Don't Vote Labour Again (Part 24)
Postponing elections and amalgamating councils
Much has been made of the government's decision to postpone dozens of English local elections, as part of a nationwide reorganisation of councils. The plans will eventually involve hundreds of councils with just a fraction having been announced on February 5th.
The reorganisation had been planned for a while, under both the Tories and Labour. The Conservatives had made several similar changes between 2019 and 2023. Prior to being in government, Labour had discussed a programme of 'devolution' of central power to local communities (yeah, right), which included plans for councils. In the manifesto there was just one vague reference to this: "We will deepen our democracy by reforming Parliament and devolving power to communities". Rachel Reeves did discreetly mention it her October budget (not the speech):
working with councils to move to simpler structures that make sense for their local areas, with efficiency savings from council reorganisation helping to meet the needs of local people
However, Labour seems to be rushing it through for political expedience. Their popularity has tanked in contrast with the meteoric rise of Reform UK. Local elections are likely to be a democratic bloodbath for Starmer, with Reform making massive gains, so he will try anything to escape them. He is also trying to disrupt any Tory councils in traditionally Conservative areas. With these areas he *wants* Reform to make ground, as well as Labour. It is these areas that the first stages of the plan are concerned with.
To explain the policy, we need to look briefly at local government set-up in England.
In some areas of the country we have unitary authorities, responsible for every local issue and service. These are usually centred around large urban areas, and include the 32 London boroughs (plus the City of London), the 10 Manchester boroughs and 62 other councils. In major cities like London and Manchester these are coordinated by metropolitan mayors (dubbed 'metro-mayors') and 'joint authorities', which also provide city-wide services such as policing and transport.
In most other areas we have three levels of local authority (known confusingly as 'two tier'). Town and parish councils are responsible for very minor things such as public amenities. District councils (sometimes called 'city' or 'borough' councils) are usually responsible for most medium level matters such as housing, waste collection, and collection of council tax. County councils are usually responsible for larger issues such as education, libraries and social care. In these areas we now have crime commissioners responsible for policing (when it was solely Chief Constables before). Sometimes parish or town councils exist under unitary authorities - an example being Leigh-on-Sea council within Southend. Outside of unitary authorities, there are 21 county councils and 164 district councils in England.
Most councils are split into electoral wards (the boundaries of which occasionally change, along with Parliamentary constituencies). Town and district wards are the same, but county wards are usually larger. In unitary areas, you generally have two or three councillors representing your ward depending on population. In non-unitary areas you can have seven or eight different councillors representing your immediate area. This can be quite confusing and inefficient, not to mention more expensive. Elections are held at different times, which adds to the confusion and expense - although it does mean the public have more voting opportunities at regular intervals.
So what's the plan? Eventually, the government aims to abolish all 21 county councils and all 164 district councils underneath them, and also to dissolve 50 unitary authorities. They will reorganise all of these into new unitary authorities, resulting in many fewer councils and councillors. Town and parish councils will be left alone (at least that is the case so far). The endgame of the plan is thought to be 18 'super' unitary authorities controlling the whole of England. Labour will also install political mayors - which at the moment are mainly confined to large urban areas.
If mayors represent more than one local authority (like Sadiq Khan) they are known as metro-mayors. There are currently 12 of those in England. Regular mayors only represent one authority. These can either be ceremonial appointments, nominated by councillors, or directly elected, as they are in 13 local authorities (including five London boroughs). Under the government's agenda, there will be an elected mayor for regions covering two or three new authorities each. Currently elected mayors mainly represent large urban areas. Now they will cover towns, cities and rural areas alike.
The Conservative governments of Johnson and Sunak had created several unitary authorities in exactly the same manner. Dorset was the first for the treatment in 2019, the county's six district councils abolished, along with two unitary authorities (Bournemouth and Poole). It was replaced with two new unitary authorities: 'Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole'; and 'Dorset'.
In 2020, Buckingham's county council and its four districts were dissolved, resulting in one unitary authority: 'Buckinghamshire'. Northamptonshire in 2021 was the next victim. The county's seven districts were replaced with two unitaries: 'North' and 'West' Northamptonshire. Cumbria saw the same thing in 2023, its six district authorities becoming two omnipotent councils: 'Cumberland' and 'Westmorland and Furness'. In the same year, North Yorkshire county council was abolished, with its seven districts becoming the one unitary of 'North Yorkshire'. Somerset county council and its five district councils were replaced by the one unitary, 'Somerset'.
So the Tories are at it too. Farage of course would say that the big parties both play the same game in order to crowd out the smaller parties; and he'd be right. It probably won't be a major Tory attack angle for this reason.
Back to Labour, the government invited all 31 councils due to have elections in 2025 to submit proposals for reorganisation, and also to request their elections be called off. Local government minister, Jim McMahon, specifically wrote to three county councils on December 16th. He asked Devon, Essex and Hertfordshire if they would like to be 'prioritised' for reorganisation and thus cancel their May elections. They had until January 10th to decide (talk about an ultimatum). This coincided with the announcement of a white paper on the matter by the Deputy PM, Angela Rayner. These developments are what caused the initial consternation about election postponement we saw before Christmas.
By January 15th, 18 councils of the 31 had requested their elections be postponed. Rayner said she had only accepted half of those requests, explaining: "I've only agreed to postpone elections in places where this is central to our manifesto promise to deliver devolution". This development has now evolved into the 'first wave' of the process: the reorganisation of seven counties and the 56 councils underneath them (plus four unitary councils also within those counties). These 73 councils will be merged into a much small number of unitary authorities. Labour will also install elected metropolitan mayors.
With the district councils, the government minister for local authorities can simply order elections to be postponed. In county councils, the council has to vote on it. The government then has one year to reorganise, before the ministerial order must be reissued or the vote must be held again. The changes in councils will need to be approved by Parliament, which will easily happen with Labour's majority.
The first counties will be Essex, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey and the Isle of Wight. The plan for Essex - where I am from - is publicly known. Essex is currently the home of 14 local authorities. Two are unitary councils (Southend and Thurrock) Twelve have 'two-tier' local government. These are: Basildon, Braintree, Brentwood, Castle Point, Chelmsford, Colchester, Epping Forest, Harlow, Maldon, Rochford, Tendring and Uttlesford. The current plan is to abolish Southend and Thurrock, then split Essex into two or three unitary councils (each containing at least 500,000 people). If the plan is approved by Parliament, Essex County Council will cease operations in April 2027, following elections in May 2026 (presumably it needs time to arrange a handover).
Hampshire has 11 districts and two unitaries (Portsmouth and Southampton). Isle of Wight is a unitary already, and will probably be amalgamated with Hampshire. Hertfordshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Surrey have no unitaries, with 10, 7, 5 and 11 district councils respectively. On the radar for the same treatment in the near-future is Cambridgeshire and Lancashire. Kent was one of those who submitted their plan, but was rejected by Rayner, much to the chagrin of the Tory council leader, who was very keen on dissolution.
Essex will get its equivalent of a metropolitan mayor. Norfolk and Suffolk will get a joint one, as will 'Sussex and Brighton'. Three other areas will get mayors without any reorganisation - Cumbria, 'Cheshire and Warrington' and 'Hampshire and Solent'.
To look at my local area once again, Loughton is the major town in the Essex district of Epping Forest. It has 14 district councillors (2 each in its seven wards) and 2 county councillors covering it. Under these plans, I hear it could mean Loughton has only *one or two* councillors representing it (excluding town councillors), and the same for the other Epping Forest towns. That would be an incredible downgrade, and the local independent Residents Association that currently holds all the Loughton seats (bar one) would have significantly less clout in the new council. That's if it doesn't lose its seats altogether, which would be a great shame.
The Residents Association (RA) currently forms the opposition in the District, but in the new unitary it would not - assuming other towns in the council didn't get RAs of their own elected. The same is true of Uttlesford where an RA controls the districts, and Castle Point, where a local independent party controls it (the only opposition is a second independent party). In the new councils these parties will not be in the driving seat.
Does the government's plan necessarily mean elections should be cancelled? In fairness, whatever you think of the policy, it does not make sense to hold local elections until after the new arrangements are put in place. You could hold them until after the reorganisation is decided on, but that would mean holding an expensive series of elections where the winners might only serve a few months before their jobs are abolished. You really do need to postpone elections until the arrangements are worked out.
That said, it is interesting that Labour have chosen this moment to do it. They didn't when they first came in, and they haven't left it until more important issues are addressed. They have done it when it looks like they are going to get spanked in the next local elections. Nothing they say can escape that obvious fact. The poor optics are what is going to get through to voters, allowing Reform and all the other parties to paint Starmer as a banana republic dictator.
Let's look at the 'first wave' areas in respect to potential Reform gains. These are all home counties, South coast and East Anglia - not Red Wall (although Lancashire in the next wave would be). Essex is certainly fertile ground for Reform, but this would be at the expense of the Tories, not Labour. Although Reform say they will be disadvantaged in these seven counties, in fact they might gain from the Tories, with a bit of luck. That said, it will be harder for them because the fewer the seats, the easier it is for the big parties to campaign. The more seats there are, the thinner on the ground their manpower and promotional material is, leaving gaps for the small parties and independents to sneak through.
Looking at Essex, Basildon, Harlow and Colchester are currently the most fertile districts for Labour. They also control Thurrock council now, and have formed a governing coalition in Southend. None of these are traditional Labour areas, and are probably more ripe for Reform, and would have gone that way were Reform better placed in the past (before the Farage era). Otherwise, the fight is between the Tories, RAs and Reform. The reorganisation of Essex, then, can be seen as partly an attempt to stymie Reform, and partly an attempt to disrupt the Tories.
I will say that there is an argument for simplifying councils. It is arguably better for local democracy to have some decentralisation of power, with the different councils holding each other to account. However, it is not very efficient, and leads to council officers and councillors passing the buck on matters: "I can't sort this out, because this is the county council's remit" - "blame Councillor Bob Smith and the Tories on the district" etc. If one council controls everything, it is clearer for the public who to get in touch with and who is responsible. On the other hand, if the unitary is inefficient (and indeed incompetent or corrupt), all your eggs are in one basket and there is much less recourse to voters to do anything about it. Only the virtually powerless town and parish councils will provide such an outlet.
Conservative councillor Sam Chapman-Allen, chairman of the District Councils' Network, has queried the efficiency argument and warned about voter disconnection:
Local democratic accountability depends on residents retaining a demonstrably close link to the councillors who represent them. Attempts at structural change in recent years suggest that creating large councils is no panacea for resolving the many challenges local government faces
Perhaps we should overlook that Chapman-Allen's own party were also pushing for the mass creation of unitaries. It's classic big party politics to employ projection. The shadow minister for local government, Kevin Hollinrake, said Rayner's announcement on February 5th was a "worrying day for democracy" and asserted she was: "creating a new tier of Orwellian-sounding, strategic authorities which are closer to her and closer to Whitehall". It's a point of view. Another Tory, the leader of Ribble Valley Council in Lancashire (Steven Atkinson) referred to the plan as 'civic vandalism" leading to "remote decision making" that would "remove local democracy".
The independent councillor and leader of the Independent Network of Councillors, Marianne Overton (she of the moving window), believes the plan will "move democracy further away from residents, putting power into the hands of the few, not the many." The District Councils' Network are also sceptical:
It will lead to geographically vast councils that are remote from local communities… in most places we do not think it is workable, especially in rural communities which risk losing access to services and viable local democracy
On the other side we have Burnley MP, Oliver Ryan - a Starmer golden-boy recently suspended for supposedly offensive WhatsApp remarks. He is very keen on the concept in Lancashire, personally favouring 15 councils being reduced to three. Ryan thinks the government has to intervene, taking a "top down approach" because it "cannot rely on all Lancashire districts to naturally coalesce around a proposal". No, they're not banana republic dictators at all... The new Labour leader of Basildon Council Councillor Gavin Callaghan, is also convinced:
It needs to happen... This will take the excuses out of local government, we'd have one council responsible for everything, so it creates a much more efficient and effective service
Many Tories are on board as well, or else the county councils they control would not have voted to postpone elections. Roger Gough, the leader of Kent County Council responded to the notion councillors were the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas:
If that's the case then I'm the biggest turkey of them all, because I truly believe in these changes and the benefits of a Mayor of Kent. The turkey was rewarded by Labour rejecting Kent's plan, and then got cross.
I am more in favour of increasing the number of unitaries than I am of putting in mayors. This will be just another layer of bureaucracy and more large salaries for politicians. Sadiq Khan has been a disaster for London, and in fact I would abolish political metro-mayors entirely. Livingston and Johnson were better, but we could have done without them. It’s an American concept which Blairites seem taken by, There is no reason the Greater London Authority (like the Greater London Council before it) cannot oversee things without that grandstanding, useless arse.
It is claimed that this move will save more cash and will be "putting more money in people's pockets", according to Rayner. This is debateable. On one hand there will be fewer salaries and elections, which are expensive (£2.5 million per election in Essex). On the other, these councils will have bigger budgets and higher salaries than the current ones do. The mayors will certainly cost much more, and there will be administrative costs in performing the reorganisation - reckoned by the Local Government Association to be £25-100 million for each authority. A 2016 Ernst & Young estimate had the cost for the whole of England at £98-266 million, if you were to have three unitaries per council area - the current preference. I'll do some very rough sums here. Adjusted for inflation that is £132 - £358 million. With 21 county councils currently in England, that would be £6.3 million to £17 million per council. If you divide the estimate by 164 district councils, that makes £800,000 to £2.2 million each.
You would need to weigh up these factors to work out whether it will indeed save money - although you'd be hard pressed to find many large state projects that don't carry an increased cost. Sam Chapman-Allen, again, challenges the money-saving aspect:
Past experience suggests local government reorganisation is no panacea for saving money and improving the financial sustainability of local councils. Many new unitary councils have experienced deep financial difficulties. Evidence that new councils are more efficient and effective is inconclusive at best
Clearly the chairman is keen on the word 'panacea'. Another Conservative, Lord John Huller (the former leader of South Norfolk Council) observed:
District councils have quite small budgets, so the suggestion that abolishing them is going to save huge amounts of money is probably not the main motivation...
The afore-mentioned Councillor Overton also disputes the money-saving possibilities: "There is still no clarity on how the cost of reorganisation will be met beyond asset stripping existing councils".
On the other side of the argument is the former Tory leader of Cambridgeshire County Council, Alan Melton. He said the move would "save money and give better value for council taxpayers", adding:
All of these charge Council Tax, employ numerous officers including 10 chief executives... Not only is this is expensive, but it is also unsustainable and does not give good value for money
A House of Commons Library document makes you none the wiser on the issue:
It is not clear from available evidence whether unitary councils save money compared with a two-tier system. International experience suggests that, when councils are merged, sometimes the merged council saves money and sometimes it does not
The Library cites estimates by two major financial consultancies who reckon unitaries save £20 to £25 million per year when replacing ‘two tier’ councils throughout England. The 2016 Ernst & Young estimate had the cost for the whole of England at £401-£585 million, if you were to have three unitaries per council area. Adjusted for inflation, that is £540-£788 million. If you divide that by the 21 county councils it makes £25.7 million to £37.5 million. If you divide it by the 164 district councils, that makes £3.3 million to £4.8 million each. That's not really huge amount.
The next question is why? What do Labour stand to gain, aside of buying them time and putting off an electoral reckoning? The move, like boundary changes, is a calculated gamble. Usually, if the governing party is doing well, with electoral momentum on its side, it makes the assumption that any shake-up will work in its favour. Such moves can also happen, as it has in this case, when a ruling party is doing badly. Labour are in a fix and this is a roll of the dice.
Boundary changes are officially worked out by 'boundary commissions', who are supposedly independent, then debated and signed off by Parliament. This means, for the sake of balance, the ruling party has to take a hit in some areas in exchange for big wins in others. There is always a trade-off in this respect. Ditto for a shake-up of the councils. The reorganisation will result in much more powerful councils, centred around urban demographics which are traditionally better for Labour. If Labour can win the majority of those, it will be in a stronger position to govern the country. The same goes for the installation of mayors, which will provide yet another opportunity to wield power. All but one of the current 12 metropolitan mayors is Labour. The probabilities are, despite everything, in Starmer's favour.
The Tories have taken such gambles in the past just as Labour has; and when they were riding high under Johnson, they (sorry, the boundary commission) made boundary changes in time for the 2022 local elections. They also created, as we have seen, several unitary authorities, and considered a policy of rolling them out to the whole of England - though shelved this. Their fortunes plummeted before they could see the benefits of their efforts. Labour were considering the policy when they expected a landslide, but their fortunes have gone to pot faster than any government in history (aside of Liz Truss). They might have taken their time were they not in such peril, surely and steadily making the groundwork for the 100 year Labour Reich. Now however, it's a Hail Mary pass (in American football terms) or putting on Theo Walcott in the last five minutes (in retro British football terms).
Another aspect in 'why' is that hundreds of councils around the country are in serious debt. In December 2024 total council debt was estimated to be £77.5 billion. The previously Tory-run Thurrock Council, one of the Essex unitaries set to be scrapped, is £1 billion in arrears partly thanks to a fraud case. Abolishing these councils will help conceal this shameful situation, both from the government's perspective and that of the councils themselves. What will happen to these outstanding debts? It is reported that central government - or rather the taxpayer - will take them on. A lot of council leaders and portfolio holders will then be off the hook, and free to join the new councils with a 'clean slate'. If that doesn’t happen, then council tax raises will take care of it. Good times.
Whatever the pros and cons of the reorganisation, it is a big step, uprooting long established status quos. Some councils will be dissolved that have been around for over a century. It is bound to provoke suspicions about the agenda behind it, and why some of our democratic rights are being put on hold. Those suspicions will not fade away, and they will manifest when these voters are allowed back to the polls. Nigel will be smiling yet.