Time for a radical reset

Until more is definitively known about what has led to the bombshell announcement that the whole local government reorganisation (LGR) programme is under review almost two years since the first two-tier areas were invited to express an interest, it would be premature to get into lessons learned.Arguably, the approach to designing the programme has been flawed from the outset. If anything should have been based on genuine co-design – if not to take decisions but at least to set rules and parameters – it should have been LGR.It is not clear that the local government advisory board set up by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has ever been given the opportunity to play a meaningful role in shaping the programme. Local government should also take some responsibility here because it has not been helpful that different sector bodies have sought to score points off each other rather than try to find common ground.One example from Canada could provide useful learning. In the early 2000s, the federal government transferred funding and responsibility for employment support programmes to provinces and territories. Crucially, the first stage of transfer was not a matter of ‘over to you – we're out', but a process of federal and provincial officials reviewing data and agreeing outcomes together and then codified in labour market development agreements that were published.But isn't this precisely where the discussions about greater interchange between central, regional and local government could play a role in future? Our existing policy environment has a profoundly unhealthy dynamic, whereby everyone but central government is expected to produce loads of evidence and data to back up their views and proposals and then central government marks their homework while often maintaining a veil over what ends up driving its own decisions.This is not a great way to tackle complex issues and it is definitely not an optimal way to design tiers of government.Rightly or wrongly, the language of missions has fallen out of favour, but there are elements of their constructs that are worth returning to. Creating a forum where everyone with an interest, expertise or stake in an outcome has a common vision to work toward, a systematic way to contribute, and a structured arena for grappling with disagreement and trade-offs has to be a better way. It can lead to a more mature collaboration and a greater sense of shared accountability.One example from Canada could provide useful learning. In the early 2000s, the federal government transferred funding and responsibility for employment support programmes to provinces and territories. Crucially, the first stage of transfer was not a matter of ‘over to you – we're out', but a process of federal and provincial officials reviewing data and agreeing outcomes together and then codified in labour market development agreements that were published.Part of the process also involved building provincial capacity to assume new responsibilities, not make them earn autonomy – a very different dynamic to English devolution deals. In the first stage, whole staff teams were transferred from the federal to provincial tier to minimise disruption to delivery. Soon after, provinces started recruiting for the skills they felt they needed rather than what was made available to them, but it was helpful not to face an initial scramble to staff up. This is just one example – there will be others from around the world.The notion of secondments between tiers of government is a good idea in itself but only the tip of the iceberg. They can be great for individual professional development and create more mutual understanding and information exchange that help the programmes and services they dock into perform their functions better. But they rarely produce sustained systemic impacts.We have persistent worklessness, flatlining productivity, under-delivery of housing, poor health outcomes that have barely shifted in decades…not to mention an LGR programme not in an ideal state.Tweaking in the margins of how central, regional and local government work together just will not do. It is time to get more radical.Piali Das Gupta is associate director at Roretti

Title

REORGANISATION

Time for a radical reset

By Piali Das Gupta | 15 September 2026

Popular articles by Piali Das Gupta

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING

Popular articles by Piali Das Gupta