Daniel Candon: Why centralising local government risks tearing up Conservative roots

Local government reorganisation is often presented as a matter of efficiency: reducing administrative costs, streamlining services, and modernising outdated structures. While some of these aims are understandable, the push towards larger unitary authorities or regional bodies comes at a significant cost to local democratic representation.

At the heart of the issue lies a fundamental question: who speaks for our communities when power is moved further away from the people?

The erosion of grassroots representation risks alienating residents from local politics. Smaller councils – borough, district, or parish – are the bedrock of community engagement. They are where local councillors respond directly to neighbourhood issues like potholes, planning disputes, anti-social behaviour, and community funding. These councils are accessible, familiar, and accountable. By contrast, larger authorities dilute this accessibility. A single councillor in a vast unitary authority may represent a far larger and socially diverse area, making it almost impossible to have a real understanding of local concerns.

It is in these smaller, close-knit institutions that public service becomes deeply personal. Residents know their councillors by name. Councillors attend local events, not for votes, but because they live and breathe the communities they serve. Remove these institutions, and you remove the face-to-face link between people and their government. The result is apathy, frustration, and ultimately disengagement from civic life.

For the Conservative Party, this is not just a structural issue, it’s a political one. Historically, Conservatives have performed strongly in rural and semi-rural areas, where people value local autonomy, tradition, and clear lines of accountability. These are the very communities most likely to be marginalised under reorganisation schemes. If local voices feel unheard or disregarded, disillusionment with the political process will grow. People who once voted Conservative because they trusted their local councillor may simply stop voting or worse, turn to protest parties that claim to better represent their frustrations.

Moreover, the centralisation of power undermines the Conservative principle of subsidiarity: that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level. A top-down approach to local government flies in the face of the party’s commitments to devolution and localism.

The current reorganisation proposals by the Labour government threaten to unpick the very fabric of our local democracy under the guise of efficiency. But the real cost will be borne by residents: reduced responsiveness, weaker accountability, and a political system that feels more distant than ever. Conservatives must be clear-eyed about these dangers. It is not enough to whisper concerns behind closed doors. Our councillors, MPs and party members must speak out boldly.

This is particularly vital because the Labour government is accelerating these changes with intent. Under the banner of modernisation and cost-saving, they are redrawing the local map in ways that often diminish representation in areas where Labour has historically struggled. They understand that centralisation benefits the party in power, and if Conservatives fail to challenge this agenda, we risk being complicit in our own marginalisation.

The implications extend beyond elections. Local councillors often serve as the pipeline for future MPs, activists, and campaign leaders. Weakening local governance means weakening the Conservative grassroots infrastructure. It becomes harder to identify and nurture talent from within communities. The fewer the opportunities to serve locally, the fewer the people who will be drawn into public service and party activism.

Let’s not forget the practical impacts either. When decisions about local planning, public services, and infrastructure are taken further away from communities, outcomes are less effective. Policy becomes less responsive, and implementation suffers. Local knowledge is not a luxury – it is essential to good governance. Centralisation assumes one size fits all, but Great Yarmouth is not the same as Kings Lynn, just as Cornwall is not the same as Coventry. Effective government must reflect those differences. Not erase them.

Dylan Thomas says it best: “Do not go gently into good night”. Conservative councils must openly oppose these changes loudly and publicly, even while working to create proposals which have been pushed on them by government. Not just oppose in principle but in action. That means local Conservative councillors engaging residents, defending their councils, and pressing ministers to prioritise localism over Whitehall diktats. Silence in the face of centralisation may be seen as complicity – and it could cost us dearly at the ballot box.

Our position must be clear: this isn’t a reform we believe in, it is one being imposed by a Labour government determined to centralise control, and we are being forced to respond.

In conclusion, while the language of reorganisation may sound sensible, the effects on grassroots democracy are profound. For the Conservative Party, which has long drawn its strength from community-level engagement, the risks are not only structural but existential. If we forget the importance of the local, we risk losing the trust of the very people we aim to serve. It is time to defend the principle that power belongs close to the people – and to say so without apology.