100 unreformed boroughs remained to be replaced later and it was 1886 when the last of these were reformed, whilst the City of London was not reformed until much later.
However these reforms still did not seem to be enough in the face of constant industrialised growth and in later years the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1894 broadened this system to all counties. The purpose of these acts was to create:
‘a unified system covering the whole country based upon counties, with a second (subordinate) tier responsible for certain defined functions.’ (2003) Kingdom J. p. 596
The 1888 Act created sixty-two county councils and sixty-one county boroughs across England and Wales. However many of the municipal corporations disliked losing independence to the Counties and objected strongly to the 1888 Act and because of this any borough with a population of over 50,000 were allowed to remain as independent county boroughs if they wished. This Act also brought about huge changes within London an introduced a new administrative county under the London County Council. In 1899 a second tier of twenty-eight metropolitan boroughs and three county boroughs were established within London.
By the end of the nineteenth century Local government in England and Wales (outside of the changes in London) consisted of 82 County boroughs and 58 Counties. Within these 58 counties were 270 municipal boroughs, 535 urban districts and 472 rural districts.
This was the pattern of local government until well into the twentieth century but due development of new technology and industrialisation this system became antiquated and more reforms were needed to meet the expectations of the ‘modern’ world. The problems in London were the most severe, with an enormous population growth the strain put on resources, such as housing was enormous. As a consequence to this the Conservative government of 1957 recommended a radical redrawing of the London boundaries ‘erected’ in 1888. This meant that the territory would now be shared between 32 boroughs (including the City of London) and all the functions would be divided between two tiers. In 1963 the Greater London Council (GLC) was established and given the responsibility for housing, roads, traffic management and public transport.
In1964 the Labour government set up the Royal Commission on Local Government. After reviewing the system the commission recommended that the complicated arrangement of over a thousand authorities by replaced with a single unitary system. However when the Conservatives won the 1970 general election they did not want to risk new areas falling under the control of the Labour party and took no action on the recommendations given in the report. Furthermore the ‘Local Government Act’ 1972 continued the old two tier system, and in 1974 the 58 counties of England and Wales were reorganised into 47 shire counties and 6 metropolitan counties which covered Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and the West Midlands. These metropolitan counties were based on the GLC model.
In the last two decades of the 20th century the role of local government rapidly declined. Margaret Thatcher’s principle of ‘rolling back the state’ strongly affected local government policy. In 1980 two pieces of legislation were passed which greatly affected local government finance, these were, ‘The Housing Act’ and the ‘Local Government, Planning and Land Act’. The Housing Act established;
‘The right of council tenants of more than three years’ standing to buy their properties from local authorities at heavily discounted rates.’ (2000) Atkinson H. & Wilks-Heeg S. p65
The Act also introduced cut backs in the subsidies granted to local authorities for the construction of housing and this in turn led to a decline in housing provision by local authorities.
The Local Government, Planning and Land Act had an even bigger impact. It introduced new reforms to three key areas of local government; finance, function and market. The Act gave central government powers to control local authority spending by the introduction of financial penalties as a consequence of excess spending levels. The Act also stated that a certain amount of work in the areas of maintenance, construction and highways could no longer be carried out solely by local authorities but must be put out to competitive tender. Another impact of this Act was that it introduced provisions for urban regeneration initiatives to sidestep local authority control.
But was this the big change that Thatcher envisioned? Putting limits on local authority expenditure did not have the desired effect. Rather than reducing expenditure many local authorities used rate increases and ‘creative accounting’ to make up the shortfall and avoid any financial penalties. The conservatives responded and tried to stop the ambiguities within the new arrangement by introducing a further six amendments to the grant system.
The government then introduced the ‘Local Government Finance Act 1982’ which shifted the focus from limiting expenditure to controlling the income that local authorities could raise. The Act limited rate increases to one raise per year. However this led to more problems,
Local authorities found themselves operating in conditions of considerable uncertainty and therefore continued to increase rates as a means of building up reserves to guard against further, unpredictable changes in the grant regime.(1997) Rhodes R.
In more simpler terms due to this instability local authorities were anxious that if their grants were cut they would not have enough money to cover their expenditure and so raised the rates to a higher level so they were able to set aside money in the case of a shortfall.
Apart from these ineffective efforts to reduce expenditure at local government level there was very little change to the way local authorities were run. Moreover during Thatcher’s first term as leader there were;
‘no significant attempts to redefine the role of local government.’ (2000) Atkinson H. & Wilks-Heeg S. p66.
The second Thatcher government also followed a similar theme whereby local government expenditure remained a contentious issue however this time it was surrounded by the added drama of confrontation between central government and a small number of socialist, labour controlled local authorities. These local politicians became known as the ‘new urban left’ and were epitomised by politicians of the time like Ken Livingstone, who was the elected leader of the Greater London Council (GLC) and Derek Hatton, who was the deputy leader of Liverpool council. The new urban left was intent on confronting central government at every opportunity. A prime example of this is when the GLC displayed a running count of the cities unemployed from it’s offices. Due to the conflict raised between central and local government the conservative government took the decision to abolish the GLC. This was seen by many as a;
‘knee-jerk reaction to Livingstone and others throwing down the gauntlet to the government.’ (2000) Atkinson H. & Wilks-Heeg S. p67
Although the explanation given for this was much more mundane. The government apparently established a sub-committee with the sole issue of finding a way to eliminate domestic rates. This same sub-committee (code named MISC 79) was also asked to look at the prospect of getting rid of the GLC and the six metropolitan counties. Due to the fact that the sub-committee were unable to find a suitable replacement for the rates system they then turned their attention to the abolishment of the GLC and metropolitan counties. In 1984 ‘The Rates Act’ was introduced. This legislation gave the Secretary of State for the Environment:
‘The discretionary power to impose an upper limit on the rates set by a local authority.’ (2000) Atkinson H. & Wilks-Heeg S. p69
This policy became known as rate-capping and was used to restrict the ability of Local councils to raise income by means of rates. This legislation was used predominantly on Labour run councils and raised even more conflict between central and local government. Furthermore in 1986 ‘The Local Government Act’ was introduced. This legislation banned the use of rates for financing ‘propaganda’. This was also seen by many as an attempt to limit the campaigning of Labour run councils.
By the end of Thatcher’s second term there had still not been any radical changes to way in which local government worked. Abolishing the GLC and the six Metropolitan Councils as well as introducing the Rates Act were seen as:
‘an attempt by central government to gain further control of local government.’ (1985) Flynn, Leach and Vielba p. iv.
Although these changes were seen as controversial they were hardly the radical changes expected of the Conservative government.
It was in Thatcher’s third term as Prime Minister that the Conservative’s plan for local government became apparent.
In 1988 four different ‘Acts of Parliament’ were passed which would apparently revolutionise local government. These pieces of legislation were aimed to change the role of local government from ‘provider’ to ‘enabler’ and had a great effect on the amount of power local government held.
The Education Reform Act (!988) gave schools the right to opt out of local government control if a majority of parents agreed. The Act also introduced the national curriculum which all state schools had to adhere to as well as removing polytechnics from local authority control. City technology colleges (CTCs) were also set up but were under the control of central government and sponsored by the private sector. The Act also abolished the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA). These changes meant that local government no longer had a part to play in the education of its citizens. However this did not transpire to be as an immense a change as originally thought with only:
‘1,118 out of 24,550 school becoming grant-maintained by 1997……….. and only 15 CTCs being introduced by the late 1990’s.’ (2006) Wilson D. & Game C.
The Housing Act (1988) met with a similar reception. The Act :
‘laid down provision for the creation of housing action trusts………that would take specific housing estates out of local authority control.’ (2000) Atkinson H. & Wilks-Heeg S. p69
The Act also gave tenants the right to opt out of local government control and choose another landlord. Yet in the first three years only fifteen authorities took advantage of the legislation and of those 15 authorities none were labour led councils or any of the metropolitan authorities.
The Local Government Act (1988) meant that all local authorities had to put many of its provisions, for example park maintenance, refuse collection, cleaning services and catering out to compulsory competitive tender (CCT) This meant that local councils had to separate its functions into purchaser and provider. This Act also meant that in most cases the cheapest rather than the best value quote was accepted.
The final piece of legislation was the Local Government Finance Act and this proved to be the most controversial piece of legislation at this time. This Act reformed the way in which local government was financed, it abolished domestic rates, local business rates and the revenue support grant and replaced them with a uniform non-domestic rate known as community charge and grant allocation based on ‘standard spending assessments (SSA).
The introduction of this new system was meant to constrain the financial independence of local governments. The Act was also expected by central government to expose the financial incompetence of Labour run councils therefore diminishing the level of support for labour across the country
However Community Charge was vastly unpopular across the country and opinion polls at the time showed that rather than bringing about dissatisfaction with the Labour party it was the Conservative party which bore the brunt of the voter’s discontent
The failure of the community charge was seen as the central reason for Thatcher’s downfall and in John Major took over as Prime Minister in 1990.
Major’s only priority at this time was to find an acceptable replacement for the unpopular community charge and in 1992 council tax was introduced this was a system of property tax that what tiered depending on the property’s value. This was very similar to the rates system that had previously been in place.
There were other small aspects of local government reform during Major’s time as leader although in the main he continued with previous conservative policies toward local government.
In 1992 the Local Government Commission was established to explore whether it was feasible to change the structure of local government from the two tier system, still in use in many areas of England, to a system of unitary authorities. The commission recommended the establishment of forty-six new unitary councils. This eventually happened but only after some amount of conflict between central government and individual local authorities.
In conclusion although many changes have occurred to the role of Local Government, in particular during the latter part of the last century, there was never a complete overhaul of the system. Rather it was accumulation of numerous minor modifications and reforms that gradually stripped local government of its powers rather than improving its role. Although ‘The Local Government Act’ of 2000 was a significant change to the system this has still not returned the control from central to local government and there are still many changes which need to be made.
2679 words
71 max
Bibliography.
Atkinson H. & Wilks-Heeg S. ‘Local Government from Thatcher to Blair.- The Politics of Creative Autonomy.’ (2000) Polity Press, Cambridge.
Chandler J.A. ‘Explaining Local Government: Local Government in Britain since 1800.’ (2007) Manchester University Press, UK.
Flynn N., Leach S. & Vielba C. ‘Abolition or Reform: The GLC and the Metropolitan County Councils.’ George, Allen & Unwin, London.
Kananagh D. ‘British Politics-Continuities and Change.’ (2000) Oxford University Press Inc. N.Y.
Kingdom J. ‘Government and Politics in Britain-An Introduction 3rd Edition.’ (2003) Polity Press, Cambridge.
Rhodes R. ‘Understanding Governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability.’ Open University Press, Buckingham.
Wilson D. & Game C. ‘Local Government in the UK. 4th Rev. Edition.’ (2006)
Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, England.
Websites.
Journals and Articles.
Department of the Environment (1981) ‘Alternatives to domestic rates,’ Cmnd 9008. London: HMSO
Department of the Environment (1986) ‘Paying for local government,’ Cmnd 9714. London: HMSO
