Friday, 27 June 2025

Why there is no climate crisis

 

One very significant difference between Reform UK’s policies and those of the other parties is that Reform intends to scrap so-called “net zero.” This refers to draconian restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from human activities, enshrined in the “Paris Agreement” at the 2015 United Nations Conference of the Parties.

In the words of Reform’s Contract with You: “Net zero is pushing up bills, damaging British industries like steel, and making us less secure… We must not impoverish ourselves in pursuit of unaffordable, unachievable global CO2 targets.” This is, of course, simple common sense. Yet, as one who has been studying the subject of CO2 emissions in detail for almost two decades, I find a vital word missing from that second sentence: “unnecessary.”

For in reality, net zero policies are based on nothing more than scares about some “climate crisis,” that alarmists claim requires us to throw away our industry and our prosperity. But these scares have no basis in reality. This makes the conduct of those that have lied or deceived in order to fan the scares, or have promoted, supported, made or enforced such policies, most reprehensible. In my opinion, they have committed crimes against humanity.

Two years ago, I wrote a 7,300-word de-bunk of the climate crisis meme, and had it published at “the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change.” Here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/. This article is a much cut down, and slightly updated, précis of that one.

The six claims

To begin, I’ll ask: What are the specific accusations being made against us human beings under the moniker of “climate change” or “global warming?” I divide them into six claims:

1.     It’s warming. It has been warming since at least 1880 or so. And the warming is global, not just local or regional.

2.     This warming is unprecedented.

3.     All or most of the warming is the result of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by human civilization. And CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels is the main culprit.

4.     This warming will have significant negative effects on the planet and on human well-being and prosperity.

5.     The benefits from avoiding the negative consequences of this warming outweigh the costs of taking pre-emptive action to avoid them.

6.     It’s a crisis! There’s a climate crisis, and we need to act NOW!

Is it warming?

It’s commonly agreed that the climate has been warming for centuries, as the world has come out of the “Little Ice Age,” which lasted from the 14th century to the middle of the 19th.

Now, there are many problems with assembling temperature measurements, made by different means over a long period of time, into a coherent whole. And even more problems with in-filling and extending them to places with no measurements, in the search to construct a global average. But there is general agreement that global temperatures have been warming since the 17th century. And that they have warmed very close to 1 degree Celsius since 1880.

On the other hand, an issue which has recently gained attention is the possibility of temperature bias through the urban heat island effect (UHI). UHI is, simply, that it tends to be warmer in places which are more densely populated. Because cities form a very small proportion of the earth’s surface, UHI alone cannot account for anything like the warming we have seen. But since the places in which we make measurements tend to be the places where we have settlements, it is possible that extending these measurements over areas for which we have no data may produce an apparent warming, which is not there in reality.

Is modern warming unprecedented?

Past records show temperatures going up and down by large amounts, sometimes over relatively short time periods. For example, there was a huge dip into, and an even bigger rebound out of, the trough of the Little Ice Age.

Moreover, there have been periods in the past, when temperatures have been considerably warmer than in the times around them. For example, the Mediaeval Warm Period from about the 10th to the 13th century, during which commerce took off in Southern Europe. And the Roman Warm Period from about 250 BC to 400 AD, during which grapes could be grown in Scotland; suggesting it was warmer then than it is now. So, the idea that modern warming is unprecedented is, in Scottish parlance, “not proven.”

Is CO2 from human activities the main cause of the warming?

There is a plausible scientific hypothesis that says that greenhouse gases, including CO2, do cause some warming. This warming is what they call a “forcing.” It is relatively small; about 1 degree Celsius for a doubling of CO2 is considered reasonable.

But the alarmists claim this initial, small warming then gets amplified by “feedbacks” such as evaporation from the oceans (water vapour is a far stronger greenhouse gas than CO2!), and changes in cloud cover. The alarmists think the feedbacks are large, causing instability; skeptics think they are small, or even negative. But the science of feedbacks is in no way settled. No-one even knows whether, overall, more cloud cover causes warming or cooling!

We hear a lot about “attribution studies,” supposedly trying to work out how much of the observed warming is due to CO2, to other human activities such as land use change, or to causes independent of human activity. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that virtually all these studies are being driven by politics, not by science.

Another issue, currently being looked at, is how far air pollution reductions over the last 70 years or so have increased the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface, and therefore the temperature. It seems plausible this may have had an effect. Perhaps, even, a big one.

Would warming be bad for the planet and for us?

Historically, human civilizations have tended to thrive during warmer periods rather than colder ones. Indeed, I for one would expect that a moderately warmer world – say 4 or 5 degrees Celsius warmer – would be better for us, not worse. But the alarmists keep on screaming about the TERRIBLE consequences if “we” don’t reduce CO2 emissions and stop the warming RIGHT NOW! Who is right? That needs proper, objective cost-benefit analysis.

Is it worth taking pre-emptive action to avoid the consequences of the warming?

My researches have shown consistent failure by the UK government, over two decades, to do any proper cost-benefit analysis on “net zero” or related policies. Indeed, at several points, they have gone out of their way to prevent any such analysis being done! This is very suspicious indeed.

To avoid this article becoming over-long, I’ll write up those researches in a separate article.

Is there evidence for a climate crisis?

What evidence is being presented that there is a “climate crisis?” Or, indeed, that there is any problem with the climate at all? Here is a list of some of the things the alarmists are howling about. In almost every case, they claim that these things are happening now.

(Cue wailing and gnashing of teeth). Weather disasters are becoming worse and more frequent! We’re facing more and worse storms and hurricanes! More and worse floods! More and worse droughts! More and worse wildfires! More and stronger heatwaves! More and more people are dying from heatstroke! There are millions of climate refugees! Arctic sea ice is disappearing fast! Because of this, thousands of polar bears are dying! Sea levels are rising fast! And the rate of rise is accelerating! Because of this, islands like Tuvalu and the Maldives are being submerged! Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice fast! This will lead to melting of ice sheets, and catastrophic sea level rise! Hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of coral reefs are dying! We soon won’t be able to grow enough food to feed the population! All these things, so they claim, are our fault for emitting so much CO2.

OK, so let’s look at the record.

Are weather disasters becoming worse and more frequent? No. Global deaths from disasters such as droughts, floods and extreme weather have gone down dramatically in the last century or so. The drops in deaths from natural disasters have been even more spectacular when looked at in terms of death rates per 100,000 people.

More and worse storms and hurricanes? No. No trend is evident in global hurricane frequency. And cyclone energy in the Northern Hemisphere has not been increasing in the last 30 years.

More and worse floods? No. Even the United Nations’ IPCC cannot say whether flooding on a global level is increasing or decreasing.

More and worse droughts? No. Deaths from droughts, floods and extreme weather have gone down dramatically in the last century or so. And even the IPCC has low confidence in attributing changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century to human influence.

More and worse wildfires? Not proven. A 2016 peer-reviewed paper had this to say: “Many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends.”

More and stronger heatwaves? No. In the USA, heatwaves in the 1930s were an order of magnitude stronger than in any of the previous or subsequent decades. There is no apparent trend in the rest of the data.

More and more people dying from heatstroke? No. Deaths reported as caused by “extreme temperatures” peaked around the 2000s, but have gone down since. In any case, they are only a small proportion of deaths from all natural disasters. Moreover, a recent paper analyzing data from around the world concluded that deaths caused by cold were approximately ten times as many as deaths caused by heat.

Millions of climate refugees? Not that I am aware of. I certainly haven’t met one. Have you?

Is Arctic sea ice disappearing fast? No. It did reach a low minimum in summer 2012. But by 2021 and 2022, the minimum had rebounded to around 50% above that value.

Are thousands of polar bears dying because low sea ice means they can’t find food? No. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the world-wide polar bear population has risen from about 10,000 in the 1960s to 26,000 now. One expert has estimated 32,000 bears.

Are sea levels rising fast? No. As measured by tide gauges, the rate of sea level rise varies a lot by location. This is as you would expect, since some coasts are rising, others falling. But a rise of 1-3 millimetres per year is typical. While in some places better sea defences are advisable (the Dutch have been doing it for centuries!), this is not concerning overall.

Is the rate of sea level rise accelerating? Not proven. Satellite measurements seem to show an acceleration of sea level rise in the last 20 years or so. Tide gauges, in general, don’t. The discrepancy needs to be fully explained before anyone can reasonably claim that an acceleration of sea level rise exists and is a problem.

Are islands like Tuvalu being submerged? No. In a recent survey on a multi-decadal scale, 80 per cent of all the islands surveyed (including Tuvalu) were either growing, or staying about the same size.

Are Antarctica and Greenland losing ice fast? No. The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades. Last I heard, it was gaining ice, not losing it. As to Greenland, at the current rate of melting, to melt the whole of the ice cap would take 20,000 years.

Are hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of coral reefs dying? Not really. The poster child for coral reef bleaching, the Great Barrier Reef, seems, after an iffy period around 2012, to be doing fine. And coral reefs elsewhere are a lot more resilient to changing conditions than they are often given credit for.

Can we grow enough food to feed the population? Yes. Yields of most crops per area farmed have risen over the last 60 years. Meanwhile, more carbon dioxide in the air has had a beneficial effect of “greening” the Earth!

I rest my case, m’lud. And if perchance you are not convinced by any of these statements, please refer to my article at Watts Up with That, which gives links to data and scientific papers on these subjects.


Posted by No comments:

Sunday, 22 June 2025

Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?

Although I am a Reform UK member and campaign manager, I don’t often talk about immigration. It isn’t one of my hot-button issues; I tend to find things like nett zero and anti-car policies far more worthy of my skills and attention.

My own position on immigration is as follows. First, I see the mass “legal” immigration into the UK, which has been encouraged and, indeed, planned by successive governments, as a far bigger issue than the “illegal” immigration that angers so many. Which, in numerical terms, it very definitely is. And second, my objection to the kid-glove treatment which so many of the illegals receive in the UK is not so much to that treatment itself, as to the insult it forces on to the native population who are expected to pay for it.

Having been trained as a mathematician, I am comfortable with numbers. Those of you, who are allergic to figures, may feel a need to skip a few of the denser parts of this missive. Or, better, persevere, and learn a lesson I myself learned long ago: without numbers, you cannot judge the effectiveness or otherwise of any idea or policy!

I had not much considered the root causes of, and the history behind, this mass immigration. That is, until I recently ran across a United Nations document with the title I have given you above. I found it here: [[1]]. It is dated March 2000. A quarter of a century is a long time in politics! But this document is still most relevant today.

The executive summary defines replacement migration as: “the international migration that would be needed to offset declines in the size of population, the declines in the population of working age, as well as to offset the overall ageing of a population.” The study “computes the size of replacement migration … for a range of countries that have in common a fertility pattern below the replacement level.” These include the UK.

Three main scenarios are defined, and given the Roman numerals III, IV and V. Scenario III seeks to keep the total population constant going forward in time. Scenario IV seeks to keep constant the size of the population aged 15 to 64, which is used as an estimate for the economically productive population. Scenario V seeks to keep constant the ratio between the population aged 15 to 64 and the population aged 65 and over. The rationale behind this (the potential support ratio or PSR) is to assure that there are enough people of economically productive ages going forward to support those who have passed retirement age. The time period, over which the scenarios are calculated, runs from 2000 to 2050.

The “money numbers” are in Table 1 on page 2. To keep the UK population constant, Scenario III, would require net immigration of 53,000 people per year over the entire 50 years. Scenario IV, keeping the productive age group constant, would require 125,000. And Scenario V, striving to keep the PSR constant, needs – wait for it! – 1,194,000. Almost 1.2 million nett immigrants each year, over the whole 50 years, needed to save the welfare state!

The major findings list (page 4) says “few believe that fertility in most developed countries will recover to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.” “If retirement ages remain essentially where they are today, increasing the size of the working age population through international migration is the only option in the short to medium term to reduce declines in the potential support ratio.” And: “Maintaining potential support ratios at current levels through replacement migration alone seems out of reach, because of the extraordinarily large numbers of migrants that would be required.” Though it also suggests that PSRs could alternatively be maintained by raising the retirement age from 65 to about 75.

The literature review on page 9 states that “no policies to increase the mortality of a population are socially acceptable.” Myself, I’m not so sure. Such policies might perhaps be introduced under guises that look more benevolent than they are. In unlooked-for side-effects of vaccines, for example, or in an assisted dying bill that makes it easier for governments to “persuade” old people to pop off voluntarily. Still, probably only an aged cynic like me would think such things.

More “money numbers” are to be found in Table IV.11 on page 27. Curiously, the UK seems, among all the countries studied, to be the easiest in which to achieve the extreme Scenario V. It would take “only” a 1.54 per cent year on year UK population increase for the whole 50 years to get there. Only Russia is anywhere close. France, Germany, Italy and the USA all need 2 to 3 per cent a year. Japan needs over 3 per cent, and South Korea almost 9 per cent!

The detail section for the UK is on pages 67 to 72. Scenario IV would require “6.2 million immigrants … between 2010 and 2050, which would increase the overall population to 64.3 million in 2050. By that date 13.6 per cent of the total population would be post-1995 migrants or their children.”

If you think that’s bad, how about the extreme Scenario V? “The overall population would reach 136 million in 2050, of which 80 million (59 per cent) would be post-1995 migrants or their descendants.”

These figures were, of course, out of date even the moment they were penned. And a quarter century has elapsed since then. But I’m still going to do what any mathematician or scientist should do. I’ll compare the data against the predictions. Here we go:

The data plotted above comes from the Office for National Statistics: [[2]]. These figures aren’t actually census measurements; but they are calculated by the same method that the United Nations uses for its population predictions, so they’ll do. Look at that knee-bend in about 2003, the effect of Blair’s programme to encourage Poles to come to the UK.

We are already, at 2023, well beyond the “64.3 million by 2050” required for Scenario IV. I’m not even going to try to extrapolate that curve to 2050, but the conclusion is clear. Successive governments have, ever since this UN paper was published in 2000, been aiming for Scenario V, or as near it as they can damned well get.

This explains why whenever a government, Tory or Labour, promises to rein in immigration, it never happens. Indeed, immigration rates always go up, not down. This UN-sponsored policy is a gigantic scam, which has been staring us in the face for a quarter century. Only a few people have seen through it, most of them economists; and these people are not so hard for government to silence, whether with carrot or stick. But when Reform UK and Nigel Farage get hold of this, and start to use it as a political weapon, I think some fur may fly.

The solution will undoubtedly need to be radical. We have to start thinking about, for example, purging from the public sector the many big-government sycophants that infest it. And replacing them with retired people, with the kinds of life-expertise and objectivity which can only come from having been there and done that. This is a very difficult problem to solve without causing grave injustice to many innocent people. But it is also an enormous opportunity for Reform UK.

Posted by No comments:

Sunday, 1 June 2025

On local government re-organization in Surrey

(Draft 2 – Neil Lock, Reform UK Godalming and Ash Interim Campaigns, 01 June 2025)

After the excellent results for Reform in the May 1st local elections, there is obviously much disappointment for Reform supporters who were denied the opportunity to vote on that day. These places include the county of Surrey, where elections were originally scheduled for all 81 seats on Surrey County Council (SCC). They have been postponed to 2026 at least, and as yet we do not know what the replacement(s) for SCC and the 11 borough and district councils, which currently cover Surrey, are going to (or even are expected to) look like.

I thought it would be useful to trace through the history of what has been going on in local government in Surrey over the last several years. As part of this, I will put together some information on: What the remits of the various councils are currently, and what they are likely to be in the future. How Reform’s policies in the areas of responsibility of local councils differ from those of the establishment parties. And how things may end up looking when the next local elections eventually take place. I hope this will help people who are not already “in the know” to gain an understanding of what, even by the government’s own admission, is a complicated subject.

1.    Current council responsibilities

The responsibilities of the current two-tier councils in Surrey are listed here: [[1]].

The county council’s responsibilities are listed as: Birth, marriage and death registration. Education. Fire. Highways – including on-street parking, traffic management, and street lighting. Libraries. Recreation, arts and museums. Social care. Strategic planning. Trading standards. Transport. And waste disposal.

All these headings should be self-explanatory, except for “strategic planning,” which seems to be a requirement imposed by the Localism Act 2011. Here is a description: [[2]]. The “overarching priority” is “to deliver long term sustainable growth, ensuring that councils positively take into account the three pillars of sustainable development – economic, environmental and social – in their local plans.”

The responsibilities of individual borough and district councils are listed as: Collection of council tax and non-domestic rates. Environmental health. Housing. Leisure centres. Local plans and planning applications. Public conveniences. And waste collection.

Our particular constituency, Godalming and Ash, consists of six complete wards from Guildford Borough Council, eleven complete wards from Waverley Borough Council, and parts of two other Waverley wards which are shared with neighbouring constituencies.

2.    Councils’ recent history, performance and finances

Any additions, supported by links or other references, will be gratefully received.

Surrey County Council

SCC has been continuously under Tory control since 1974, except from 1993 to 1997, when the Tories were the largest single party but had no overall control.

Tim Oliver became council leader in December 2018. Oliver’s predecessor stepped down due to the council’s finances: [[3]]. Far from the issues being solved in the meantime, the debts of SCC and the borough and district councils have got worse. See this from January 2025: [[4]].

At his 2018 resignation, the former council leader said SCC was “firmly fixed on an exciting new vision for the future.” Under Oliver, that vision has become this: [[5]]. It looks like yet more of the pro-big-government pap, that the establishment parties love so much. They want a Surrey where “Everyone lives healthy, active and fulfilling lives, and makes good choices about their wellbeing.” And where “Residents live in clean, safe and green communities, where people and organisations embrace their environmental responsibilities.” But who decides what is a good choice, or what “environmental responsibilities” are important?

Drill down a level, to their “clear strategies and plans” [[6]], and you see a “strategic framework” that seeks: A Bidenesque “No one left behind.” “Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).” “Growing a sustainable economy. Tackling health inequality. Enabling a greener future. Empowering communities.” This could almost have been taken straight out of the UN’s “Sustainable Development Goals.” Of which, by the way, I wrote an extremely negative review back in 2022: [[7]].

Besides which, it should not be a government function to “grow” an economy; for that is a function of the market. And experience teaches us that the more government intervenes in any economy, the worse are the results in the long term.

Beyond this, there is a Surrey “Transformation Plan,” from 2020: [[8]]. “Transformation” is more UN-speak. At least, in this case, it is about the council seeking to “transform” itself rather than us. But it talks of “new programmes tackling complex issues – such as the climate emergency, mobility [whatever that means…], health and care integration, and economic growth – that will only be successful through joint effort between all public organisations, the voluntary, community and faith sector, academia, businesses, and, critically, communities themselves.” And of “Creating a greener future. Tackling the causes of climate change and become a carbon-neutral county as soon as possible.”

There is lots of nonsense here. Not least, because in reality there is no “climate emergency.” So, there would be no benefit at all for the people of Surrey from becoming “a carbon-neutral county.” Two years ago, I wrote an evidence-based de-bunk of the climate crisis meme, and had it published on “the world’s most viewed website on global warming and climate change.” [[9]]. So, I know what I’m talking about in that area. The whole climate crisis caboodle is a scam. Yet, its advocates smear those who gainsay it as “far right” or “deniers.”

The idea that there is a climate crisis is no more than a religious dogma. It has no more basis in evidence than the ideas of communion bread becoming flesh, and communion wine becoming blood, had in the 16th century. Yet if you “denied” that chemical impossibility back then, you would be burned at the stake!

Moreover, someone extremely important is missing from their list of those who should have a full say in how Surrey is to develop: the ordinary people. And if you really do want to foster economic growth, why not simply get rid of all regulations and bureaucracies that harm or impede such growth? IR35, “equality, diversity and inclusion,” and many more.

The Tories in control of SCC took their green zeal so far, that they voted for SCC to join “UK 100.” [[10]]. This describes itself as “a network of local leaders who have pledged to lead a rapid transition to Net Zero with Clean Air in their communities ahead of the government’s legal target.” By doing this, the Tories showed themselves to be fully as extreme in their green religious mania as Labour and Ed Miliband. As public sentiment starts to move away from decades of green madness and back towards a degree of sanity, that is something we in Reform must not let people forget, at either national or local level.

And how well is SCC performing against its remit? I can identify two areas at least, highways and transport, in which its performance merits a big Fail. In recent years, potholes have been – rightly – touted as the biggest problem on Surrey’s roads. But right now, the profusion of road works and partial and full road closures, often over long periods, is an even bigger issue. Road blockages often seem to spring up without any warning. And it is now routine to allow building activities next to a road to impact traffic on that road for weeks or months at a time.

As an example, on May 1st four out of the five roads into and out of Guildford town centre had delays due to road or roadside works. And the works just west of the town centre were causing traffic on the one-way system to block up entirely. Moreover, I recently saw re-surfacing work in a close, and a badly parked works vehicle, causing seriously snarled traffic in Farncombe. SCC is treating the road users it is supposed to be serving with disdain.

As to transport in general, the situation is even worse. In 2021, SCC issued “Local Transport Plan 4,” whose policies are viciously opposed to cars, and seek to make life for Surrey drivers far more restricted – and expensive. Ker-ching! I wrote about this last year, as part of a series on anti-car policies in the UK: [[11]]. Meanwhile, public transport in south-west Surrey, away from the valleys and railway lines, remains as woeful as it has always been. And due to the 2024 withdrawal of two infrequent bus services, in some ways it has become worse.

In that same essay, I covered the “Vision Zero” road safety scheme [[12]], being pushed by Tory and Lib Dem factions on SCC, as well as by Jeremy Hunt MP. This diverts police away from their proper job of catching and prosecuting real criminals, and parks them in lay-bys waiting to catch out and fine drivers who are not doing any harm to anyone at all. Ker-ching!

“Vision Zero” is actually a project of the United Nations and its World Health Organization (WHO). You may recall the WHO’s support for China and for lockdowns during COVID, and its desire to take complete world-wide control of responses to future pandemics. We voted for Brexit to get rid of external influence over our affairs. Didn’t we? So, why are the establishment parties pushing this scheme – even down to the local level? Ker-ching?

I am sure that you my readers will be able to identify many more failings of SCC.

Waverley Borough Council

WBC has been in a state of “no overall control” since 2019. It is currently run by a coalition of “everybody but the Tories,” led by the Lib Dems. In 1973, it became a “shadow” authority, in preparation for the 1974 local government re-organization. Since 1974, it has been Tory controlled for 31 years, Lib Dem for 5, and under no overall control for the rest.

WBC is in the top 10% of all UK boroughs for its rates of council tax. However, this may not mean much in comparison to its neighbours, since Surrey in general is an area of high council tax.

One notable fact is that Waverley BC has chosen to express its support for a green extremist organization called “Zero Hour.” [[13]]. I have written about “Zero Hour,” and the “climate and nature bill” they promote (which seeks the phasing-out of fossil fuel use in the UK as quickly as possible, with the consequent suppression of economic freedom, and so the whole UK economy), here: [[14]]. Since the almost 200 MPs that have listed themselves as supporters of this bill include the entire Lib Dem caucus of 72, it looks as if it is probably the Lib Dem council leadership that has been pushing this cause in Waverley.

Waverley has also been pushing a five-year Business Improvement District (BID) levy on businesses in the major towns in the borough. But there are accusations that the process was not transparent, and some businesses were misled into giving their support to a scheme that was not in their interests.

As to the services it provides, Waverley’s planning department has the reputation of being very slow, and they seem to have to process a large number of planning appeals. They have also been caught out wrongly charging a “Community Infrastructure Levy” to people who have improved their homes: [[15]]. My own experience with their council tax department was bad; problems with their computer systems prevented me for more than a year from setting up a direct debit for payment of council tax. Their public loos have been of poor standard and unpredictable opening times in the past, but they have improved in recent years.

You may have brickbats or even plaudits to add to my list.

Guildford Borough Council

GBC’s political history since 1974 has been not unlike Waverley’s, but it is currently under Lib Dem control. It is worth noting that WBC and GBC share a chief executive.

To date, GBC does not appear to have succumbed to green extremism quite as far as either SCC or WBC. But they still kow-tow to the political correctness of “sustainability.” [[16]].

Any documented accounts of their failings or successes will be gratefully accepted.

Council Finances

From the BBC report at [4] above: “Total debt across all 12 local authorities in Surrey stands at around £5.5bn – £2bn of which is in Woking and more than £1bn in Spelthorne, according to SCC.” To put that in perspective, £5.5bn amounts to almost £4,500 for every man, woman and child living in Surrey.

Of this debt, in early 2024 about £600 million lay with SCC itself, though this was expected to triple by 2028: [[17]].

According to their March 2024 accounts [[18]], WBC’s debt is about £150 million, of which £85 million is secured by council-owned property.

According to the Guildford Dragon [[19]], GBC currently has £300 million of debt, two-thirds of which is secured by council-owned property.

As to the rest of the Surrey boroughs and districts, I am indebted to the Epsom and Ewell Times for this “league table” of council debts as of early 2024: [[20]]. Woking and Spelthorne have the two highest council debts in the whole country, and Runnymede is fifth. These had debts of £7,000 to £18,000 per man, woman and child in the borough or district. The debts for Guildford, Mole Valley, Waverley, Tandridge and Surrey Heath were comparable with each other, and look to be reasonably close to the national average after allowing for Surrey being an expensive area. However, the Dragon article referenced above tells that Guildford’s debt has significantly increased in the last year. As has Surrey Heath’s: [[21]].

3.    Reform policies on matters within local authority remit

Next, I will look at Reform UK’s policies, inasmuch as they affect the remit of local authorities. On 10 May 2025, Nigel Farage wrote an article in the Daily Mail outlining the latest Reform manifesto. Since that article is paywalled, and the version of the “Contract with You” on the party’s website does not appear to have been recently updated, I find myself having to refer to the summary published in the Telegraph on 02 May 2025: [[22]].

I will cover only those policy areas which are directly relevant to county councils, borough and district councils, and their future replacements.

Efficiency and honesty

First, Reform will “create a version of Elon Musk’s cost-cutting department of government efficiency in every council it controls.” This is a fine aim; to ensure that local councils must always serve the people of their area in a way that is cost-effective for those people. And in at least one council which Reform has won, Derbyshire, the DOGE concept is already being introduced: [[23]].

But personally, I feel that more is needed. Not only must what local councils do for the people be cost-effective; but it must also be demonstrably for the benefit of those people, and must be seen to be so. I would like to see, not just a department of government efficiency (DOGE), but a DOGHE – a department of government honesty and efficiency.

Such a department would, for example, stop local governments from supporting extremist organizations and policies that go against the interests of ordinary people, such as UK100, or “Zero Hour” and its climate and nature bill. Or imposing schemes like “Vision Zero” that are pushed by external parties such as the WHO, without first doing objective risk and cost-benefit analysis from the point of view of the people affected.

Social care

A royal commission is a bit of a heavyweight weapon to use to reform social care. However, extreme conditions do demand extreme responses. From my recent experience with a broken arm, I know that social services in Surrey are extremely reluctant to help anyone who has not claimed before, however much they may need the help.

The proposal for a tax holiday for social care workers may also ease the task of local governments in meeting their responsibilities in that area.

Environmental health

I applaud Reform’s policy of leaving the WHO unless it is fundamentally reformed. Though personally, I’d leave the WHO – and the UN as a whole – as soon as possible.

I note the pledge to “achieve cleaner air in a strategic, affordable way.” This sounds good, but it leaves some important questions unanswered. One, how should we determine what is an acceptable level of air quality? Two, how acceptable are current levels of air pollution in Surrey and places like it? And three, how far have the reductions in toxic emissions, already made over the last 50 to 70 years, rendered further reductions unnecessary?

I myself have delved into the history and science of air pollution toxicology. This essay [[24]] summarizes what I found, and links to the earlier, more detailed essays. Indeed, the WHO has also been the driver of UK policy on what the government call “clean air,” which you and I call “air pollution.” And their UK lapdogs have acted in ways that I consider deceitful and dishonest. They have made air pollution out to be a far bigger problem that it is in reality. I’ve written about this too, but it’s a little bit technical: [[25]].

This overstatement of air pollution as an issue has been used to “justify” widespread anti-car policies – to which Reform is, quite rightly, strongly opposed. And it has enabled unscrupulous politicians like Sadiq Khan to push forward with schemes like ULEZ, whose effect on many people’s lives is strongly negative.  When Reform gets national power, I would like to see this history, and the way in which government has made decisions in this area, formally re-examined. And actions taken if dishonesty or corruption is proven.

Housing

“New housing on brownfield sites would be fast tracked as part of sweeping reforms to the planning system.” There are certainly some reforms necessary! For example, protecting valuable farmland against those that would use it for housing estates, or for expensive, ugly, grid-destabilizing wind or solar power. And making sure that neighbourhoods are not invaded by hordes of asylum seekers awaiting vetting.

Energy and net zero

Here are the four principal Reform policies in this area: Abandon existing carbon emission targets. Accelerate North Sea oil and gas licences. Scrap annual green energy subsidies. And speed up clean nuclear energy. Furthermore, the party plans to “restart coal mines using the latest cleanest techniques.” And to make a start on licensing test fracking sites. That all sounds good, although personally I would want to develop fracking more quickly.

As with air pollution, I would like to see an independent, objective audit of the “climate change” accusation, that has been promoted by the UN, the EU, the UK government and those all of them have funded. Scientifically, economically, and in terms of honesty and transparency towards those government is supposed to serve. And all those involved, that have acted against the interests of the people, should be treated as the criminals they are.

As regards the county councils where Reform has recently taken over control, I note that two, Derbyshire and West Northamptonshire, are listed as members of UK 100. To withdraw those councils from that organization quickly would, I think, be a good statement of intent. But in West Northamptonshire at least, Reform councillors are already refusing to take “climate training” (and “diversity training,” too): [[26]].

Then there is the potentially interesting situation in which Andrea Jenkyns finds herself after winning the mayor’s post in Greater Lincolnshire. She is well known for her opposition to nett zero, and seems well placed to test the limits of how far an elected mayor can go in challenging national-level policies which adversely affect the people of her area. I do not expect that many people in rural Lincolnshire, or in Scunthorpe, Grimsby and environs, will be big supporters of nett zero!

Education

With regard to schools, Reform’s proposed ban on teaching gender ideology and critical race theory sounds very sensible. As does the ban on phones and social media in schools. Adding “home economics” to the curriculum also sounds sensible, as long as it is taught objectively.

Transport

From a Surrey perspective, Reform’s relevant policies are introducing a ban on low traffic neighbourhoods, and outlawing creation of 20mph zones. Both are sound policies, important in keeping people moving. But axing the 2035 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, and axing present and future kleptomaniac schemes such as ULEZ and swingeing excise duty increases, are just as important, in order to halt ever rising costs for drivers.

4.    History of local government reforms

So, to some history. “Unitary authorities,” and political disputes about the structure of local government, are nothing new. Before about 1965, the organization was two-tier, with more than 1,000 county, district and town councils. In the late 1960s, Labour sought to consolidate the structure, to one that was single-tier over most of the country. But the Tory victory in the 1970 general election meant that the two-tier system was retained. However, the total number of councils was cut significantly. That is the origin of the current local government system in Surrey, which came into effect in 1974.

“Devolution” under the Coalition and Tories

According to the UK parliament’s glossary [[27]], “Devolution is the decentralisation of governmental power.” I think of devolution as bringing government closer to home, making smaller units that are more flexible to local needs and desires. I think I am not alone in this. But what has actually been done under the banner of “devolution” is quite different, as I will discuss below.

In 2012, referendums were held in 11 of the biggest English cities, over whether their councils should be run by a council leader, or by a directly elected mayor: [[28]]. The results were, to say the least, mixed. And some councils chose to pre-empt the referendum by themselves voting to move to a mayoral system.

“Devolution” from then to 2024 was a bit of a mish-mash. This document, from 2023, gives a fairly detailed account of this process: [[29]]. Initially, it was confined mainly to cities, and to places like Cornwall where a deal had already been agreed. One major thread was: “The government is committed to building strong city regions led by elected mayors.” This followed on from the creation of the post of Mayor of London in 2000. But rural counties like Surrey were not included in this scheme. The powers delegated were: local transport, housing, skills and health care.

In 2015, SCC put forward a proposal for what would in effect have been a merger with West Sussex and East Sussex: [[30]]. This was not successful.

A larger scale framework for devolution of powers was introduced in 2022, and came into effect in 2023. “Level 2” powers could be devolved to a non-mayoral county council or other unitary council; “Level 3” powers required a single institution with a directly elected mayor. This change seems to have begged the question of whether or not a mayoral system would be acceptable to the people outside big cities, and particularly in rural areas.

In March 2024, SCC signed a Level 2 devolution deal with the then Tory government.

The March 2024 Surrey devolution agreement

The 2024 SCC agreement with the Tory government is here: [[31]]. It does not seem to envisage any changes to the political map within Surrey, and indeed involves SCC taking on new functions from 2025 onwards. It explicitly states: “Surrey County Council will need to engage district and borough councils and other local partners to ensure that the needs of partners can be effectively addressed.” And: “Surrey County Council elections will continue to take place on the same cycle, with the next scheduled elections due in May 2025.”

“Devolution” under Labour: “Completing the map”

In September 2024, the incoming Labour government published a plan titled “Completing the map: How the government can extend devolution to the whole of England.” [[32]].

This identified the likely option for places such as Surrey to be: “non-mayoral devolution or division into two or more unitary councils.” But it added: “The answer is likely to differ from place to place.” And: “these reforms should be treated as stepping stones towards more ambitious settlements within the next few years, in line with our detailed regional recommendations.”

As to the longer term: “A potential alternative path to deeper devolution would be for Surrey to unitarise the county… The next step could be the establishment of a mayoral combined authority at the county scale, with the several unitaries as constituent members.” That does, indeed, seem to be the direction in which Labour is heading with regard to Surrey’s future.

The Devolution White Paper

The English Devolution White Paper was published on 16 December 2024: [[33]]. It was accompanied by a statement from deputy prime minister Angela Rayner that “devolution will be the default for local government: [[34]].

One of the white paper’s main take-home messages was: “Our goal is simple. Universal coverage in England of Strategic Authorities – which should be a number of councils working together, covering areas that people recognise and work in.” And there will be “unprecedented powers and budgets for Mayors.”

Mayoral Strategic Authorities

Rather than try to analyze the white paper itself – which is long on political rhetoric, but short on practical detail – I will use a later summary, from February 2025: [[35]].

Labour’s view of devolution is based around Strategic Authorities and Mayoral Strategic Authorities. Their attitude is that “the benefits of devolution are best achieved through the establishment of combined institutions with a directly elected mayor.” In time, they want to impose mayoral systems everywhere. Even in areas which have never before had mayors above the level of individual towns.

Mayoral Strategic Authorities will cover “sensible economic geographies,” and should have a combined population of 1.5 million or more. But smaller authorities may be necessary in some places. It seems that Surrey, currently at 1.23 million, is one of these.

The powers to be delegated to all Strategic Authorities, with or without a mayor, are: Transport and local infrastructure. Skills and employment support. Housing and strategic planning. Economic development and regeneration. Environment and climate change, including green energy roll-out and “local nature recovery.” Health, wellbeing and public service reform. And public safety (police and fire).

Mayoral Strategic Authorities can include “constituent authorities,” defined as “local authorities where a strategic authority exists.” But these cannot override a negative vote of the mayor. And Strategic Authorities with a mayor will be able to propose additional powers, to be considered by government and a Mayoral Council.

What does this mean in practice? In the case of Surrey, this would make the two or three unitary authorities, into which Surrey is proposed to be divided, eventually constituents of one large mayoral strategic authority.

It looks as if the constituent authorities would appoint some of their members to become members of the strategic authority, and vote in its policy discussions. But I have not seen this arrangement explicitly and officially spelt out. The clearest I could find, [[36]], says: “Members appointed by constituent councils are voting members of the Combined County Authority.” But it says nothing about how this appointment is done. It is also possible for the combined authority to include members nominated by the mayor or by a committee of councillors, thus opening up the system to potentially significant influence by non-elected parties.

When I looked in more detail at the powers devolved, I found some concerning things. Mayors, in general, will have very considerable powers, both formal and less so. Constituent authorities may not go against the mayor’s transport plan; raising the spectre of transport policies, which might be appropriate in central Woking or Guildford, being imposed on people in places like Puttenham or Peaslake. A “spatial development strategy” will be mandated, which is likely to lock in the establishment’s desire for rapid, continued population growth, most of it through immigration, even in areas that are relatively lightly populated. There is a strong flavour of ever-increasing intervention in the economy by government, both local and national. And they want to deliver a “low-carbon heating revolution across the country,” in the style of the communal heating systems of China and Soviet Russia.

The wide scope of these powers is worrying, given how certain mayors, such as Sadiq Khan, have behaved towards the people they are supposed to serve. And consider the size of the regions the mayors are planned to rule. Divide the 66.9 million UK population by the 1.5 million recommended minimum size of an MSA, and you get around 45 mayors in total. As compared with 650 members of parliament. The area ruled over by one mayor will cover on average 14 or 15 parliamentary constituencies. Mayors, and their sidekicks, will be powerful people indeed.

Is this really devolution?

What Labour want to do – abolish the borough and district councils, replace them by a smaller number of unitary authorities, then vest huge power in a mayoral authority above them all – looks like the exact opposite of devolution. It merely reflects Labour’s historical preference for big, single-tier local government. This is mega-government limbering up to take over the economy, micro-manage our lives, and crush freedom.

5.    The Great Surrey Council Bun-fight

Once the devolution white paper had been issued and announced, all hell broke loose in Surrey local politics. The “bun-fight” that has ensued has been fast and furious.

SCC extraordinary meeting

SCC announced that it would hold an extraordinary meeting, to take place on 08 January 2025. The information pack for that meeting is here: [[37]].

On 16 December 2024, the minister for local government, Jim McMahon, had written to the leaders of two-tier councils, including SCC, warning that all such councils would be required to supply proposals very soon for re-organization into unitary authorities. Yet also ordering that “reorganisation should not delay devolution,” and aiming where possible for mayoral elections in May 2026. The letter – in the pack – also offered to postpone local council elections from May 2025 to May 2026 for those areas where re-organization was necessary before devolution could be undertaken. It set a deadline of 10 January 2025 for making a commitment to go ahead, and requesting the postponement of the elections.

Before the meeting, the leader and his Tory faction on the council had prepared a proposed response – also in the pack. It requested postponement of the elections from May 2025, suggesting elections to the new unitary councils in May 2026, with a mayoral election in May 2027. Though it recognized that Surrey did not quite meet the lower population limit of 1.5 million for a Mayoral Strategic Authority. It also mentioned the need to deal as part of the re-organization process with the debt issues faced by local government in Surrey.

The pack also set out a summary of the devolution framework, from the white paper. For new mayoral strategic authorities, this will include, over and above functions already exercised by SCC: “Ability to introduce mayoral precepting on council tax.” “A clear, strategic role in the decarbonisation of the local bus fleet.” “Active Travel England support for constituent authority capability.” “A duty to produce a Spatial Development Strategy.” “Strategic development management powers.” “Ability to raise a Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy.” “Ability to make Mayoral Development Orders… and Corporations.” “Heat network zoning co-ordination role.” “Green jobs and skills co-ordination role.” “A strategic role on net zero in collaboration with government.” “Responsibility for co-ordinating delivery and monitoring of Local Nature Recovery Strategies.” “A bespoke statutory health improvement and health inequalities duty.” Lots, lots of powers and duties! Expensive, no doubt. And a bad mayor might easily use them to change life for ordinary people seriously for the worse.

As to local government re-organization (LGR), here is SCC’s position. “New unitaries are to be delivered in April 2027 and 2028, with shadow elections taking place earlier.” “All councils in an area should collaborate on developing unitary proposals in the best interests of a whole area” and “Councils should work with government to bring about changes as swiftly as possible.”

Here are salient features of the envisaged time-line. March 2025 – Interim LGR proposal submitted to government. May 2025 – Full LGR proposal submitted to government. Autumn 2025 – Government decision on LGR anticipated. May 2026 – Elections to shadow unitary authorities. Spring 2027 – New unitaries “go live.” Spring 2027 or 2028 – Mayoral elections and Mayoral Strategic Authority “go live,” or Surrey joins MSA with neighbours. (The last seems unlikely, since the 2024 devolution agreement used the current Surrey boundaries.)

The final recommendation is that the council goes ahead with the leader’s letter as proposed. This is indeed what happened as a result of the meeting.

R4GV’s view

Residents for Guildford and Villages, who have two of the 16 Residents/Independents councillors on SCC, as well as 7 seats on GBC, issued the following shortly after the 08 January 2025 meeting: [[38]]. I do not find it surprising that all the borough and district councils in Surrey disagreed with SCC’s desire to postpone the May 2025 elections.

I quote from this paper: “There are many areas where the White Paper provides little detail. The assumption is that the detail will be worked out over the next year or so – with input from local authorities. Consequently, the current situation is fluid.” You can say that again! It is also clear that: The timescales for the re-organization look all but impracticable. And there were (and are) still many questions to be answered about how the new system would work.

Moreover, the resolution of the debt issues was – and still is – a very large problem. Central government has stated its unwillingness to take over responsibility for the debt. This means that whoever gets joined up with any of the “bad boroughs,” Woking, Spelthorne or Runnymede, is likely to be saddled with enormous debts that are not of their own making.

Local elections postponed

The announcement of the postponement of the SCC elections was made on 05 February 2025, here: [[39]] and [[40]]. The first of these documents made the following comment regarding Surrey: “The Government agreed that, for Surrey, reorganisation is essential to unlocking devolution options and a delay to elections would help deliver both reorganisation and devolution to the most ambitious timeframe. Surrey’s path to devolution is significantly dependent on Local Government Reorganisation.”

And the second said: “for Surrey, we will postpone the county election for that area from May 2025 to May 2026.” The MHCLG – Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government – confirmed this in an “Explainer,” here: [[41]].

The next day, the Surrey Leaders’ Group, made up of the leaders of all borough and district councils in Surrey, issued a statement in reply: [[42]]. They re-iterated their opposition to the postponement of the county elections. They also said: “the Government announcement does not address the serious concerns we hold around local government reorganisation including establishing unitary authorities for populations of 500k people, which will take decision making further way from communities, or provided any clarity around how the debt held within Surrey is going to be addressed so that new authorities are not set up to fail.” Two extremely important points! Though these people, of course, are biased, because the proposed re-organization will terminate, or at least restrict, their own jobs.

“Consultations” on mayoral county authorities

On 17 February 2025, the government announced consultations on the Devolution Priority Programme [[43]], which leads counties towards a mayoral future. Surrey, where the excuse for delaying the elections was “reorganisation is essential to unlocking devolution options,” is not included in these consultations.

That is more than a little concerning. Particularly as the set-up of the combined county authority requires that “Prior to submitting a proposal, a consultation must be carried out across the proposed area of the new Combined County Authorities.” Indeed, to me at least, even an honest and full-scale consultation on a change of this magnitude is not enough. There ought to be, as there were in 2012, local referendums to enable the people to judge whether or not they want a mayoral system. And those should take place before any changes are made – anywhere, but most of all in Surrey – that commit to a mayoral future.

That said, based on experience, I have very low to zero confidence in the integrity of the current system of government “consultations.” But that is a subject for another day.

The Interim Plan

On 21 March 2025, SCC issued its Interim Plan for devolution and local government re-organization. This consists of three parts:

Part A [[44]] is mostly advertisement. Though it does say: “Creating unitary local government in Surrey will be a catalyst for creating a Mayoral Strategic Authority (MSA) for the area.” So, it looks as if we the people of Surrey are indeed being forced down the mayoral path, without being consulted at all.

Part B [[45]] gives a high-level overview of the options considered. It sets out the key principles that “no new council should be set up to fail” and that “the new organisations should have relative equity and parity of financial resilience and sustainability, service demand levels and economic prospects from day one.” It also states the MHCLG’s criterion that “A proposal should seek to achieve for the whole of the area concerned the establishment of a single tier of local government.” Further proof that this is not devolution.

It lists the options considered as: A single unitary authority, which covers the existing county footprint of Surrey and the population of over 1.2 million people. Two unitary authorities, covering populations of between 500,000 and 600,000 people each. And three unitary authorities, covering populations of upwards of 370,000 people each.

The assessment page [[46]] has, near the beginning, the following very revealing paragraph: “Early on, we ruled out pursuing a single unitary authority option as it will not unlock the benefits of further devolution for Surrey residents. Government criteria mean that a single unitary council and Mayoral Strategic Authority cannot be established on the same geographical footprint. However, it is acknowledged that this arrangement would have supported greater financial efficiencies and minimised disruption to county-wide services from disaggregation.” To me, this reads horribly like, “We ruled this out because it would stop us from getting for ourselves further powers in the future.”

The interim plan had four options: two divided east/west, where Waverley and Guildford were both bracketed with the financial “bad boys,” and two north/south, where Guildford was but not Waverley. Here are the maps:


Personally, I would have favoured option 2.3, as it best separates the rural parts of Surrey from the parts most influenced by London. (But I live in Waverley, so I’m biased!)

The final plan

I shall now fast-forward to the final plan, dated 09 May 2025. It had been approved by Tory-controlled SCC a few days earlier: [[47]]. Albeit over the protestations of the councillors from all the other parties, including the Residents: [[48]].

The plan starts here: [[49]]. The executive summary is here: [[50]]. It says: “Our options appraisal, guided by the criteria set by government, shows that a two unitary model is the most viable option to unlock devolution on a Surrey footprint.” And “Our preferred option is for an East/West model, titled 2.1 West/East throughout the report.” In this scheme, Guildford and Waverley are both bracketed with all three of the “bad boys” – Woking, Spelthorne and Runnymede. The plan makes a “key ask” to central government: “Write off stranded debt related to historic commercial activities, in particular for Woking Borough Council, as the only viable option to ensure the financial sustainability of new unitary authorities and avoid ongoing Exceptional Financial Support being required.” If this does not eventuate, SCC’s preferred solution will be a disaster for everyone in Waverley, including me; and almost as bad for people in Guildford.

The assessments and maps of the unitary proposals are shown at [[51]]. Here is option 2.1, SCC’s preferred solution:

And here is the three-unitary proposal, favoured by 9 out of 11 borough and district councils:

Political machinations

In the period since the interim report and the final report, there has been evidence of ongoing politicking behind the scenes. Most of it, as you might expect, over financial matters.

Reigate and Banstead set out a plan to leave Surrey altogether, by combining with Crawley Borough Council to form a new unitary authority: [[52]]. Nice idea, but I doubt they will be allowed the chance.

Meanwhile, Elmbridge [[53]] distanced itself from the three-unitary solution supported by all the other boroughs except Mole Valley, and went with SCC’s preferred two-unitary set-up, which keeps Elmbridge away from the fall-out from Woking, Spelthorne and Runnymede. The council leader’s argument, “our residents should not be penalised for the decision making of others,” I find a most persuasive one. And as a Waverley resident, I echo it.

There have also been reports that the option of a single Surrey mega-council, though dismissed by SCC as incompatible with government guidelines, is still very much live: [[54]]. Though it would be seen by most people as completely the opposite of devolution. Yet according to the report, “The ministry said that if Surrey was to shift towards a single unitary model, unlocking devolution would mean partnering up with neighbouring authorities or joining a neighbouring mayoral authority.” That would be even further away from devolution! And it has a very strong flavour of “you can only have more powers if you do things exactly the way we want.”

After SCC made their decision, WBC published the following: [[55]]. It claimed “overwhelming public support” for the three-unitary proposal, on the basis of a survey of 3,265 Surrey residents, 63% of whom supported that option. But three thousand out of more than a million people in Surrey is hardly overwhelming as a sample size. The survey itself was here: [[56]]. It does not seem to have been at all well publicized. I certainly wasn’t aware of it. The results page shows that 3,117 comments were received, but neither the detailed results nor the comments themselves are visible. It is a pity this evidence is not publicly available.

Furthermore, Paul Follows, council leader of WBC and leader of the Lib Dems on SCC, published a letter to the responsible minister from the leaders of the non-Tory parties: [[57]]. This letter claims that “the Surrey public prefer three unitary authorities over two,” despite the evidence for this statement not being publicly available. It also alleges that SCC’s backing for their preferred solution 2.1 is based on a flawed reading of the data, and objectively they should have picked option 2.2.

Meanwhile, the SCC councillors who should have faced re-election on May 1st are still in place, but without any mandate from the people. And it is not clear how long they will be allowed to continue in post, or what will be the powers of the shadow councillors elected in May 2026. This problem will become even more acute if the re-organization is delayed. As, I strongly suspect, it must be if the whole exercise is not to prove a disaster.

6.    To sum up

Here is my summary, based on documents publicly available on the Internet, of where we are today with regard to local government re-organization in Surrey.

1)     What Labour mean by “devolution” is not at all what most voters would expect it to mean. Far from bringing government closer to the people, they are seeking to concentrate local government power throughout England in the hands of a small number of mayors. These mayors’ powers will be both strong and wide-ranging.

2)     Tory-controlled Surrey County Council has provided a very poor level of service in recent years, and has acted against the interests of the people of Surrey, including by making the council a member of the “nett zero” zealot organization UK 100.

3)     Waverley Borough Council, under a coalition led by the Lib Dems, has also shown green zealotry by officially supporting the extremist organization Zero Hour, that seeks to abandon the use of fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

4)     Surrey councils have combined debts of around £4,500 for each man, woman and child in the county. These are concentrated in Woking, Spelthorne and Runnymede, but the county council itself also has significant debt, and Guildford and Surrey Heath’s debts are rapidly increasing.

5)     Labour central government’s preferred plan for Surrey is division into two or more unitary authorities, followed within a year by establishment of a mayoral county authority covering the area previously governed by Surrey County Council.

6)     There are, as yet, no agreed or even published plans on how to address the debt situation. The design for re-organization is being driven forward without a clear financial baseline.

7)     The timescales for the re-organizations look all but impracticable.

8)     I was unable to find any clear and detailed statement of how the mayoral county authority is planned to work in practice. In particular, it is not clear how, or how well, unitary authority members would be able to represent the people who elected them.

9)     When the Tories in control of Surrey County Council received notice of the Labour government’s desire for re-organization, they acted with almost comical haste to get the May 1st elections postponed until 2026. The postponement was made over the objections of all 11 of the Surrey borough and district councils.

10) Surrey residents have not been formally consulted about any of the proposed changes. In fact, Surrey has been excluded from the counties in which consultations are taking place over the future introduction of a mayoral system. This despite a commitment to hold such consultations, and the precedent of 2012, where (pre-emptive actions by certain councils notwithstanding) local referendums were held on whether mayors should be introduced.

11) Interim and final plans were submitted, as follows:

a)     Surrey County Council and two of the 11 borough or district councils (Elmbridge and Mole Valley) preferred a two-unitary set-up. They presented four options, of which they chose one that leaves both Waverley and Guildford residents bracketed with all three of the financially troubled councils.

b)     The remaining nine councils preferred a three-unitary system, which brackets Waverley and Guildford with Woking, but not with Spelthorne or Runnymede.

c)     A survey apparently took place of around 3,000 people across Surrey, which claimed overwhelming support for the three-unitary proposal. However, the results of this survey are not publicly available.

12) An option of going directly to a Surrey-wide unitary council has been discussed, but central government insists that no further devolution would be possible in this case without widening the territory of the mayoral authority beyond Surrey.

13) The SCC councillors who should have faced re-election on May 1st are still in place, without any mandate from the people. It is not clear how long they will be allowed to continue in post, or what will be the powers of the shadow councillors elected in May 2026.

Posted by No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)