Districts warn that ‘mega councils' may limit growth and public trust
The Government's aim to create new 'mega councils' has been dismissed by a report as an unnecessary, disruptive move driven by 'basic number crunching' that will perpetuate failing models of service delivery.
The analysis found benefits to the public purse from growing local economies, building housing, preventing future needs and reversing a 'catastrophic loss of trust in institutions' far outweigh any short-term savings from consolidating existing council functions.
It calls on the Government to explain how its objectives will be delivered and what is required in terms of 'geography, operating model, design, leadership, capability to fit with new or existing structures of partnerships'.
The report, commissioned by the District Councils' Network (DCN), adds that realisation of the Government's aims 'demands a place and people-based approach to the design of future organisations'.
It said: 'It is in places that true change happens, be it in a region or a neighbourhood or a village'.
'All of these are key dimensions in the renewal of public services and, consequently, the renewal of the nation.'
The report added: 'The greatest risk is losing momentum and settling for change that isn't change. Instead, (local government reform) must focus on a meaningful renewal and reform – driving economic growth, improving public wellbeing, and restoring faith in the local state.'
The English Devolution White Paper, published in December, required the 164 English district councils to merge with county councils to create large unitary authorities with populations in excess of half a million people.
A timetable was imposed, with a deadline for interim proposals set for March 21.
The Government's aim is to have the new councils, which would serve about 20 million people, up and running by 2028.
The report, by Inner Circle Consulting, calls for flexibility over the 500,000 minimum population size so that the Government looks 'beyond the lure of theoretical cash savings set out by those arguing that fewer councils means greater savings'.
The urgency required contributes to 'a lack of bandwidth in local government to develop ambitious proposals', it adds.
This means often 'the outcome could be driven by risk aversion rather than innovation, and a mistaken conclusion that it would be simplest just to consolidate things as they are into the most basic model of something new'.
The report said conversations with many public service leaders revealed that 'without exception' they are finding the current stage of local government reform 'personally and professionally challenging'.
It adds: 'While many are trying to remain hopeful, they remain deeply concerned that there is insufficient time and safe, reflective spaces to work out what could and should happen next.
'As one serving chief executive put it: 'the idea that we can politely organise ourselves around this and figure it out together fails to recognise the power dynamics that are in play'.'
Responding to the report, DCN chairman Sam Chapman-Allen said local government needs 'to raise our game beyond merely consolidating existing structures to radically rethinking them so that they meet the needs of our communities'.
He added: 'It's going to take more than mere mergers to bring about growth, end the crisis of trust in local institutions and to move the focus of services from reactive to preventative.
'To reorganise without determining how we transform is likely thwart central and local government's shared aim of promoting growth, jobs, housing and prevention.'
Mr Chapman-Allen said claims that 'mega councils' will deliver savings are 'largely theoretical', and called on the Government to rethink requirements.
'The danger is that so many places – but small cities and rural areas – are likely to be held back if subsumed into a far wider area,' he added.
But there is disagreement in local government about the way best forward.
Recent analysis for the County Council's Network backed proposals for the creation of new unitary councils in England, arguing that new authorities must cover areas of 'at least' 500,000 people or more in order to save billions of pounds and free up investment in local services.
The CCN report found that replacing the two-tier system with new councils with minimum populations of 500,000 or more could save at least £1.8 billion over five years.
It also argued that those savings reduce dramatically if county and district authorities are replaced with multiple smaller councils, potentially costing local taxpayers hundreds of millions.
Commenting on the report, CCN chair Tim Oliver said: 'It is absolutely essential that the Government now stick to the statutory criteria they have set out, treating the 500,000 as a minimum not an optimum population scale.
'This will ensure we create new councils with the scale and capacity to deliver substantial savings to be reinvested in frontline services to the benefit of local taxpayers.'
A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: 'This Government inherited a crumbling local government sector which we are now focused on rebuilding. This means taking tough choices to make local government more sustainable and give taxpayers the services they deserve.
'Reorganisation will be crucial to creating a more accountable system which will streamline the delivery of local services, and give councils the power and resources they need to deliver for local residents.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ivison: The future is nuclear but we need pipelines too
This week, John Ivison discussed the Carney government's plans for nation-building projects with Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, a senior advisor for the Business Council of Canada. Ivison asked whether asking premiers to submit projects deemed to be in the national interest will mean we are at risk of pursuing white elephants that are not feasible or uneconomic. 'The tone has markedly improved from the last Liberal government, so there is some optimism,' she said. 'There is a sense that the federal government will be a partner in building things, where, for a long time, we thought they were blocking our ability to build things. So it's a great start but there's only so long that you can have a honeymoon period before things have to happen. We actually have to see some action. And we know that Liberal governments are very good at rhetoric and not so great at implementation.' She said her concern is that projects are being submitted by governments and then projects deemed 'nation-building' are being selected by the federal government. 'The direction it's going is a little concerning, in that they want to have a short list of nation-building projects and they will determine if it's nation building and use the public purse to fund them in cases where the private sector will not step up. 'There may be a handful where that's justified. There's obviously a role for governments to build infrastructure. But the low-hanging fruit is obviously to improve our regulatory competitiveness. We have very restrictive, very burdensome regulatory processes. There are a lot of projects that proponents want to do on their own, without government help, if the regulation was better, if we had better tax competitiveness with our competitors. And so I will tolerate a handful of these nation building projects, if they make sense from a business side. But at the end of the day, we're going to need to see the regulations improved and streamlined.' Exner-Pirot said that Mark Carney's goal of a two-year approval process is a 'great target' '(But) we should walk before we run. For some of these things, three years also look pretty good. Two years is certainly feasible if we have good processes and good relations with Indigenous partners. The Conservatives were talking about a six months (approval process) and that just didn't seem feasible to me – that you would never be able to fulfill your duty to consult and accommodate in such a timeline. So two years is ambitious, but doable and we should reach for it.' She pointed out that Canada has to be regulatory and tax competitive with jurisdictions like Texas. 'We would like to bring some of that capital back home. But at the end of the day, investors are going to make those decisions based on the return that they get. Let's make sure that our tax system is competitive so that capital actually wants to choose Canada. One sector where Exner-Pirot is extremely bullish is nuclear power generation using small modular nuclear reactors. This is the one area where I just think: 'Yes, this is a nation building project'. We should lead on SMRs. And there's so many strategic reasons for Canada. One is that we have the uranium source. (We are) the world's number two exporter and number two producer of uranium. We have phenomenal deposits in northern Saskatchewan and in Nunavut. We could dominate the supply chain and the technology. We are building the first SMR in the G7. It has taken some public money to get there. But being the first mover really does accord you some benefits as you try to sell these models in the future. So where can we go next? Nuclear really has the potential if you get the cost curve down. It's a baseload clean energy that needs very little land and very little material inputs. In 100 years, do I think we'll be doing mostly nuclear? Yes, I honestly do.' On specific projects, Ivison asked if a bitumen pipeline should be a priority. '(Alberta premier) Danielle Smith has said it, and my analysis suggests it's absolutely true: There is nothing that will change the economic growth, the GDP, the productivity per capita in this country as much as a bitumen pipeline. We finally added Trans Mountain about a year ago. That's at 90 per cent utilization right now in one year. Our producers filled it fast, so there's clearly demand. We're seeing most of that demand come from Asia, so there is strong demand in global markets for Canadian heavy oil. But it is concerning that we have added this pipeline and we're already running out of egress. So there is an urgency from the producers that we need to start thinking about the next pipeline. And I don't think we're going to get Northern Gateway in two years. If everything went well, probably four years. And that's why we have to start planning for (the next one) now,' she said. Exner-Pirot said whichever pipeline plan comes forward will require the B.C. government to revisit its opposition to tanker traffic on the West Coast. 'I'm finding this hard to understand because B.C. has actually done some constructive and progressive things on the economic development side since Trump was inaugurated. (Premier Dave) Eby has almost been the most vocal about wanting the elbows up. He said in February that if we don't sell Canadian oil and gas, they will just get it from places like Venezuela. I thought: 'Wow, this guy has had a light bulb moment'. To hear (his support for the tanker ban) two and a half months later is quite disappointing. Now a lot of this is federal jurisdiction, so while we want the feds to get out of the way, (it is different) on inter-provincial pipelines, because that is clearly federal jurisdiction. We know from Trans Mountain when B.C., if you recall, said: 'We will use every tool in the toolbox to stop this project'. And they did. But it wasn't their right. The feds can overturn the oil tanker ban. That's their jurisdiction. But what proponent really wants to step into a situation where a provincial government is going to use every tool in the toolbox to stop your project? It's obviously not bullish for investment to have this kind of political disagreement on the ground.' Ivison asked if the idea of a 'grand bargain' between Alberta and Ottawa on decarbonizing bitumen before it is transported to the West Coast by pipeline is a viable option. 'It is feasible. The industry itself has proposed carbon capture and also using some solvents to reduce emissions. In the last 11 years, they have actually reduced carbon intensity emissions per barrel by 30 per cent. So they are doing the work. A lot of the carbon comes from natural gas input to heat the bitumen. That's an expense. There's every reason why they would rather not have to pay that kind of money. 'Right now, the oil sands, on a life cycle basis, is only about 1-3 per cent higher emissions than the global average barrel, the average crude. But if we did this carbon capture, if we did some of the solvent innovations that they're using, it would actually be below the global average on a life cycle basis. So there is a grand bargain to be had. The industry itself has been advocating it. We're very competitive on an economic basis. We want to be competitive on a carbon basis. 'What Danielle Smith is saying is: 'Where's the money going to come from to spend probably $20 billion on these (carbon capture) technologies? If you know you're going to get another pipeline and you can increase your production and fill it with a million barrels a day, well, now there's more revenue coming in and there's a justification. (But) if all your profits have to be driven into carbon capture, you're just not going to get any investment. All of this is cost, none of this is profit and they still have to have a certain level of return from the investors or the investors will just take off.' Moving east across Canada,, Exner-Pirot has been skeptical about Arctic ports being commercially viable. She noted that the feds and the province of Manitoba have spent more than half a billion dollars on the port of Churchill and it's still not attracting shippers and investors, while the Northwest Territories is trying to push the idea of an 'Arctic Security Corridor' that runs between Alberta and Gray's Bay in Nunavut, via Yellowknife. Both ports are impacted by a short shipping season because of sea ice. 'It's a terrible idea for oil and a very bad idea for liquefied natural gas,' she said. 'You will never get a return on your investment. We do want northern development. We do want those regions to prosper at a local level. (But) this is not the thing that's going to grow our GDP. This is not the thing that's going to help Canada diversify its exports away. 'A port in Churchill and a port in Gray's Bay can be useful for helping local mining development happen. That's important for jobs, for taxes, for royalties, for those communities' economic health. So there's a reason it's a public good to provide some basic infrastructure, basic transportation access for the people that live there. Critical minerals are a very different thing from oil. You can mine, you can produce all year and stockpile it, and then in that short shipping season you can ship it out. It's not very expensive just to have it sitting there while the shipping season is closed.' Exner-Pirot said the signs are positive that Canada will finally get its act together and overcome the barriers to economic development because the alternative is stagnation. 'If we return to our complacency after what we've seen and what we've gone through, then God help this country. The conversation right now, again, is focusing on a few projects. I'll be tolerant of this, maybe for a handful of projects and for a handful of months. But (we must) improve our regulatory systems, especially at the federal level. That is where we need to see movement. You can't bring in new people at the rate we bring in new people, and you can't be dependent on China at the rate that we're dependent on China. That cannot keep going on,' she said. John Ivison: Premiers seem delighted just to finally be meeting with a grown-up PM John Ivison: The first Carney spending numbers are as bad as Trudeau's Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what's really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.
News24
an hour ago
- News24
Siyahleba: McKenzie fears illness JZ will always be JZee MKP chaos saved KZN
Tebogo Letsie McKenzie fears illness from economy class flights Our Sport, Arts and Culture Minister, Gayton McKenzie, forgets that he is working for government and the people and not for himself. This week, he threw a fit, complaining that being on too many economy class flights would make him sick. He even disclosed that he was not the type to use Uber as transport, but that government requirements were forcing him to downgrade to that level! Poor Gayton. He was replying to a question about his spending on travel since he became a minister a year ago, which amounts to R4.8 million. The loquacious McKenzie said: Official trips are not holidays or joyrides. I am personally no stranger to international travel as a successful businessman. I was well travelled long before I became a minister. To expect ministers to [take long flights in economy class] in relentless working conditions would simply be impractical and even sadistic. Ag shame! JZ will always be JZee Umkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) members were left surprised when they saw pictures of their Jacob Zuma frolicking and playing with former Mpumalanga MKP convener, Mary Phadi, who was allegedly suspended from the party's activities. Phadi has been running parallel structures in Mpumalanga when the party officially endorsed Busisiwe Mkhwebane to lead the province. Members have been expecting the party to take a hard line against her. But, lo and behold, she is being entertained in Nkandla by a smiling Zuma. But anyone who knows Zuma, who had five wives at some point, will know that he was always going to fold in front of the rather pretty Phadi! Gallo Images / Darren Stewart MKP chaos saved KZN Talking of the MKP, the party pulled another shocker – Floyd Shivambu was booted out as secretary-general and moved to Parliament, all thanks to his Easter visit to Shepherd Bushiri's church in Malawi. Word is that the holy trip didn't sit well with the MKP's top brass. The party scored a hefty 45% of the vote in KwaZulu-Natal, just a few seats short of taking full control of the province, only needing 5% plus one to govern outright. With reshuffles happening more often than load shedding in the party, it's clear that if negotiations hadn't dragged on and they had taken control of KwaZulu-Natal, we would probably be on premier number six by now. Prayers might still be needed. HOT Our wheelchair tennis star Kgothatso Montjane and her Japanese team-mate Yui Kamiji displayed an incredible come-from-behind 4-6 7-5 (10-7) victory to seal the 2025 Wheelchair Tennis Doubles title at the French Open in Paris on Friday – their second title win in the French capital. The pair have made reaching finals a habit, having participated in the last four finals and taken their first title in 2023. The duo also won the US Open title together in 2023, as well as the Wimbledon crown last year. Despite falling short in the semifinals of the singles competition, Montjane can be proud of the fact that she's bringing home another title. NOT Power is a drug. And, like most drugs, it is addictive and dangerous to both the user and those close to them. Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane clearly does not understand this. In recent months, she has found herself at the receiving end of criticism for behaviour that is unbecoming of a person in her position. Like a person typically drunk on power, she has been dismissive of criticism. The latest incident relates to a viral video showing her chewing gum while taking questions in a portfolio committee meeting in Parliament. In addition to chewing gum like a typical tart at a brothel, she was rude and dismissive of a question that had been asked. Even after social media denizens attacked her for her behaviour, she refused to apologise. It was only after President Cyril Ramaphosa requested a report from her regarding her lack of decorum that she released a statement clarifying her behaviour. The 'apology' is insincere and comes from a dishonest heart. Bad behaviour by our MPs is becoming endemic. The president must deal with Nkabane sternly, to send a message to the rest that rudeness and Trumpish antics shall not be tolerated.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Musk's efficiency model fails, Israel needs excellence
In a nation known worldwide for innovation, shouldn't our governmental systems reflect the same ingenuity that powers our most successful sectors? Imagine two government offices side by side. In the first, budget cuts eliminate 30% of the staff, forcing the remaining workers to process paperwork faster, yet citizens still wait hours, frustrated and unserved. In the second, a complete digital redesign allows most services to be completed online in minutes, with personalized guidance available for complex cases. Both claim 'efficiency,' but only the second delivers excellence. When Elon Musk took charge of US President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, he promised a revolution in government operations. Within weeks, over 200,000 federal employees were dismissed. 'We are moving fast,' Musk admitted, 'but we'll also fix mistakes quickly.' This bulldozer model captured global attention, including in Israel, where bureaucracy has long been a national punchline. The temptation to import this model is understandable. Yet what Israel needs is not America's DOGE but rather to reimagine the concept entirely, where the 'E' evolves from mere 'Efficiency' to true 'Excellence.' This distinction isn't semantic wordplay. Efficiency asks, 'How can we do the same with less?' Excellence asks, 'How can we create more value for citizens?' The first measure reduced inputs; the second focused on improved outcomes. Excellence often costs less in the long run by eliminating the hidden expenses of poor service: repeated visits, economic opportunities lost to delays, and the massive collective waste of citizens' time. As Israelis, we maintain a consistent expectation that our government should deliver quality services year after year. This social contract is fundamental to our society. We're willing to contribute through taxes and military service, but we expect competent governance in return. The excellence approach recognizes that well-functioning public institutions form the foundation of this mutual commitment and our national resilience. The irony is that Israel, the Start-up Nation, lags dramatically behind in government innovation. The same country that pioneers cutting-edge technologies in cybersecurity, agriculture, and healthcare still processes many government services using methods from the previous century. What the American DOGE does get right is creating a national conversation about government performance. Before DOGE, government reform was largely a technical discussion among experts. Now, it's front-page news. This visibility creates accountability and builds the political will necessary for meaningful change – precisely what Israel's public sector reforms have lacked. Excellence doesn't mean abandoning necessary protections; strong regulatory frameworks safeguard public health, safety, and essential services. The goal isn't to eliminate these safeguards but to redesign them intelligently. Consider business licensing: smart reform maintains high standards while eliminating redundant approvals and creating clear, predictable paths for entrepreneurs. What would an excellence-focused approach look like in practice? The solutions are largely known, and numerous committee reports have outlined necessary reforms for Israel's public service. What's missing isn't ideas but rather the sustained political commitment and public support to implement them. Three key initiatives must take priority. First, government services must be fundamentally redesigned with citizens at the center of the process. This goes beyond mere digitization to rethinking how services are structured and delivered. Estonia offers an instructive example. They've built an integrated digital government platform where services are designed around life events and user needs, not agency structures. Their transformation saves an estimated 2% of GDP annually while dramatically improving citizen satisfaction. The key insight isn't just technology; it's the citizen-centric redesign of the entire service experience. Second, excellence demands investing strategically in our public servants. This means creating diverse entry pathways to attract top talent, ensuring competitive compensation for key positions, and establishing cultures of innovation where continuous improvement is rewarded. Third, we need structured collaboration across sectors. Government doesn't have to solve every problem alone; it can leverage expertise from private industry, civil society, and academia. This multi-sectoral approach enables faster adaptation to evolving challenges while ensuring public services remain relevant and effective. The blueprints for transformation already exist in Israel. What's needed now is the determination to implement them, not through indiscriminate cuts but through thoughtful redesign backed by a genuine political commitment to better service. The citizens of Israel deserve a civil service that matches the excellence they demonstrate in their own fields. In a nation known worldwide for innovation, shouldn't our governmental systems reflect the same ingenuity that powers our most successful sectors? The question isn't whether we can afford such a transformation but whether we can afford to continue without it. The writer is the executive director of Tashtit, which works to promote professional and effective public service in Israel. He is also a member of the leadership team at Eco Memshal, a multi-sectoral space for organizations working to strengthen the public service in Israel.
