Comment: It Is All About Power, Not Democracy

Published on: 26 Feb, 2026
Updated on: 28 Feb, 2026

By Martin Giles

Make no mistake, the real motivation behind the Labour government’s rush to impose its reorganisation of local government is its desire for power. Don’t believe any nonsense about an wish to improve local democracy, a desirable aim though that is.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has made it crystal clear. He dismisses, with mind-blowing, urbanite ignorance anyone who objects to development plans as “blockers”. We should have no right to care about the area in which we live if it gets in the way of his party’s hell-bent policy to build, build, build its way to illusive economic growth.

No matter that the wrong type of homes are being built, no matter if they ruin the character of a county some of us cherish. Surrey is seen as a cash cow, one of the few counties that makes a net contribution to the Exchequer, and it’s a big one – £7.5 billion. So why not increase its population so it can produce even more money to spend elsewhere?

No matter that the South East, as a region, already has one of the densest populations in Europe with a crumbling, inadequate infrastructure, failing to keep pace with the increasing population.

No matter that the PM’s party has little support in our county without any local mandate for the government imposed housing targets.

National politicians, Tory as well as Labour, have long hated local resistance to house building plans, even though changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and a recent doubling of housing targets (such as Guildford’s) make identification of a five-year supply of development land, and the commensurate ability to resist planning proposals, impossible.

They have already effectively hobbled local councillors who dare to represent local objections to protected green fields being ridiculously classified “grey belt”, and then urbanised, because of an unprecedented 11 million UK population increase (59 million in 2000, 70 million now), caused mainly by governments unwilling or unable to effectively control migration.

It’s green not “grey” say Normandy residents.

Certainly, in this context, local government reorganisation can been seen as the proverbial moving of deckchairs on the deck of the sinking Titanic – but let us consider it nonetheless.

Unitary authorities have long been touted as a more efficient and less confusing form of local government. The reasoning is simple. One local authority responsible for all local services is easier for citizens to understand and avoids rows between councils about who is responsible for what. Such advantages are difficult to gainsay.

The government’s decision to divide Surrey into two unitary authorities. went against the views of eight of the 11 borough and district councils in Surrey and the views expressed in public consultations.

There should also be, one would expect, economies of scale, fewer officers and fewer councillors required and better deals through bigger purchasing power. But such savings are often difficult to achieve. Ask anyone who has been through any kind of merger or rationalisation exercise.

Whilst many feel there is always slack in government organisations, cutbacks of grants to local authorities have already left staffing levels at a minimum, perhaps below minimum. How much was the overburdening of hitherto well-respected senior directors responsible for their management oversights that allowed the housing revenue account contracts to be overspent by millions?

But none of those issues seems likely to grab public attention as much as how, with only weeks to go before the West Surrey election, the billions owed by indebted councils such as Woking, Spelthorne and Surrey County Council is to be paid for and by whom.

Selecting Surrey, with its remaining debt issue, as the guinea pig for fast tracking to a reorganisation that is going against the preference of eight of the 12 councils it affects and public opinion, while continuing to strip it of any meaningful say on local planning, seems not only undemocratic but reckless.

But the Labour government does not care. It is blinded by prejudice. To them Surrey is one big stockbroker belt and its rural areas a foreign land they have no clue about.

And the national parties don’t care either. Their focus is on making sure they win as many seats as possible to simply gain or retain power.

But power for what? Ask that of any candidate that comes knocking.