The Reform party is riding high in the national opinion polls. Five recent polls showed them at an average of almost 29 per cent support with an average lead over Labour of 4.6 percent while the Conservatives trailed in third place, on just under 18 per cent.
In council elections in May they made major electoral advances. They had 677 of their candidates elected and took control of ten councils, including neighbouring Kent County Council.
Here in Guildford the position might be different, if an Electoral Calculus prediction is to be believed. They predict the Lib Dems have an 87 per cent chance of retaining the Parliamentary seat at the next general election, ahead of the Conservatives with Reform coming third.
But with Local Government Reorganisation underway, the next elections to be contested are expected to be for the new unitary authorities, next May, and observers will be watching whether Reform can replicate its success elsewhere, here in Surrey. The forthcoming by-elections might provide an indicator.
See: July By-elections To Show Relative Standings of Political Parties
The Dragon thought it would be interesting to see what Reform was saying about the Government’s “devolution”. Here is what Graham Drage, chair of Reform UK Guildford, said in answer to our questions:
Do you think the local government needs to be reorganised?
We believe there is a case for modernising local government in Surrey, but not for the kind of top-down “reorganisation” currently on offer. Local services need to be more efficient, accountable and resilient. But simply merging councils into huge units risks weakening local democracy, not strengthening it. We think reform should mean real devolution ie bringing decision-making closer to communities, not further away.
What do you think the government is hoping to achieve?
The government maintains that it wants simpler structures, savings, and improved services. Those aims are understandable, but there’s a risk this is really about creating large, remote authorities that are cheaper to administer but less responsive, undermining local democracy in the process. True reform should be about empowering local communities, not centralising power in fewer hands.
Why do you think the government has approached the issue in the way it has? Has there been enough time given to explanation to the public and consultation with them?
It appears designed for administrative convenience rather than local need. The process has been top-down, with very limited public explanation or meaningful consultation. Residents deserve an honest debate, with time to consider the options, including the possibility of a future Surrey mayoral system, which is being hinted at but not openly discussed. This lack of direct engagement risks undermining trust in local government altogether.
How do you see public opinion being gauged and listened to? Given the widespread lack of engagement with local politics, do you think many people are aware of the impending changes or care about them?
Most residents aren’t aware of the scale of the proposed changes or what they mean. There’s been no formal local referendum or county-wide consultation on these proposals. Public opinion risks being ignored entirely. Reform UK Guildford believes real democratic legitimacy requires asking the people directly, not assuming consent. In truth, many people will only realise what’s happened once their local voice has already been diluted.
Given the limited choice of options, which one, two or three unitary authorities, does your party prefer for Surrey and why?
Reform UK Guildford strongly prefers the three-unitary model. It better respects Surrey’s complex social geography and historic communities, and it aligns more with the government’s own guidance on sensible unit sizes. Three unitary authorities would deliver economies of scale without sacrificing local accountability. It’s a more democratic, resilient and future-proof model than lumping everyone into just two giant councils.
Whichever option is chosen, what results and issues do you think might emerge, good and bad, as a consequence?
If the two-unitary model is imposed, we foresee weakened local representation, potential financial risk-sharing that could harm stable councils and reduced responsiveness to local needs. The three-unitary option offers a better balance of efficiency and accountability but still needs careful planning and a clear transition strategy to avoid disruption.
Spokespeople for your party have claimed there is much waste of money in local government, despite the significant cuts in funding over the last decade. What areas of waste have you identified in Surrey and Guildford, and what cuts do you envisage?
It’s too early to be specific, not least because Reform UK currently has no representation on SCC or GBC to scrutinise spending in detail. Unlike the entrenched parties who protect broken systems and resist scrutiny, we believe residents deserve real transparency.
If voters give us the opportunity after next year’s local elections, we will urgently review contracts and procurement, capital projects, reserves and off-book liabilities, as well as key audit flags and internal reports for any areas of immediate concern.
For too long, residents have faced soaring council tax, deteriorating services and poor value for money. Reform will address that by shining a light on spending and demanding genuine efficiency.
This website is published by The Guildford Dragon NEWS
Contact: Martin Giles mgilesdragon@gmail.com
Log in- Posts - Add New - Powered by WordPress - Designed by Gabfire Themes
Recent Comments