Letter: We Might Be Powerless But It Is Not ‘Nonsense’

Published on: 14 May, 2025
Updated on: 14 May, 2025

From Bernard Quoroll

former local government CEO

In response to: I Suspect the Vast Majority Really Don’t Care About This Nonsense

Lottie Harding may be right that most people don’t care about reorganisation. They just want their bins emptied. But the subject is not “nonsense”.

People in Guildford are about to be saddled with a share of the huge debt amassed by Woking, Spelthorne and Surrey County Council. Dig a bit deeper and you will find that much of that debt finds its origin in policies adopted by national governments of different political persuasions over decades.

So much of the responsibility for this situation must therefore surely rest on its own doorstep.

The financial justification for the upheaval also, takes little account of the huge cost of redundancies and early retirements which will be generated in its wake, not to mention the loss of local knowledge and the unquantifiable costs of disruption. Reorganisation in that sense is unlikely to save much, if any, money, so it had better be worth it.

Councils should be large enough to create economies of scale but small enough to act and think locally. They should also be sufficiently independent to balance and restrain the unrestricted power of national governments which have enough to do without trying to take decisions about how many different kinds of roadside bins we should put out for recycling, or how much should be allocated ad hoc, to fill potholes.

The real nonsense is the extent to which national governments hoard power, emasculate local initiative and knowledge and deny local voices. Concerns about the cost of local services and reorganisation are of course important but more so is the continuing decline in the legitimacy of local government and its ability to think and act responsively for local people.

When history comes to judge, it will be seen as a contributor to a growing tide of authoritarianism. If there is a “nonsense”, it is that somebody up there thinks they should have the right to do that, without even bothering to ask us what we think. It is an even bigger nonsense that governments continue to believe that in policy terms “one size fits all”.

Responses to Letter: We Might Be Powerless But It Is Not ‘Nonsense’

RWL Davies Reply

May 14, 2025 at 5:13 pm

Does Mr. Quoroll have a solution to the very low turnout in local elections?

Does Surrey need 12, or however many it is, local government CEOs?

“People” simply want demonstrable and persistent competence from local authorities.
- David Roberts Reply
  
  May 15, 2025 at 11:43 am
  
  As in every comparable country in Europe and elsewhere, real local powers with matching, locally controlled resources are the key to low turnout in local elections.
  
  The only thing different about the UK is the extent to which local democracy and civic pride have withered away over the last hundred years or so, as national governments have centralised power.
Bernard Quoroll Reply

May 15, 2025 at 10:51 am

Thanks for the challenge.

The solution to low turnout is to make local government mean something. That means being able to raise more income locally, rather than being dependant on recycling national taxes.

It means having a power of general competence, subject to safeguards. It means returning to a less politicised form of local governance focussing on resolving local issues rather than beating an opposition.

It means returning to internal governance arrangements which make decision making more transparent and abandoning “strong mayors” and portfolio holders in favour of more transparent and less singular decision making structures. It means reconnecting with communities, doing things for and with them not to them.

It means designing councils which actually reflect the communities they serve – big enough to be efficient but small enough to care and be responsive, rather than being distant bodies that never get to understand truly local needs and aspirations.

Doing all these things and more would make it much more attractive for people of talent to stand as councillors and in turn drive greater voter turnout.

I have never argued that Surrey needs 12 or so local government CEO’s. Unitary councils are inherently more efficient and more internally connected than the two tier system which is itself largely a relic of a belief that shire government is more likely to deliver Conservative administrations.

Demonstrable and persistent competence in local government is still alive and well in many parts of the country, although sadly not in a few of the councils in Surrey.

Local government as a whole has been systematically deprived of resources since at least the financial crisis of 2008 which explains why so many are now facing bankruptcy. No business could survive very long under the short term financial funding system foisted on local authorities.

Recent governments of all persuasions have led us to this situation in pursuit of a centralising agenda and a failure to understand or care why local government should be more than just a clone of the centre.

Sadly, history has shown that no government in the last fifty years has faced up to the need for a fundamental rethink, rather than piecemeal tinkering, alongside so many of our other institutions.