Loading
The governmentYour browser does not support the element. has more eye-catching policies, such as a plan to build millions of homes and a promise to “smash the gangs” that smuggle asylum-seekers across the English Channel. But the policy with the greatest chance of changing England for good is local-government reform. Labour’s plans in that area are bold. They are also deeply unpopular in some quarters, as local politicians made clear on January 10th in their initial responses to the government’s proposals.Three in ten English people live in places with two tiers of local government. District councils, which often cover areas with 100,000 to 200,000 inhabitants, collect the rubbish and deal with many planning issues. County councils, which are larger, oversee highways and provide care for old people. The national government wants to cover England in “unitary” authorities containing at least half a million people, which would do everything. These would clump together into huge “strategic” units, ideally overseen by elected mayors.Politicians in Westminster would have simpler lives if they could eradicate smallish councils and create regional mayors. “They want to talk to no more than about 30 people,” says Paul de Kort, the leader of St Albans district council. But few district councillors welcome the prospect of being merged or abolished. In Hertfordshire, Mr de Kort’s patch, the leader of the county council has talked about creating a single unitary authority with a population of 1.2m. All ten district councils oppose him.Hertfordshire, on the northern edge of London, lacks a dominant city. It has many towns, with distinct histories and cultures. Some, like St Albans, are old cathedral cities or market towns. Others, like Stevenage, are post-war “new towns” occupied by the descendants of working-class Londoners. Still others are garden cities, with Quaker roots.The district councils that run these towns have different political complexions. St Albans and Watford are Liberal Democrat strongholds; Stevenage is Labour; East Herts leans Green. The county as a whole is Conservative. Abolishing district councils in Hertfordshire therefore means destroying some parties’ power bases. The situation is similar in Surrey, another southern county, where district councils also oppose the proposed reforms. One of its districts, Epsom and Ewell, is dominated by independent councillors.Staffordshire, north of Birmingham, has a different problem. That county does have a dominant city, Stoke-on-Trent. Unfortunately, Stoke is poor. Reorganising local government in Staffordshire will mean glueing other places to Stoke, which might overwhelm them because of its size and its needs. Newcastle-under-Lyme, which is next to the city, boasts of its 852-year history of self-government. Its council leader warns, pointedly, that it has fought previous attempts to merge it with Stoke.Colin Copus, an expert on local government, says that district councillors are “spitting feathers” about the plans. They are not powerful enough to stop them. But they can try to ensure that Westminster regrets embarking on reform.
