Local government as it currently stands is a complete farce. The council staff run the show, while councillors have very little say in how their region is run. This is due, in part, to the fact that local councils in truth have very little power available to them, as Central Government and NGOS have gobbled it all up.
I propose a return to the ancient system of Boroughs - that is, self-governing towns, headed by a mayor and run by a council. These Boroughs would have FULL control over all matters pertinent to the local area, much like states do in America. Central government would be left only with powers on defence, diplomacy, and to adjudicate on conflicts of interest between the Boroughs (such as the use of resources that run through multiple boroughs, like rivers or roads).
Pushing power down as close to the people as possible means that people are more directly in touch with those who rule them, and are therefore better able to hold them to account.
9 Likes
I think this suggestion is definitely worth investigating and considering. Could it be any worse than the shambles we have at present
8 Likes
If I could change only one thing in the UK, or any country actually, it would be this. The knock on affect would be the most natural and comfortable path to a healed nation for all imo. It would be vibrant with choice and hope. Discomfort as well, as always, but at least there would be better variety.
4 Likes
Thank you for this excellent suggestion, and for your contribution to the Policy Platform.
Devolution deals and proposals such as the new Strategic Authorities are, it is claimed, supposed to help move power from Whitehall down to local communities. But we’ve heard it all before, and I remain unconvinced that a large Strategic Authority is the answer. Conversely, I would worry about the quality of some local representatives and what the implications could be if too much power was concentrated into their hands.
I would welcome a proper review, led by a Local Government Commission, such as the one led by Sir John Banham that reported in 1994, but with greater scope to consider points like the one made by the original poster. We have to think radically about this. Proper change is long overdue.
3 Likes
Hi Mike, thanks for your reply.
I completely agree, we have heard this sort of thing before - but with a key difference. Devolution and changes to local government (creation of county councils, unitary authorites, now Strategic Authorities and so on) create more government. Each of those new layers are now stacked upon each other, so that we have situations in which people are ruled over by a parish council, a district council, a county council, a devolved government and Westminster, all of which work against each other.
My proposal would do the exact opposite. It would strip out all the many layers of government and its accompanying bureaucracy in the form of civil servants, NGOs and quangos, and hand it over wholesale to the Boroughs - placing it directly in among the people.
A lot of government functions would simply be lost completely, handed over to private companies or done away with entirely. Britain managed to run a global empire with far fewer bureaucrats than we have today; what are they all doing?
I agree that the quality of local representatives at the moment is lacking, but that’s because they have no real authority, and are not held to account. How many people can name a single one of their local councillors? How many know how many councillors sit on their local council? Most people wouldn’t even be able to name their local authority if the name weren’t printed on their bins.
But representatives who made a difference to the local area would have to perform well, or they would be out at the next election. Better still, they would be incentivised to perform well because they would live among the people who voted for them. Kier Starmer wouldn’t be doing half the things he’s currently doing if every time he stepped out of his front door, anyone could walk up to him and confront him about his decisions.
It’s definitely a long term policy because so much bureaucracy would have to be undone, and people would have to learn to stand on their own feet again. But I think it’s one we should work towards.
3 Likes
Interesting. I had no idea. I definitely voted for this one. Also we need a campaign to encourage local people to get more involved in their local councils. They are so disillusioned with politics.
3 Likes
At the very least, we do need some logical alignment of local government. For example we should have a system where local government, police, fire services etc are all governed at the same level, whatever that is. Personally I think counties make the most sense, because they provide reasonable scale.
This is due, in part, to the fact that local councils in truth have very little power available to them, as Central Government and NGOS have gobbled it all up.
This is a huge problem as well, perhaps deserving of its own post. We have this issue where central government blames local government for problems it has caused, then takes power away from it to “solve” the issue, making it worse.
e.g. central government forced responsibility for social care onto local government, the costs for which are spiralling out of control (so that the vast majority of local government spending no longer goes on local government but on social care), but then takes away the power of local government to raise taxes.
We need a return to local government having full freedom to set its own tax rates, as well as the freedom to decide what services they do or do not want to provide. Then let local democracy, and people voting with their feet by deciding where to move to, determine what strategy is best.
1 Like
No we shouldn’t. We need to get AWAY from centralisation, not create more of it.
1 Like
Exactly this. True local democracy so that people know who they’re voting for and what difference it will make.
I basically agree with the crux of this. My own suggestion is here, which is a return to county councils, undoing devolution deals and the devolved administrations, and giving all counties a hereditary noble to oversee them and hold them to account.
The problem is, or a great deal of the problem is, layers upon layers of paperwork and red tape, local government being so different everywhere across the country that no one knows who is responsible for what, and yes, there being too much government.
Generally, I would see large cities made counties unto themselves, and medium-sized cities be given devolution within a county (so police, refuse, fire etc. is administered at the county-level, and the rest at the viscounty-level).
I, personally, don’t view parish councils as local government but more of a community organisation. The vast majority of parish councillors are unopposed and party politics doesn’t really play much into parish elections. As such, I don’t know if abolition makes sense, if we should keep them as is, or maybe even transform them into charitable neighbourhood associations.
I think with these suggestions for policies there needs to be a focus on outcomes from an identified problem.
Surely the two problems with local councils is inefficacy and them not being sufficiently accountable to the public/ councillors doing their jobs ?
I have followed a change of a number of boroughs going to a county super-council and it didn’t lead to cost savings at all.
My feeling is that county councils cover too large an area to be meaningfully held account at a local level. I want a situation in which the councilors need to face their electorate every time they step out their front door. That will stop them passing radically unpopular policies. That’s why I proposed the old borough system to be brought back into existence: each market town was once the hub of local governance for that town and the surrounding parishes. They should be so again. That way we return to a situation in which people are fundamentally tied in to their local community, not thinking of themselves as British, or English, or even a Hampshire or Yorkshireman, but a Market Harboroughian, a Lewesian, a Milton Keynesian.
I get this, but I also think that some things are too large to be decided at a “borough” level. Police forces, economic development, refuse collection and disposal, public transport, etc. all need to be at a larger level.
It is worth noting that boroughs, as far as I can tell, never existed independently. They were always contained within county-shires but often given a high degree of autonomy within them. I also worry about putting each rural community under the control of a large urban area, which is why I prefer the shire-system because the population ends up more spread out.
Part of the problem here is that you’re expecting all the services currently carried out by government to continue to be carried out by government. What have government departments to do with controlling economic development? That is, by definition, technocratic and, frankly, socialist.
If we’re really going to turn this country around we need a RADICAL decrease in government control. Not just a bit of tinkering at the edges, a bit of finessing of the planning system, we need to take whole sectors out of government control entirely and hand those functions back to communities. And we need to cut taxes at the same time so that communities have the money to figure out how to do these things themselves.
In that case, I think that unfortunately, you need to spell out what powers that these units of local government would have, because the scale of local government depends a lot on what it is expected to do.
I am also confused as to your idea of controlling economic development. It has always been the state that invests in infrastructure projects, first it was the kings and nobles, now it is the state as an organism. This is because often only the state has the wealth and the willing to put these things into place.
Finally, whilst I agree with you that state control generally needs to be reduced, I honestly cannot see anything I have talked about being “given back to local communities”. Do you want to privatise rubbish collection? Do you not want local government to invest in public transport? Do you not want general standards for cemeteries?
I am a statist in the Hobbsian paradigm. I believe that the state needs to be all-powerful to protect people from themselves, but I also believe that the state should exercise benign neglect most of the time. That it needs to be an omnipotent god that understands that the tiniest poke of its finger can do untold damage. As such, the proper role of the state is to interfere when not doing so would cause the populace to destroy themselves by acting rationally.
We see in evolutionary game theory that arms races between species can be caused by the system in place, and can lead to the mutual destruction of all species in the system. This evolution-to-extinction is exactly what the state should identify, and then change the rules of the evolutionary game to avoid. Our current economic system trying way from Darwinist capitalism into bureaucratic corporatism is a great example of where the state needs to interfere. However I will stop getting so off-topic now 
As outlined, this could be exactly what we need. But trusting central government to not just add more layers is the problem. However, may we can do something about that too?
Thank you everyone for your discussion on this topic. I am now going to summarise the policy suggestion and invite your further feedback on whether this summary is accurate and if it is something you could support as a policy idea.
Policy Proposal: Replace Multi-Tier Local Government with Self-Governing Boroughs
Summary:
This proposal calls for the abolition of England’s current multi-tier system of local government—comprising parish, district, county, and combined authorities—and its replacement with a simplified structure based on self-governing boroughs. These boroughs would each be led by a directly elected mayor and council with full local legislative and executive powers over key services, including transport, planning, education, health, and policing.
Rationale:
The current structure of local government is complex, inefficient, and disempowering. Councillors often lack real authority, while unelected officials and central government departments retain disproportionate control. Devolution deals have added layers of bureaucracy without meaningful democratic accountability.
By consolidating power within boroughs, we can:
- Streamline service delivery and reduce bureaucratic overhead.
- Improve democratic accountability through localised decision-making.
- Encourage greater participation and scrutiny from residents.
- Foster innovation by enabling diverse policy approaches at the local level.
Safeguards and Considerations:
- A Local Government Commission will oversee the transition.
- Provisions for local referenda on borough boundaries and governance models.
- Protection for rural representation and distinct community identities.
Members are asked to vote on whether to support this policy direction. You can do this by pressing the heart icon below this text to signify you are happy to support it.
3 Likes
Thanks Mike. I think that’s a pretty good summary.
I would like to have a conversation elsewhere (not in this thread) about which services, precisely, should be under government remit. As a libertarian I have to ask whether we actually NEED our councils to be in charge of so many services, or whether a strong philanthropic culture should be fostered. That said, I accept that there would at least need to be a weaning off / handover period.
Sorry, I meant to reply to this and got sidetracked by life.
"[quote=“Dr_Taspher, post:16, topic:640”]
It has always been the state that invests in infrastructure projects
[/quote]
That’s not true at all. State spending has historically been military spending. If you look at a graph of state debt to gdp going back centuries, debt only rises during times of war - until you get to the mid 20th century when suddenly state debt skyrockets in peacetime as it started to fund the socialist state.
Prior to the 20th century infrastructure was privately funded. The canal network, for example, was funded entirely by speculators, and I believe the rail network was too. Some of these were wealthy people, but many were middle class people with a bit of capital to invest who wanted to see a return. There’s no reason we can’t return to that model.
