For those of us in local government at whatever tier, the Government’s proposals for local government reform, requiring the abolition of principal authorities across England and their replacement with a smaller number of unitary authorities, have caused much activity.
But the news emerging that the proposals are to be suspended and, in some cases, scrapped, will come as a huge surprise to many. We’re waiting for an official response from the Party but, in the meantime, Justin Griggs, head of communications at the National Association of Local Councils, writes:
Based on information released ahead of the statement, decisions relating to reorganisation in Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk are expected to be withdrawn, while proposals in a further 16 areas will be paused and reviewed in light of legal advice and the government’s wider priorities for devolution and public service reform. The government has also indicated that local elections scheduled for May 2027 will proceed on existing council boundaries while the review is undertaken, providing some short-term certainty for councils and communities. Surrey is not affected by the review, with plans for the new East Surrey and West Surrey unitary authorities remaining on track to go live in April 2027.
The advice that some Local Parties are likely to face local elections on existing boundaries may be welcome in some quarters, and we’ll cover Angela Rayner’s announcement, and the Party’s response, as soon as we hear more…
* Mark Valladares is the Vice Chair of Creeting St Peter, Suffolk, one of the counties where plans have allegedly been scrapped.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1573
The thirsty businesses using billions of litres of public water in drought-hit England
Ageing and Protein Production (the homeostasis of transcription)
Simon McGrath
Mick Taylor
Michal Simon
3 Comments
Southampton has one of Britain’s most important freight ports, a Russell Group university, a major railway hub and an airport just outside the city boundary.
It should be rich.
It isn’t.
People who work in Southampton earn more than people who live here. The ships come in. The containers leave. The commuters leave. Southampton keeps the traffic, the pressure on infrastructure and too much of the poverty.
And now Labour’s answer is a new map.
Absorb wealthier neighbouring areas. Increase the tax base. Raise the average income.
Southampton becomes richer.
On a spreadsheet.
Shirley does not become richer. Millbrook does not become cleaner. A resident on £25,000 does not get a pay rise because somebody in a prosperous village has joined the same council area.
This is not fixing the city. It is changing the denominator.
Labour has hardly earned our trust. In 1994, when it controlled Southampton City Council, West Quay Retail Park was tied into a 150-year lease. In May, Labour lost control of the council and its leader lost his own seat in Shirley.
Perhaps Southampton was trying to tell them something.
Eastleigh and Totton have real functional links with Southampton. Fine. Let that discussion begin with residents and councillors.
Not with Westminster drawing lines over our heads.
Southampton has already suffered enough at Labour’s hands.
Don’t build statistics.
Build the city.
I am surprised you are surprised! I have been saying for a while that a U-turn was likely. I listened with incredulity to Steve Read telling anyone who would listen of the great savings reorganisation would make. In Cambridgeshire we will have 2 or 3 education and social services departments instead of one, depending on which scheme was eventually chosen. Similarly with highways. Fire and police will almost certainly have a joint board and possibly a combined authority. No savings that I can see. When West Yorkshire County council was abolished, a few things went to the districts, but we ended up with 3 joint boards and numerous quangos to do the work previously done by WYMCC. And of course there was disruption for years. And we ended up with no direct elections to any of it.
The whole thrust of LGR is that bigger is better and less councillors is better for democracy. Over 100 councillors in Cambridgeshire will be replaced by half that number. As for the confusion argument, it’s an insult to people’s intelligence.
It’s about time our party started pointing this out loudly. We are supposed to be community champions. Time to prove it!