London's patchwork of local authorities is now over 60 years old. Like many at that age, they may feel too old to learn new tricks. Whilst central government has set its sights on the biggest nation-wide shake-up of local government in a generation, the capital's 32 boroughs have kept their heads down, hoping to be left well out of it. So far, they are getting their wish: there seems little interest in reorganisation of London's systems of local government. But this is a mistake.
Whilst council leaders in the emerging tier of combined authorities have formal roles in shaping the strategic direction of their regions, London continues to operate very differently. Boroughs are not strongly wired into City Hall's decision-making, and there are no robust mechanisms to compel London-wide strategy to reflect borough priorities.
The problem is not lost on the boroughs themselves, who issued a joint statement last year through their dedicated network, London Councils, highlighting the dual-track nature of governance in London and pitching a combined board model inspired by Combined Authorities outside London. This was essentially ignored by the Greater London Authority.
London's boroughs are too easy to ignore. One important reason is that there are too many of them. Thirty-two boroughs (plus the City of London) is simply too many for meaningful collaboration to take place, or for participation in strategic decisions. They are also quite a diverse bunch. Whilst Croydon is home to more than 400,000 residents, most are considerably smaller, with only 145,000 people in Kensington & Chelsea. (The City of London's residents could not fill the O2 Arena.)
These reforms would make London governable as a system, not a loose collection of institutions relying on goodwill and workarounds. Borough reform is the enabling move: without it, the rest never quite locks into place, with boroughs at the heart of the Assembly.
Not one of the 32 boroughs meets the Government's newly-established population target of half a million for unitary authorities; the result is that the many small boroughs either lack capacity, resilience to financial shocks, and the clout to negotiate with either City Hall or Westminster – or run the risk of being accused of overstaffing and inefficiency.
When they try to speak with one voice, they are not always convincing (and are sometimes unable to find alignment); when they speak for themselves, they do not have the heft to provide a counterweight to the GLA, let alone their regular sparring-partners in Whitehall.
The solution is as obvious as it is contentious. Few people asked to design London's local government structure from scratch would end up with the system we have today. With fresh eyes, most would settle on far fewer, and far more populous, boroughs.
Boroughs with a population closer to a million residents would reduce the number of voices in the chorus by roughly two thirds.
In addition to producing more powerful, more resilient councils, this consolidation would enable the creation of the single-track governance system the United Kingdom's capital city has been crying out for.
Crucially, borough consolidation would not be a silver bullet, nor is it proposed in isolation. It should be part of a broader reset of London's governance, as set out in our latest report ‘Capital at Risk', including clearer and more coherent sub-regional boundaries, a stronger and more visible London Assembly (with the leaders of London's councils represented by default), and a more durable settlement that empowers London as a matter of course rather than by exception.
These reforms would make London governable as a system, not a loose collection of institutions relying on goodwill and workarounds. Borough reform is the enabling move: without it, the rest never quite locks into place, with boroughs at the heart of the Assembly.
For boroughs, the prize is strength. Larger authorities would have deeper capacity, greater financial resilience, and more leverage in negotiations with the larger institutions with which they interact. They would be better placed to plan strategically, invest for the long term, and weather shocks without lurching from crisis to crisis.
Sixty years is not such a long time that reorganisation has become unthinkable. Borough boundaries are ultimately arbitrary. The average Londoner does not think of themselves as belonging to Southwark or Redbridge in the same way that living in the Bronx can become a fundamental part of someone's identity.
Consolidation would create capacity to devolve power downwards while allowing borough leadership to operate at the scale modern London demands. In short, fewer boroughs would mean stronger boroughs: a seat firmly back at the table.
Dr Simon Kaye is director of policy and research and Cory Berman is researcher at Re:State
