So the critical challenge remains: who gets to draw the lines on a map? Give the task to a bureaucrat and you might get standardised lines, under assumptions of effectiveness. But is effectiveness sufficient? Give it to economists and you might get the fewest lines, under assumptions of efficiency. But is biggest best? Give it to politicians and you might get the most gerrymandered lines under assumptions of political advantage. But are ‘safe seats’ empowering? Give it to geographers and you might get the most socio-economically appropriate lines under assumptions of community. But is engagement enough? Give to local authority officers and you might get a technocratic solution that is an incremental step forward from where we are now. But is an evolutionary approach sufficient for the middle of the 21^st Century? 

I always saw local authorities as custodians of place. Connectors who join up these different communities. Shaping their future, engaging people, innovating with new ideas while respecting the past. Creators of a viable future and custodians of a shared past. At a scale that promotes efficiency of operation and enables collaboration with the wider public sector. Covering areas that people identify with and responsible for functions people care about. Turnout is conditional on people feeling there is a strong reason to turn out. Electing people to represent them on issues that matter with powers that make a difference and at a scale that offers transparency and accountability. 

Can we arrive at a solution that offers a blend of effective and efficient operation, within and between the new organisations and their partners, based on clear purpose; that offers a blend of empowerment and engagement with citizens, communities, and the wider social sector, based on being a clear champion of place; and one founded not on an incremental but rather a revolutionary approach to change? 

At best, this exercise could be the start of a renewal of local public service and democratic accountability, liberating a new era of civic entrepreneurialism. At worst, this whole exercise in reorganisation could be a catastrophic distraction, nothing more than a rearrangement of bureaucratic deckchairs on the Titanic, doomed to sink under the impact of severe austerity. 

I’ve previously titled a blog about failures of Government procurement and commissioning The biggest issue you never know you cared about [link]. The fiasco – and this word doesn’t come close to doing it justice  – of privatising parts of the probation service illustrates what can happen when policy is ill-thought through, the advice of experts and practitioners is ignored, incentive mechanisms such as payment by results are misused, profits are privatised and risks socialised, and policy is pursued on grounds purely of ideology. 

My deep worry with the reorganisation of local government is that it follows a similar path, whether based on a set of assumptions or narrow ambitions. The ultimate path taken will depend on the extent to which we consider the purpose of local government, the purpose of reorganisation, the process to be followed and the importance community and geography. 

The form and function of local government is too important an issue not to get right. It goes to the heart of what we value most as a society. About how we collectively respond to the opportunities and challenges of the present while taking a long-term view for future generations, make decisions requiring material trade-offs through the mobilisation of consent, about how we hold to account those who don’t serve our needs and engage with those who do. 

Perhaps I need to rename my commissioning blog; the reorganisation of Local Government is by far the biggest issue you never knew you cared about. 

---

<< Part 4 | Part 1 >>

Read all these blogs in a single article or download as a Policy + Practice paper here.