three core reasons why this is: a belief in central government that local government is boring to voters, that the centre hates giving up control, and that there is a deep cultural antipathy to the idea of local differences in service or taxation (the so-called ‘postcode lottery’). In turn I think this latter point leads to an almost pathological desire for standardisation and scale, as a proxy for value for money, but this runs counter to the notion of local solutions to local problems. To Sam’s list I would add one of my own: infantilisation. In my experience, local government is generally looked down upon by those in Westminster, rarely considered to be the adult in the room by those who think they are.
Systems. The societal challenges we face are increasingly intersectional and complex, so a standardised service does not flex to meet the often complex needs of an individual. Problems don’t equal services or departments, they transcend them. As a result, we are increasingly required to join up responses across the public sector, co-ordinating with a range of agencies to address issues from obesity to community safety to worklessness. It’s when people fall between the gaps – because there is no neat match between their problem and a service – that we see acute ‘service’ failure. But in effect it’s a failure of the wider state. So how might we design structures that can help mitigate the likelihood of these failures from occurring?
Subsidiarity. It’s important to embed the principle that decisions should be taken at the closest level to those they impact. The opportunity is to find ways of engaging local people and communities in these decisions. In the 2000s this led to many county-level proposals for unitary local government including a number of sub-county Community Fora. The cynic might ask how this new bureaucracy was different from the existing one, with a similar number of Districts instead. Whatever it looks like on paper, it is inconceivable that subsidiarity wouldn’t result in some functions being transferred from central government to local government, and from local government to – where they exist – parish councils.
This leads to the next set of considerations: to what extent we should account for the natural, social, political and economic geography of England. I’ll unpack this, and what it means for the lines we might ultimately end up drawing on the map, in the next article.
Read all these blogs in a single article or download as a Policy + Practice paper here.
2 Friedman, S (2024) Failed State: Why nothing works and how we fix it. Kindle Edition.
Ian Burbidge. 
Leave a comment