The cancellation of local elections (Some councillors in England could stay for more than extra year under shake-up plans, 5 February) means that the government and those council leaders who will gain most from the planned reorganisation will not have to face voters to justify the cost to them.
The proposed mergers of district councils and splitting up of county councils to form new unitary councils was examined in a PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report commissioned by the County Councils Network in 2020. This showed that all the options to create multiple unitary councils were extremely expensive and disruptive.
PwC predicted that the loss of economies of scale at county level would cost billions across the country. With local government already on its knees, spending a fortune on a reorganisation to create a more costly alternative is the last thing we need. Our local council has had to set aside millions to pay for these changes. Who will tell us what benefits offset the extraordinary costs?
Richard Gilyead
Saffron Walden, Essex
• A well-run local authority is a pleasing experience. The borough council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, where I live, is in my opinion, one such council. The proposal to create a huge unitary authority of Norfolk and Suffolk is not the enhancing devolution experienced by Andy Burnham’s Manchester. Norwich will predominate and the margins will suffer. As a former resident of Cambridgeshire, I would say its elected mayor struggled to show any interest in the poorer rural areas in the north of the county.
I am sure the Labour government has an agenda, but this is not devolution. The fact that certain county councils appear to be embracing this possibly speaks more of executives’ and senior officers’ personal ambitions rather than improvements for the majority of residents. I do not want my opportunity to influence to be excised through cancelled elections.
Anthony Saunders
King’s Lynn, Norfolk
• It is possible that the changes to local government are necessary, and even democratically beneficial. What is not acceptable is delaying local elections in some areas because the new system is not ready to go. By deciding to delay the elections rather than delay the implementation of the new system until the next scheduled election date, Angela Rayner has chosen to subvert the democratic process and deny millions the opportunity to express their views through the ballot box. Democracy delayed is democracy denied.
I would not welcome the predicted increase in voter share by Reform UK, but better that and allow voters their say than deny them their democratic rights. Perhaps voters should be allowed a council tax “holiday” while they are denied any say in how their taxes are spent.
Rodney Lambert
Romsey, Hampshire
• Local government reorganisation is a double whammy for 5 million people in England (Editorial, 6 February). First, they have been deprived of their right to vote in May and, second, they haven’t been consulted about who represents them in their area. Devolution isn’t just about boosting economic growth, it should also be about listening to and strengthening local communities, and maximising their input into the decisions that affect them. So far, that aspect of devolution has been ignored.
Tom Brake
Director, Unlock Democracy
• 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.
