Apathy about LGR risks a democratic blind spot

GGI partner Jaco Marais warns that silence born of apathy isn’t consent; engagement is the answer

As the UK’s Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) programme advances, a striking issue is emerging—not fierce opposition, but widespread public apathy.

According to an Ipsos/LGIU poll, 63% of the public are not paying attention to the sweeping changes being proposed. Among those who are, views are fragmented and inconclusive: 40% favour the current two-tier model, 26% back unitary councils, while only mayoral systems draw more consistent support. This disengagement risks becoming a democratic blind spot.

Local newspapers and think tanks have flagged the dangers of this indifference. The Financial Times and Northern Powerhouse Partnership acknowledge the redistribution of up to £2 billion from southern to northern councils as a bold step towards fairness. Yet many southern councils fear service cuts and higher taxes.

Meanwhile, the District Councils’ Network and UNISON have raised red flags over rushed processes, job losses, and an overreliance on consultants that limit local voice and transparency.

Council leaders have also expressed frustration. Some call the process ‘ill-thought-out’ or even ‘insane’, warning that centralising decision-making into large unitary bodies could sideline smaller communities and overburden councillors tasked with representing vast and diverse populations.

BBC and Reddit commentary echo these fears, with residents concerned that mega-councils will be out of touch with neighbourhood priorities. In the absence of robust public engagement, reforms intended to improve efficiency may instead deepen mistrust and disconnection.

This silence isn’t consent. If reforms proceed without public buy-in, they risk triggering a backlash when changes are felt on the ground. A structured engagement exercise—grounded in local context, transparent communication, and genuine listening—is not just advisable, it is essential to ensure the LGR programme is democratic in both process and outcome.

Perhaps if people were invited to talk about the issues that matter to them most in their community and how the reorganisation would impact on those issues, they might be keener to engage?

Engagement builds trust, reduces risk, and puts communities at the heart of reforms.