Councils split down the middle, and the sharpest disagreement was over who a bigger council would actually serve. Members tied dead level on merging county and district councils into single authorities.
The most-respected Yes case was blunt: “Get rid of double and treble beauracracy.” Other Yes voters made it a matter of clarity and cost, arguing a two-tier system “dilutes accountability and frustrates voters”, and that every council running its own HR, admin and IT is duplication. Even supporters attached conditions, one asking that councillors be “much more visible” and held to account.
The most-respected No post was a one-line insult about pools of imbeciles, which says more about mood than argument. The better-rated No reasoning was about geography: “The bigger the council the more money is drawn into the urban areas”, wrote one voter, citing Oxfordshire roads and buses. A Devon voter said the rest of the county would be slapped into one council with “ALL the roads”.
No voters also challenged the efficiency claim directly. One said merging inefficient councils “just creates bigger inefficiencies”, and urged reform of processes first. Yes voters, for their part, answered the accountability worry by arguing that one authority makes it clear who is responsible when services fail.
This is the live English devolution argument in miniature: whether efficiency and nearness to voters can be had together. Voters agreed the duplication was real; they split on the cure.
62 Opinions
Get rid of double and treble beauracracy. Amalgamate them into one.
Horses for courses. Some things are best kept local. Others not
Adding a pool of imbeciles to a larger pool of imbeciles only strengthen the density of said imbeciles.
A two tier council system dilutes accountability and frustrates voters. True representative democracy requires clarity when services fail, citizens need to know exactly who is responsible. Moving to single unitary authorities balances the need for strong local representation with the administrative capacity to actually govern. It streamlines the local state, cutting administrative bloat while making local government far more transparent and accountable to the public.
Merging inefficient councils just creates bigger inefficiencies. Reform outdated processes, cut bureaucracy, share services and enforce accountability. Fix how councils operate before changing their boundaries.
None of you has it as bad as Devon. They want to make Exeter, Plymouth, and Another rich area increase slightly and then slap the rest of the county into one massive council area with no wealthy areas and ALL the roads. It's ridiculous and needs a serious rethink.
Combining multiple councils causes the resources to pool in the cities and the rural areas are forgotten about. If they’re smaller they can make changes that are more effective for their communities.
It's a good start - share resources better, get better bargaining purchasing power, stop waste thru multiples. Seems sensible.
Yes for the actual planning of the county, there should be smaller hubs for support, particularly if the county is large. There should also be better accountability of spending
The bigger the council the more money is drawn into the urban areas with rural left behind. Case in point Oxfordshire county council are only concerned in Oxford city. To the point they actually make it difficult for those living outside to even get into the city. Roads, bus services, utilities, in dire condition.