End of the line for County Councils?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The big rumour sweeping around at the moment is that local government minister David Miliband has decided to abolish all the remaining county councils and replace both them and the district councils with a uniform system of unitary authorities.
Personally I quite like the idea; the current local government system is in a huge mess and is clearly in need of some radical reform. I think that there are only two options; to return to the complicated system of county councils, county boroughs and urban & rural district councils that existed before 1974 (and this won't happen unless there's a major upsurge in genuine localism at some point in the future) or to take the fudged Banham reforms to their logical conclusion and go for unitaries everywhere.

For those of you who are interested in local government structure, he's a brief historical overview of the various structures:

*The 1835 Municipal Corporations Act was the first major step forward, giving people living in boroughs (urban areas) modern local government for the first time ever. Sadly, things weren't improved in rural areas where local government was carried about by something like 27,000 different boards dealing with sanitation, street lighting, drainage... etc. etc. Even worse this "chaos of authorities, chaos of jurisdictions, chaos of rates, chaos of franchises, a chaos, worst of all, of areas"1. wasn't democratic; the whole lot was appointed by local magistrates (usually wealthy landowners) and you can probably guess what sort of problems that caused.

*Then in 1888 something was done about that; the boards were all abolished and replaced with elected County Councils. Towns with over 50,000 inhabitance weren't included; they were given the the same administrative duties as County Councils and were called County Boroughs. At the same time (or was it earlier? Can't remember) the LCC was created to run London. For analysis of London local government structure since then go here: http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glccomment.html

*And then in 1894, the counties were subdivided into urban districts and rural districts, rural districts were further divided into parish councils; sadly due to the (inevitably) negative influence of the unreformed Lords, parishes were never given much power and mainly did (and do) extremely small scale things.

IIRC there were some minor reforms after this, but on the whole the structure of local government didn't change until the '70's. This is when the problems started...

*Back in the '60's (or was it very early '70's?) the Redcliffe-Maud Commision decided that local government needed to be reformed along spatial rather than traditional lines and proposed a system of unitary authorities in most areas but a two-tier system in metropolitan areas. It also recommended some form of regional government. Unusually wikipedia has a good article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe-Maud_Report

*But the report was rejected by the Heath government, which proposed and passed one of the worst reforms in British history, creating a two-tier system of County and District councils everywhere. The boundaries for the new counties were just insane and the whole thing was done for entirely political reasons (ie; to maximize Conservative strength in local government). Sadly, the botched deforms of the Heath government form the core of the current joke of a system. In the '80's (again for entirely political reasons) the Thatcher government scrapped the Metropolitan County Councils and the GLC and in the early '90's the Banham reforms made things even more confused (have a look at a map showing all the Unitary Authorities).

[afleitch]

Unitary authorities are good in principle, but making them too small (ie individual towns, like Slough) isn't advisable, you end up with just too many. Scotland has had UA's since 1996, but again there are just too many. Glasgow City Council is too small, many of the middle class areas of relatively high council tax revenue are found just outside the city boundary. As a result you have people who technically use Glasgow City Council services; toilets, bus lanes etc, but don't pay a penny.

This was pretty much the Conservative's fault, they created UA's based on middle class suburbs, like East Renfrewshire and East Dumbartonshire, simply so that they could win control of the respective councils (which failed come the Tory collapse). The knock on effect was that Glasgow, made up of the bear rump of the city, became almost 100% Labour controlled as SNP or Tory leaning wards were left outside.

We therefore have 3 councils in Ayrshire where there really should be one, Glasgow City Council running out of money surrounded by more prosperous councils with less than 100,000 people in them and Highlands Council which is geographically about the size of Wales.

EDIT: Oh and 4 city councils to match the cities...but now we oficially have 6!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Unitary authorities are good in principle, but making them too small (ie individual towns, like Slough) isn't advisable, you end up with just too many. Scotland has had UA's since 1996, but again there are just too many. Glasgow City Council is too small, many of the middle class areas of relatively high council tax revenue are found just outside the city boundary. As a result you have people who technically use Glasgow City Council services; toilets, bus lanes etc, but don't pay a penny.

True; making UA's too small defeats the object of having them really. It's also the main problem with the current district councils; they're too large and too small at the same time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That sort of thing almost always happens when politics intrudes on local government redrawing (as it always does).
I'm thinking of having a go at working out possible new boundaries just for the sheer hell of it...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who's responsible for reforming local government in Scotland nowadays? Is it still down to Whitehall or was it devolved?

[afleitch]

I'm pretty sure its devolved. Glasgow CC is demanding reform and North and South Lanarkshire are involved in hush hush discussions about unification, even though a unified Lanarkshire itself would be to unwieldy. South Lanarkshires borders in the north are so 'gerrymandered' that they protude up to only two miles away from Glasgow city centre as a result of Glasgow loosing Rutherglen.

[Bono]

Booooooooooo!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Booooooooooo!

Could you explain the boo?

[Bono]

Booooooooooo!

Could you explain the boo?

It is my understanding that unitary authoritie are centralizing devices. I believe in the most decentralization possible.

[afleitch]

Booooooooooo!

Could you explain the boo?

It is my understanding that unitary authoritie are centralizing devices. I believe in the most decentralization possible.

They are not really centralising authorities at all; in Scotland they dont control water, power, transport, and health amongst other services that are either privately run or run from a regional or national level.

EDIT: If run correctly they are also more cost effective.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It is my understanding that unitary authoritie are centralizing devices.

Depends; but bearing in mind the way things are set up now the effect would be the reverse; right now most funding for local government comes from national government, a situation that national government isn't exactly pleased about for obvious reasons. So national government likes the idea of making local government more efficient because if local government is more efficient it'll raise more of it's money (as a %) through the council tax (or whatever rate system is in place; this could change soon as well. Council tax is a property based tax, btw) rather than through national government handouts. Significantly Miliband has recently refused to bail out several authorities that have overspent; they will have to raise taxes just before next year's elections.
Hopefully we'll also see more powers to parish/town councils and an extension of them into London and the old county boroughs. More elected Mayors would be good as well IMO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oddly enough... I think that right now we are far too centralised over here (a product of two sets of local government reforms; the '73 (or was it '72?) redrawing and the abolition of the GLC and Met. Counties (along with the introduction of rate capping) in the '80's) and more decentralising would certainly be a good thing. Getting more people involved in local politics is essential.

[Bono]

I believe in the most decentralization possible.

Oddly enough...

Why is it odd?
Anywyas, refusing to bail the out is good of course, regardless of political affiliation, but still I'm afraid we're gonna see centralization. Don't unitary authorities cover a greater geographical span than current councils?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why is it odd?

I'm agreeing with you [up to a point]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In all likelyhood they'll choose unitaries that are smaller than county councils (I won't say "counties" as the boundaries are different...) but larger than district councils. In some cases they might choose to just get rid of the districts and keep the "county"... Some examples:

This is Shropshire County Council:



This is Telford & Wrekin UA:



This is Bridgnorth District Council:



Now for an example of a UA based around a county rather than a smaller area:



And this map shows all the parishes in Shrewsbury & Atcham BC:



Note that Shrewsbury (like many large towns) is an unparished area; it has no town council. It's lowest level of government is the district council; as Shrewsbury was a borough, this means that the district council gets to call itself a borough council and the councillers for the Shrewsbury ward have to look after all the civic plate and all that.

[Emsworth]

Local government in England is a mess. There are regional assemblies, county councils, district councils, parish councils, and unitary authorities. The obscurity of most local government officials makes them practically unaccountable to the voters.

I think that the simplest idea might be to abolish all levels of government between Westminster and the cities/towns.

[Peter]

Local government in the England is a mess. There are regional assemblies, county councils, district councils, parish councils, and unitary authorities. The obscurity of most local government officials makes them practically unaccountable to the voters.

It is something of a mess, this is true. I would however say that most people do know their local government officials (admittedly not as well as their MPs) and I think a number of them are held accountable in areas that are not totally dominated by one party. A prime example of this was in Oxford in 2004 when the Labour City Mayor was actually defeated in his own ward.

Wales, Scotland and NI seem to have it down right with their own national authorities, followed by unitary authorities, with some parish-type council structures below that. London follows much the same system with the GLA and the London boroughs.

Firstly, I would abolish the (unelected) Regional assemblies [except obviously London, which should be left completely alone] since they are totally artificial constructs, possess no actual power and waste money.

I would keep the County councils - they maintain a link to the historical constructs of days gone by (I know they do not completely reflect the historical shires, but its close enough) and they are also very useful in defining absolute boundaries that cannot be crossed in the redistricting process, and are therefore a very useful prohibition on gerry mandering.

Most of the districts/boroughs outside of the main urban areas are for the most part too large, however, and really ought to have an axe taken to them because often the character of towns with the present districts can be substantially different, and thus should be run by different councils. The Reigate and Banstead borough could quite happily be cut into three (Banstead, Reigate & Redhill, Horley), for example.

The presence of unitary authorities within counties is an absolute sham in my opinion - having piecemeal reform as has been so far attempted does us no good. They should be totally abolished and have their power redivided between the counties and the districts.

A number of the present city councils (e.g. Oxford) could probably be left untouched by the reforms I would envisage, since they actually seem to work.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Wales, Scotland and NI seem to have it down right with their own national authorities, followed by unitary authorities, with some parish-type council structures below that. London follows much the same system with the GLA and the London boroughs.

Wales is doing alright, that's true, but there are some problems with Scotland (see earlier posts) and Northern Ireland is about to be reformed again (the main reason seems to be an attempt to smash the powerbase of certain politicians; as well as a reduction in the number of councils, councillers are to be banned from being members of the NI Assembly).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't like the boundaries for them and I hate the fact that they aren't elected, but some form of strategic planning setup below Whitehall level is probably needed. Most people don't actually know that they exist...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no justification for keeping the post-74 county boundaries for anything IMO; redistricting should be done on the basis of the real counties and if county councils are to be kept, they should bring back the old ones. I suppose they could always modify them a bit, but...
Something would also have to be done about the funding for county councils; the present system where they take a cut from each of the districts in the "county" is IMO totally unacceptable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The district councils are exactly the wrong size to be of any use at all; there's an argument for them to be much larger (and with more powers to parish and town councils; I think this is what is most likely to happen) and there is an argument for them to be much smaller (as they were before 1974. I liked the old system meself, even if it did need an overhaul). The borders of the districts right now are crazy; to use one example, there is no justification at all for having the parish of All Stretton in a different district to the town of Church Stretton (the two settlements basically run into each other and are in the same valley). I also can't see why Broseley and Much Wenlock are in the Bridgnorth District; they should both be in the Telford & Wrekin UA (district before the late '90's).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reintroduction of unitaries was a little strange, yes. I can't help but get the impression that the idea was to have UA's everywhere but that that idea was somehow blocked; look at York UA. While there was a case for freeing the city from county countrol (as it was before 1974, along with most large towns) the boundaries don't make any sense for that purpose (the city is often outvoted by the suburbs and rural areas) but do for the purpose of UA's everywhere...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Remember that most large towns and cities were quite happy running themselves until 1974 and would be happy to do it again...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Local government in the England is a mess.

Very true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You missed out the Local Education Authorities, the Local Health Authorities (not sure if that's actually the name, but you get the idea), the town councils (slightly different to parish councils), the Metropolitan Borough Councils, the London Borough Councils and the Corporation of London (ie; the City)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The real problem as far as that goes is the comically low turnout you often get in local elections... and because of that a motivated minority of the electorate is often able to take control of the council and really f*** it up. They usually go under the label "Liberal Democratic Focus Team" or something similer. Sometimes independents though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Looks simple, but isn't. Most large towns and cities do not run themselves in anyway anymore and haven't since 1974.

[Peter]

Wales is doing alright, that's true, but there are some problems with Scotland (see earlier posts)

Scotland's problems have less to do with the structure of government and more to do with the people operating the government in my opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is an argument for sub-Whitehall strategic planning, you are right, but in my experience, the Regional assemblies don't actually do any of that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That might be okay outside of the Home Counties, I'm not really familiar enough with the areas, but the suggestion that places like Croydon should be returned to Surrey or Bromley back to Kent is ridiculous. The urban sprawl of London makes those changes in CC boundaries an absolute necessity IMO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Scotland's problems have less to do with the structure of government and more to do with the people operating the government in my opinion.

Lower down they do have a problem though; the "community councils" are completely toothless in all or most cases. And some of the boundaries of the UA's are very strange:



[img]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just what do they do anyway? IIRC distributing E.U money is one thing but other than that... ?
I have a suspicion that that will end up changing at some point though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The big boundary changes around the GLC (now GLA) area were done in the early '60's (including the abolition of Middlesex). And with other areas, they changes do make a bit of sense from an administrative point of view; having both banks of the Teesdale in one county and having Dudley in the same county as the rest of the Black Country are good examples.

[minionofmidas]

Same thing in the Manchester area...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Same thing in the Manchester area...

That's true; although IIRC they'd been doing that for years (was Wythenshawe techincally in Lancs or Cheshire before the changes? Not sure... due to the fact that Manchester was self-governing back then that would be academic though). Mind you the boundaries of Manchester itself are pretty crazy:



Suburban areas like Didsbury are in, an overspill town (Wythenshawe) is in... but huge amounts of core urban areas are in several different boroughs...

[minionofmidas]

Same thing in the Manchester area...

That's true; although IIRC they'd been doing that for years (was Wythenshawe techincally in Lancs or Cheshire before the changes? Not sure... due to the fact that Manchester was self-governing back then that would be academic though). Mind you the boundaries of Manchester itself are pretty crazy:



Suburban areas like Didsbury are in, an overspill town (Wythenshawe) is in... but huge amounts of core urban areas are in several different boroughs...

Oh yes, the current boundaries in the area are still very-much-less-than-perfect, just better than in the 200 years before 1974.