Martin Kettle agrees with the government favouring “English counties, not regions, as an essential building block of a modern network” (We now have a plan to make England’s local government work – but I fear party politics will trash it, 19 December). There is a key word and concept that should form the basis of good governance. It is “subsidiarity”, meaning that decisions should be taken at the level to which they apply. It forms the basis for good governance across Europe, which is based on regions.
This is because there are key functions and decisions that can only be taken effectively and in an integrated way across regions. They include the strategic planning of major developments, transportation systems, infrastructure networks, housing market areas, higher-end retail catchments, health provision and higher education, as well as environmental entities such as river valleys and water-catchment areas. So please do not advocate sentiment as a basis for second-tier governance. Keep some of the old county names by all means, but surely not their Norman boundaries.
Roger Read
Former secretary general, Metrex, the network of European metropolitan regions and areas
• Martin Kettle is right, of course, that improvements in local government need funding, and Angela Rayner is right that England is more centralised in its government than practically anywhere else in Europe. The fact is that until the taxation system is revised to favour local government, that centralisation, and the dead hand of Westminster, will continue.
Sweden and the other Nordic countries show the way: Gothenburg, a city of about the same size as Sheffield, has a proposed budget for 2025 of about £3bn, while Sheffield’s budget for 2024-25 is just under £544m. So Gothenburg gets to spend just over £5,000 per head of population, while Sheffield makes do with just under £932 per head. Of course, the responsibilities of local government differ in the two countries, but these differences are massive.
The reason is that in Sweden, income tax is paid to the local authority if you earn up to about £43,000; if you earn more, you pay another 20% on the difference to the state. This is a system that favours devolution, but it will never be implemented in the UK, because ministers like to manage things instead of simply leading legislation to enable others to manage.
Tom Wilson
Professor emeritus, University of Sheffield, and University of Borås
• I would urge any areas with district councils to fight to keep them (Editorial, 16 December). Having lost Richmondshire district council, many of us feel abandoned. With no significant economic development input and a failing planning system, we have become an outpost of local government that is easy to ignore. On top of that, there has been increased centralisation, with the election of a regional mayor living, I believe, in York, 45 miles away.
North Yorkshire council’s ideas for electoral division boundaries will see Richmond town split up; we will be politically neutered, left drifting and rudderless.
John Harris
Richmond, North Yorkshire
• Angela Rayner has put the cart before the horse with her proposed reform of local government. Our district council has been a model of financial probity, while the county council is indebted and struggling to provide basic statutory services. Larger does not mean better, and makes the legislators more remote from the electorate. By all means get rid of county councils, devolve power to the districts, and then support them to work effectively.
Barrie Baldelli
Evesham, Worcestershire
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
