- News
- governments-cabinets
- English democracy relies on local councillors. So why are so many facing the axe? | Polly Toynbee
English democracy relies on local councillors. So why are so many facing the axe? | Polly Toynbee
The quiet dismantling of England's democratic infrastructure represents one of the most alarming political developments in recent memory, a systematic erosion occurring with such subtlety that its profound implications risk going entirely unnoticed by the electorate. When the government's white paper on English devolution casually boasted of achieving 'fewer local politicians,' it wasn't merely pandering to populist disdain for the political class—it was actively undermining the very foundation of community representation that voters demonstrably trust more than their Westminster counterparts.Research from the New Economics Foundation revealing that constituents trust local councillors at twice the rate of national politicians should have signaled the value of this tier of governance, yet instead it's being systematically dismantled through council mergers and reorganizations that appeared nowhere in the party's manifesto. This isn't just administrative streamlining; it's a fundamental reshaping of our democratic landscape that disproportionately impacts women, working-class representatives, and those without independent wealth who can afford to dedicate time to unpaid or underpaid civic duties.The historical precedent is troubling: when you distance decision-making from those most affected by those decisions, you create governance vacuums that inevitably fill with bureaucratic inertia and corporate interests. I've spoken with councillors across the Midlands and North who describe the emotional toll of watching their communities lose representation while simultaneously being expected to manage worsening social crises with diminishing resources.The feminist perspective here is unavoidable—local government has historically been the entry point for women and marginalized groups into political life, and its contraction represents a regression in the slow march toward representative democracy. What's particularly galling is the timing: amidst a cost-of-living catastrophe, NHS waiting lists stretching into years, and climate emergencies demanding local adaptation strategies, the government has chosen to invest political capital in reducing democratic participation rather than strengthening it.The parallels with historical centralization efforts are striking, from the Thatcher-era dismantling of metropolitan counties to more recent austerity-driven council funding cuts, each iteration further weakening the connective tissue between citizens and the state. Expert commentary from governance scholars suggests these moves will likely fail to achieve even their stated financial goals—council mergers historically create short-term disruption costs that outweigh projected savings, while diminishing accountability often leads to costlier long-term governance failures.The human impact is immeasurable: when you remove the district councillor who fights to save a local library, or the parish representative who champions disability access in park renovations, you're not just eliminating bureaucratic positions—you're silencing the voices that give communities their character and resilience. This quiet revolution in local governance deserves far more scrutiny than it's receiving, because once these democratic structures are gone, rebuilding them will prove infinitely more difficult than dismantling them.
It’s quiet here...Start the conversation by leaving the first comment.
© 2025 Outpoll Service LTD. All rights reserved.