The English Devolution White Paper published in December 2024 set out the government’s vision for simpler local government structures. Simplification, the government argues, can lead to better outcomes for residents, improved local accountability and savings that can then be reinvested in public services – all familiar benefits of local government reform.
As deputy prime minister at the time, Angela Rayner, wrote in her foreword: “If we are going to build an economy that works for everyone, we need nothing less than a completely new way of governing – a generational project of determined devolution.”
In February 2025, the government announced the six areas that would join the devolution priority programme: Greater Essex, Norfolk & Suffolk, Sussex & Brighton, Hampshire & Solent, Cumbria and Cheshire & Warrington.
Two areas – Cumbria and Cheshire & Warrington – underwent previous reforms and are now set to acquire directly elected mayors leading combined authorities. The remaining four regions face full local government restructuring.
The government’s stated aims centre on creating unitary authorities with populations of around 500,000 residents, though ministers have emphasised this as a guiding principle as opposed to a strict target. These will bring together lower- and upper-tier local government services in new unitary councils to deliver local government reorganisation. The programme has made £7.6m of proposal development contributions available to areas undergoing reorganisation, with all 21 two-tier areas having submitted interim proposals in March.
The timeline calls for full proposals by December, with implementation planned for May 2026 in priority areas. Ministers argue that reorganisation will deliver efficiency savings, improve strategic capacity and enable more effective devolution deals with combined authorities led by directly elected mayors.
However, England’s programme faces familiar tensions between efficiency and local democracy that have characterised many recent high-profile reorganisation attempts across the developed world.
Three pertinent international examples – Australia’s Queensland, Canada’s Ontario and Ireland’s national reform – offer contrasting perspectives on managing these trade-offs, each providing distinct lessons for English policymakers as they address the complex politics of structural change while maintaining effective public services.
Australia’s 2008 local government reforms in Queensland
Australia’s federal system has long struggled with local government financial sustainability, and forced amalgamations remain a sore point across the country.
In Victoria, councils still talk about being ‘Jeffed’ – their shorthand for what happened when premier Jeff Kennett restructured local government in 1994, wiping out hundreds of councils and axing more than 1,500 elected councillors. A major parliamentary inquiry began in March 2024 – the first federal look at the sector’s finances in over 20 years – shows these problems haven’t gone away.
Queensland’s 2008 reforms are particularly instructive as Australia’s biggest attempt to fix municipal sustainability through structural change. The state cut 157 councils down to just 73 in a single day, providing hard lessons about the politics and practicalities of large-scale reorganisation.
Queensland Treasury Corporation had previously reviewed 105 councils and found that 38.5% were in financially ‘weak’, ‘very weak’ or ‘distressed’ shape. The problems were worse in rural areas, where smaller councils had once made sense when local industry and populations were thriving but had since been struggling to survive.
The Local Government Reform Commission, established as an independent authority in May 2007, reported back on 27 July 2007 with recommendations for massive amalgamations based on economy of scale, community of interest and financial sustainability. The reforms proceeded despite overwhelming community opposition.
Implementation and political backlash
The amalgamations took effect on 15 March 2008, with Local Transition Committees managing the change process. However, political resistance proved more durable than anticipated. The incoming Liberal National Party government campaigned to allow de-amalgamations where communities could demonstrate financial viability and majority support.
Following the 2012 election, the Labor government that implemented the amalgamations suffered one of the worst electoral defeats in Australian political history, losing 44 of its 51 seats. While multiple factors contributed to this result, ‘delivery of state services 67%’ ranked second among voter priorities, after the cost of living at 71%.
Four councils – Noosa, Douglas, Livingstone and Mareeba – successfully met the LNP’s criteria for de-amalgamation and were restored as separate entities in 2014 following local referendums. This took Queensland’s total back to 77 councils and demonstrated that community opposition had not dissipated during six years of forced integration.
Financial and operational outcomes
Recent research has questioned whether the promised benefits have materialised. A comprehensive study published in the Australian Journal of Public Administration found that two years after the mergers, amalgamated councils reported technical efficiency scores “well below” non-amalgamated councils. The research concluded that “the predicted improvements to technical efficiency for Queensland amalgamated councils may have largely failed to come to pass”.
The administration of the amalgamations proved more complex than anticipated. Even given deliberate strategies aimed at creating unified organisational cultures, full integration took years to achieve in many areas.
Financial sustainability improved gradually but was impeded by considerable upfront reorganisation costs and reluctance to close the local facilities that served as anchor employers in smaller communities.
Lessons for England
Queensland’s case demonstrates that reorganisation success depends perhaps less on administrative efficiency than on democratic legitimacy – a lesson the state learnt the hard way. This offers several warnings for England:
- Reforms without broad public support can cast a long shadow – In Queensland, community opposition persisted for years and greatly influenced the Labor party’s political fallout;
- Larger authorities did not necessarily deliver the expected efficiency gains – Some merged councils struggled more than those left untouched, particularly in service delivery and internal cohesion;
- Local identity proved highly resilient – In several areas, attachments to place and representation outlasted the structural changes designed to override them.
Canada’s 1995-2002 local government reforms in Ontario
Ontario’s local government reforms during the 1990s provide perhaps the most ideologically explicit example of municipal restructuring, implemented as part of premier Mike Harris’s “common sense revolution” between 1995 and 2002.
The backdrop was Ontario’s severe recession and fiscal crisis in the early 1990s. By the 1995 election, unemployment had almost doubled between 1990-93, one in 10 people was on welfare, and successive Liberal and NDP governments had accumulated massive deficits. Harris campaigned on a platform promising “lower taxes, less government and 725,000 new jobs”, positioning the public sector as “a provider of last resort”.
The scale of restructuring was substantial. The number of municipalities fell from 815 in 1996 to 445 by 2004 – a reduction of more than 45%. The number of elected councillors dropped from 4,586 to 2,786 – a 39% reduction. This particularly affected rural areas, where small municipalities were amalgamated into vaster entities.
Ideological framework and implementation strategy
Harris’s government implemented municipal restructuring through Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, which gave the minister of municipal affairs authority to implement municipal restructuring through orders in council rather than individual legislation. This centralised power and allowed the provincial government to override local legal channels and implement changes rapidly.
The most controversial example was the creation of the Toronto ‘megacity’ in 1998, amalgamating six municipalities into a single entity. Opposition parties were so strongly opposed that the NDP attempted to filibuster the bill by reading out the name of every street in Toronto – an ordeal that lasted 10 days before the legislation finally passed.
Rural impact and democratic consequences
Rural communities, which had previously enjoyed accessible local representation, were hit hardest.
A 2005 study of Ontario’s municipal restructuring found that rural amalgamations created democratic problems by increasing distances between local people and their representatives – resulting in “greatly attenuated” democratic representation.
Long-term political and policy legacy
The Harris government’s reforms largely remain in place today, suggesting their political durability despite initial controversy.
However, recent research from the Fraser Institute examining three Ontario municipalities concluded that “amalgamation did not result in cost savings or lower property taxes”.
The study found “significant increases in property taxes, compensation for municipal employees, and long-term debt in both amalgamated and unamalgamated communities, suggesting there was no tangible, financial benefit from amalgamation”.
Lessons for England
Ontario shows how uniform solutions can damage local democracy without delivering promised efficiencies – revealing that reorganisation is not a destination but a continuous process of responding to communities. Key insights for England:
- Efficiency claims need solid evidence – Ontario’s rural amalgamations failed to deliver economies of scale for labour-intensive services such as social care and emergency response, raising questions about similar promises for England’s rural counties of Cumbria and Norfolk & Suffolk;
- Preserve local democratic voice – England should consider strengthening parish councils or create area committees within new unitary authorities to prevent the severe reduction in councillor representation that damaged Ontario’s rural communities;
- Avoid top-down imposition – Ontario’s centralised implementation through ministerial orders created lasting political problems. England’s programme needs strong, genuine local engagement.
Ireland’s Local Government Reform Act 2014
Ireland’s local government system operates within the broader European context, where democratic standards are increasingly placed under the microscope. The Council of Europe’s damning 2023 assessment found Ireland compliant with only eight out of 20 principles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, ranking it among the most centralised countries in Europe – a rank just above Hungary, Moldova and the Russian Federation in the Local Autonomy Index.
Ireland’s 2014 local government reorganisation measures, introduced by the Local Government Reform Act 2014, offer the most recent and arguably most balanced example of structural reform. They were driven by similar fiscal pressures to those facing England today – post-financial crisis austerity, with a stated aim of creating more efficient, financially sustainable local government.
The reforms cut 114 local authorities down to 31 councils while creating 95 municipal districts underneath – a two-tier system that tackles the eternal scale-versus-democracy problem that has plagued reorganisation everywhere else.
Unlike Queensland and Ontario, which primarily created bigger councils with fewer councillors, Ireland kept local representation alive through the municipal districts while streamlining administration at county level.
Structural innovation and boundary respect
Ireland’s programme sought to preserve local democratic engagement through institutional innovation.
The new structures largely followed existing county boundaries, preserving local identities and cultural connections that typically resist change. Councillors get elected to both councils and municipal districts simultaneously, maintaining local representation within larger units.
Ireland also rolled out functional changes alongside structural ones – water services were centralised under Irish Water, while a new local property tax reduced dependency on central government grants and gave councils some fiscal autonomy.
The reforms introduced optional directly elected mayors for cities, though few have taken this up. Unlike traditional Irish mayors chosen by councillors for largely ceremonial roles, these would be publicly elected with executive powers over local government functions, similar to American or French cities.
Voters in Limerick approved a mayoral proposal by 52.4% in a 2019 plebiscite, with John Moran becoming Ireland’s first directly elected mayor following the June 2024 election. Cork and Waterford voters rejected similar proposals by small margins.
Democratic representation issues
Despite introducing municipal districts to maintain local representation after abolishing town councils, Ireland’s reorganisation has failed to address fundamental democratic problems.
Recognising these ongoing issues, the government established a Local Democracy Taskforce in June 2025 to examine structure, finance, functions and governance/accountability. The 2014 reforms reduced councillor numbers from 1,627 to 949 without subsequent increases despite population growth.
The current Programme for Government document describes local government as the “beating heart” of Ireland’s democracy, with pledges to strengthen municipal districts, enhance councillors’ power over budgets, improve representation ratios and consider further devolution of powers to local authorities for local services.
Lessons for England
Ireland’s reforms offer the most recent attempt to balance scale with local democracy, though the municipal districts haven’t fully resolved representation concerns. Still, several practical lessons emerge for England:
- Maintain local representation within larger structures – Ireland’s municipal districts provide a tested model for preserving local voice within England’s proposed unitary authorities, addressing concerns about democratic deficits in large councils;
- Follow existing boundaries where possible – Respecting county and district boundaries reduces resistance and preserves community identity, unlike arbitrary reorganisation that ignores local connections;
- Build in ongoing review mechanisms – Ongoing issues reflect how reorganisation requires ongoing attention. England should establish formal review processes from the start to enable evidence-based improvements.
