In the excitement of appointing a new Prime Minister, the Manchester Mayoral election, and Count Binface’s adventures in Clacton, the government’s proposals for local government reform in England have been overlooked by the media. This is a pity, as the implications of the changes will stay with us for a long time. How local government is organized affects how efficiently services are delivered to residents, and what they cost. Mathew Hulbert pointed out eloquently in LDV a fortnight ago that the government’s proposed changes are not a technical administrative reform, but a profound political change.

The motive behind current government policy is to replace two-tier local government with unitary councils. Fair enough, fashions change. The process started when Angela Rayner was Minister. She aimed for unitaries with a population of around 500,000. When Steve Reed took over, he favoured smaller councils. What neither of them favoured, unfortunately, was an impartial, evidence-led way of deciding what council boundaries should be. This has led to political manipulation almost to the extent of gerrymandering, and proposals for councils with no roots in community. Local councils with absurd boundaries have caused political ructions in many counties. One of the craziest examples is in Lincolnshire.

There are two obvious ways of establishing unitary authorities in the area. One is to have a unitary Lincolnshire County Council based on the present authority. This would have a population around the size Angela Rayner originally wanted for unitaries. The other is to return to the pre-1974 pattern of three unitary councils based on the historic “Parts” of the county: Lindsey, Kesteven, and Holland, with a separate council for the city of Lincoln. That would provide more compact unitaries, of the size Steve Reed seemed to favour.

Instead of backing either of these alternatives, Reed, in one of his last actions as a minister, favoured a self-serving piece of gerrymandering put forward by Lincoln City Council. Their proposal splits Lincolnshire into two unitary councils. One is the City of Lincoln, enlarged by the inclusion of many well-to-do commuter villages around it. This council would include most of the industry in the county, the Cathedral, and the two Universities. Many of the most prosperous settlements in the county would be drawn in, and the city council would have the last word on development in the rural area surrounding the city.

What does the proposal suggest for the rest of this historic county? Well, um, nothing really. The government just suggests lumping all the rest into a new unitary council called Rural Lincolnshire. This would start at a huge disadvantage. It would encompass the less prosperous areas of the county and would lack a coherent identity. With an economy based largely on agriculture, it would have a low revenue base but an expensive need to serve a huge and sparsely populated area. Transport links mean that, paradoxically, its HQ would probably have to be in the city rather than in its own area.

This proposal fails to make economic or geographical sense. It means a loss of institutional memory, and condemns rural communities to loss of opportunity while the city becomes bigger and richer. And there is no sign that people want this. Evidence of consultation is sadly lacking. The Lincoln City proposal, after lots of turgid management-speak, makes the amazing admission that there has been no scientific survey of public opinion “to avoid confusion and engagement fatigue”. bit like cancelling a General Election to avoid voters getting tired of thinking, then.

Lincolnshire is not the only area where crazy decisions are to be foisted on unsuspecting communities. Devon is an egregious example, and there are others. But two gleams of light flicker on the horizon. One is that judicial reviews of some of the government’s decisions are now being sought, and so there may be more critical scrutiny. The second is that the minister responsible is Angela Rayner once again. Can she be persuaded to re-think her predecessor’s policies?

Either way, we need LibDem parliamentarians – peers as well as MPs – to take this issue up much more energetically than they have so far. They will find many of us ready to help. Good local government has been a keystone of Liberalism since Joseph Chamberlain’s time. When the consequences of this reorganization become evident, wouldn’t it be fine if we could show we were on the right side of history?

* Nigel Lindsay is a former Liberal councillor in Aberdeen and a longtime activist in the party, but considers himself an internationalist first and foremost.