Over the past 48 hours, the government’s proposed plan for devolution has sparked significant concern. The experience in Watford and Hertfordshire serves as a warning for what could soon be faced by communities across the country. Splitting Hertfordshire into two blocks—east and west—and scrapping councils like Watford Borough Council (WBC) is not an isolated issue; it is emblematic of a broader strategy that risks undermining local democracy nationwide.
This plan is not just a restructuring of local governance; it’s a fundamental threat to the democratic principles we hold dear. Councils like WBC play a vital role in our communities. They offer essential face-to-face support at town halls and provide accessible forums for public participation in local decision-making, such as Development Management Committee (DMC) meetings, which are consistently well-attended by residents. Removing these structures will alienate the very people these institutions are meant to serve.
Moreover, councils like WBC play an important role in fostering a sense of belonging and civic pride. They organise cherished community events, including the annual fireworks display, Christmas decorations across the town, and free music and drama performances. During the pandemic, many councils were on the front line of distributing COVID-19 vaccines and raising funds for local charities. Their maintenance of parks and rollout of electric vehicle infrastructure not only add tangible value to residents’ lives but also contribute to raising property prices. These initiatives create vibrant, connected communities and demonstrate the essential role local councils play in improving quality of life.
The proposed east-west model for Hertfordshire raises serious concerns about inclusivity and representation. It risks sidelining anyone who is not retired or fortunate enough to dictate their own work schedules. With the average age of a councillor in England at 61, it is clear that our political systems are already struggling to attract younger, more diverse voices. In fact, 42% of councillors are aged 65 or over, while only 16% are under the age of 45. Meanwhile, the average age of an adult living in England is just 40 years old. This stark disparity highlights the urgent need for a political system that is more reflective of the population it serves. We need to address this imbalance, not entrench it further.
An east-west model for an area like Hertfordshire would also mean long commutes for councillors who are of working age and already time-poor. The lack of sufficient public transport options connecting towns in the region makes these commutes even more challenging. This would create yet another barrier for individuals balancing work and family commitments, further discouraging participation in local governance and diminishing the diversity of voices at the decision-making table.
Anyone who has attended a Hertfordshire County Council meeting knows how inaccessible these spaces can be. For residents aged 18-65, juggling full-time jobs, family responsibilities, and the costs of attending meetings, participation in local governance often feels impossible. A devolution model that exacerbates these barriers is not just flawed—it is undemocratic.
What makes this proposal even more concerning is the lack of a proper democratic mandate. In areas like Watford, where the mayoral system was introduced following a local referendum, any attempt to dissolve councils or reorganise governance should also require a referendum. The people of Watford voted for a mayoral system to represent them indefinitely. Overturning that decision without public consent undermines the very foundation of our democratic institutions.
This is not just a local issue; it is a national one. If the government is serious about maintaining England a global exemplar of democracy, it must create systems that empower all voices, not just a privileged few. That means ensuring that any reorganisation of democratic institutions is rooted in genuine public consultation and a clear mandate from the people.
As Liberal Democrats, we believe in inclusivity, representation, and the power of local democracy. We must stand firm against proposals that centralise power and marginalise voices. Instead, we should champion reforms that make our political systems more accessible, cosmopolitan, and reflective of the diverse populations they serve.
* Mark Hofman has been a Councillor on Watford Borough Council since 2012.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Green energy will supplement conventional energy rather than replace it
Getting things done - Oxford Street #dundeewestend
Trump fanboys see share prices rise after inauguration
Jenny Barnes
Nigel Jones
Peter Davies
Roland
14 Comments
The Metropolitan Districts have been unitary since the abolition of their County Councils in 1986. Perhaps the healthiest modest change in recent years was the creation in some areas of new parish and town councils beyond the historic rural parishes. The proliferation of the executive mayor model masquerading as a devolution of power was well critiqued by William Wallace on this site in July. The argument about the notion that genuine regional devolved authorities could raise funds replacing some of central government’s taxation receipts has barely started. We should not forget the 19th century battles between Liberals and Conservatives which preceded the establishment of serious local government. When the Labour Party developed in the 20th century they could not resist matching the tendency of the Tories to centralise power – so long as they got their turn at exercising it.
I don’t agree.
In my view every part of England should have only one tier of local government. Furthermore that local government unit needs to cover a sufficiently large number of people to make administrative and economic sense.
I don’t know Watford well. However if it is too small for Watford Borough Council to be the single tier administrative unit for Watford, then it needs to be merged into something bigger, which I assume to be the proposal from reading the above piece.
I don’t know Watford well either which is why I won’t comment on how local government should be organised in that area.
I do know the UK as well as anyone else and I can say that there are many powers exercised by its parliament that don’t need to be exercised by such a remote body. It should define what those powers are and then consult as widely as possible to create authorities that can exercise them in every part of the UK. One of the powers to be devolved should be the organisation of lower tiers of democracy.
Speaking for my own area of London, we are quite able to support a parliament and cabinet government with all the powers that Scotland has. That’s what the party here should be campaigning for.
My home county of Berkshire has had unitary districts/boroughs since the 1990s and has worked fairly well. The only change I would make is to some of the boundary to the west of Reading which is covered by Newbury based nearly 20 miles away.
Tiers are not the problem, size is. The governments proposals create huge authorities which will be remote from local people and should be opposed for that reason.
“The governments proposals create huge authorities which will be remote from local people and should be opposed for that reason.”
Are you surprised? Isn’t it Labour’s instinct to control as much as possible from the centre, with no recognition of how different areas may need different approaches to achieve the same outcomes?
I spent 30 years as a councillor in all THREE tiers of local government at one time or another. Indeed, for six years I was a member of both the Lincolnshire County AND North Kesteven District Councils. I wasn’t alone as over a third of the CC members were also ‘dual hatted’. I welcome the government’s proposal to get rid of the remaining District Councils to bring local government in England finally in line with the other U.K. nations. I’m not sure about having all those new Mayors however.
Currently, Unitary Councils represent 71% of England’s population. In the rest we still have the three tier system where the public is often confused as to which council provides which service. There IS waste and duplication here and Unitary Councils, provided they are not too large, can offer significant savings. Obviously local DC leaders in Lincolnshire oppose the move. As they say; “Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas”.
I don’t often contribute to LDV any more; but would like to wish the regulars the compliments of the season.
Regarding size, I believe the government’s proposals envisage councils representing no more than around 500,000 people. Here in Lincolnshire that ought to mean our having two and, if you include to two unitary councils south of the Humber, possibly three. Don’t forget that there are no plans to abolish the Parish/Town/Neighbourhood Councils that could even be offered enhanced powers.
Then perhaps we could consider REAL devolution and look at setting up Regional Assemblies in England to head towards a Federal United Kingdom.
The Hertfordshire split east/west mentioned above mirrors the 2008 split in Cheshire.
The loss of the six districts has seen a definite loss of local identification with local councils, more remote councillors and less opportunity for those in full time work to be a councillor. As for any savings, if they accrued the government swallowed those up!
To call this proposal devolution is ridiculous.
As for Mayors, just remember Joe Anderson in neighbouring Liverpool!
“Don’t forget that there are no plans to abolish the Parish/Town/Neighbourhood Councils that could even be offered enhanced powers. ”
They should be offered enhanced powers such as control over some planning application decisions e.g. building single houses as infill or where otherwise appropriate.
What bothers me is the ignoring by the government of the need for local services – shops, medical etc. to be provided along with large new housing estates.
John Marriott: the White Paper says unitary authorities should be ‘500,000 or more’, which can mean up to or over a million. That will mean wards or 15,000-20,000 voters (we have 12-15,000 in Bradford and Leeds already). It’s very difficult for councillors to keep in touch with their constituents in such large areas.
@William Wallace
Size DOES matter. Too small is uneconomic and money (or enough of it) is important. That’s why LOCAL councils or Parish/Town councils are so important (I was a member of mine for 24 years). Mind you, many of them need a boot up the rear. From my experience there are three categories of Parish Council : the Proactive, the Reactive and the Inactive, with far too many of categories two and three!
Northamptonshire did an east-west split, although branded it a West-North split.
It is creating masses of funding complications and work as the two now only offer aand fund (third sector) services across their areas.
In my area, straddling the new boundary, we have the added complication that the new boundary does not reflect the the old borough/town council boundaries and has some strange (on the ground) nonsensical loops, just to get the magic balanced pool of voters in each area – a totally pointless exercise given the massive amount of new build going on.
@Nonconformistradical
“They should be offered enhanced powers such as control over some planning application decisions”
that should include control over housing strategy in their area and thus the ability to opt out of Westminster madness, and Westminster not having the power to overturn… Perhaps then we might start to see Westminster adopting more sane policies…
If we really want to improve the system of local government in England the government should implement a coordinated number of Citzens’ Assemblies. Involvement and acceptance of any new arrangements are key and what better way to have these than to allow the people who are going to be affected to devise them?
Most Local Councils at district or borough level work hard at housing and local plan delivery much of this involves good engagement with parishes . Spending 4 years bringing forward a sustainable local plan would be wasted by further re organisation . We already colaborate on refuse and waste management We should argue that these specific functions remain in local hands as part of any enhanced powers for town and neighborhood councils under the unitary system .