"Local government reorganisation will lead to better outcomes for residents and save a significant amount of money that can be reinvested in public services and improve accountability."
But a story on BBC News reveals that the government has undertaken no analysis to back up these claims.
Instead, it has relied upon a 2020 report commissioned by the County Council Network (CCN) that claimed £2.9bn could be saved over five years.
But then the CCN was never going to come out in favour of smaller councils. And this BBC story seems to be occasioned by that organisation's fear that county councils could be replaced by smaller unitary authorities.
I like district councils, and my five-year spell as a district councillor is one of the things I am most proud of. So I prefer the take of the chair of the District Councils' Network, Sam Chapman-Allen:
"It's astonishing that the government has undertaken no independent analysis before embarking on the biggest reorganisation of councils for 50 years.
"Mega councils, with populations of half a million people or more, could be imposed on areas when there's no independent, up-to-date evidence to justify councils of this size, and many large councils created previously are struggling financially."
If this reorganisation does result in such mega councils, it will weaken the link between councillors and voters. And which party will benefit from that? Reform UK.
Labour at the moment puts me in mind of Robert Conquest's Third Law of Politics:
The simplest way to explain the behaviour of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
Not only is there no evidence that it will work, there's no democratic mandate for it either. It wasn't in their manifesto, it wasn't floated as an idea in any of the pre-Election debates, and there haven't been any notable scandals that have caused a demand for any significant structural change. (Obviously, I am excluding local authority bankruptcies, but with funding the way it is they are going to keep on happening anyway,)
ReplyDeleteThis is just another example of the Labour Party's obsession with control. Not necessarily power, just control. They cannot tolerate any form of structure or organisation or civic grouping which can operate in ways which evade their clutches - particularly if there's a danger of the Labour Party being criticised, or shown to be ineffective. There's a deep-seated "democratic centralism" at the heart of the Labour Party, and this is just another manifestation of it.
I can't remember, but wasn't it a Labour Government which forced through the abolition of theCommittee system in favour of a (centralised, controlling) Leader-and-Cabinet system for Local Government? And wasn't it a Labour Government which forced through the idea of elected Mayors (most of which have proved to be an unpopular innovation)?
District councils are just about the right size for people to feel involved and I say that from 13 years experience in one including helping to run it. There is a need for strategic authorities above that level but much smaller than the previous regional authorities. So a two-tier system is still needed, with the extra cost (compared to government proposals) paid for by reducing the staffing of Whitehall.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I forgot to put my name which I am happy to publish, Nigel Jones
ReplyDelete