councillors

COUNCILS, COOPERATIVES AND COOPERATORS

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Colin Talbot

Here’s a good Quiz Night question: which independent political Party has the fourth largest representation in the House of Commons?

The answer will surprise many people – even amongst those who consider themselves politically knowledgeable. It’s the Cooperative Party. About ten percent of Labours 400+ MPs are also representatives of the Co-op Party. The highest number of Co-op MPs ever. And Andy Burnham is the first PM to represent both Parties*.

The proportion of Co-operative Party representatives amongst Labour councillors is even higher. The Party claims 1,200 councillors out of Labour’s current 4,500 – a quarter

A small historical detour is necessary to explain this situation. The Cooperative Party emerged from the Cooperative movement in much the same way as the Labour Party emerged mainly from the trade unions. Co-operatives as we know them today date back to Rochdale Pioneers who founded the prototype of today’s modern retail cooperatives in 1844.

By the early 20th century cooperatives were well established and, like their trade union counterparts, seeking parliamentary representation. The Co-op Party was founded in 1917, about a decade after Labour, which by then already had a foothold in Parliament.

In 1927 after some limited electoral success the Co-op Party concluded a historic, if somewhat asymmetrical, electoral pact with Labour. Where there were both Labour and Cooperative Party local parties they could field joint Labour and Coop candidates. Labour could also field just Labour candidates but, and this is the asymmetrical bit, the Co-op Party couldn’t put up Co-op only candidates. Or even “Co-operative and Labour” ones. Labour always took precedence.

This agreement, coming up for its centenary in 2027, still stands. The Cooperative Party is still registered with the Electoral Commission as a separate Party. But as if to cement the relationship with Labour, the former General Secretary of the Co-operative Party, Joe Fortune, has just moved over to become the new General Secretary of the Labour Party.

INVISIBLE COOPERATIVES?

If you feel embarrassed that you didn’t know the answer to the opening question, don’t be. To be completely honest I’ve only become recently fully aware of the size and roles of both the Co-operative Party and the wider movement it grew out of. Over the past few years I’ve both become intrigued and engaged with both, and with their almost total invisibility in public affairs and, it has to be added, academia.

Some simple facts. The latest report from Cooperatives UK, the umbrella or “apex” body for the coop movement in Britain, claims that about 5% of UK workers are employed in what they call the democratic economy. They claim the total income of cooperatives and mutuals was £241 billion in the past year.

There are some problematic issues with these numbers however. The biggest is that NHS Foundation Trusts, because of their quasi-democratic and semi-autonomous nature, are included in the democratic economy. Which is debatable.

Interestingly co-ops and mutuals exist in almost every sector of the economy, including ones largely funded by the state like education, social care and health. They are now extending into areas like community ownership of facilities like pubs, sports clubs, village halls, and most recently local green power schemes.

One Labour manifesto commitment which has passed largely under the radar is their pledge to double the size of the cooperative and mutual sector. Which has sparked debate, mostly confined to within the cooperative movement, as to what that means. What is going to be doubled? Where will the growth take place? How will it be supported?

All of the above existing local cooperatives are potential areas for growth. And they are areas that already involve, or are planned to be engaged with, various forms of local governance under Labour’s local reorganisation plans.

COOPERATORS ACROSS PARTY LINES?

The existence of the Cooperative Party, and its alliance with the Labour Party, means that promoting or sustaining cooperatives at the local level can be seen as a partisan issue.

It clearly isn’t. There are supporters of cooperatives in most political parties to varying degrees. Certainly in the Liberal Democrat’s and Greens. Some Conservatives have been in favour of promoting cooperatives, sometimes admittedly as an alternative to public provision.

The much more pluralistic nature of political representation in local government raises questions about more cooperation across Party lines. Councils like Birmingham City, where no party came close to the 51 seats needed for a majority. Reform UK has 23 seats, the Greens 19, Labour 17, the Conservatives 16, the Liberal Democrats 12, and a group of 7 independents. Without political cooperation the Council would be paralysed.

One example of a cross-party cooperative initiative is the Cooperative Councils Innovation Network (CCIN). Which although it was originally set up by the Cooperative Party is now an explicitly non-partisan and has the support of other political parties in some Councils. I will say more about CCIN in a future article.

There has been very little attention paid to the role of the (currently) 1,200 Cooperative Party councillors. By the media or by academics. We know very little about whether they are cooperators in name only, or active promoters of cooperative principles and practice? Or how cooperators in other Parties, who certainly exist, put their values into practice?

*Gordon Brown MP is also a Cooperative Party member, but unlike Andy Burnham he was not a representative of the Party as an MP.

[This is the first in what I hope will be a series of articles about Councils and Cooperatives.]

Professor Talbot has extensive experience as both a practitioner and academic. He started work in 1969 and formally retired from the University of Manchester in 2017. He remains actively engaged with government, public service, and co-operative management issues. He is an Inlogov Associate at the University of Birmingham.

Fairness: the most ill-defined term

/ jlowther2015 / 2 Comments
Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

Clive Stevens

“My God, I never realised writing up a PhD was so difficult”, and may I add, it is frustrating, stressful and sleep depriving too. Perhaps my subject area is worse, when the meaning of nearly every word is contested and often used with imprecision. Take the word equity, for example, this has four meanings. One meaning is used to describe restorative justice when the law results in an unfair outcome, it is the legal principle of Equity in English Law. Equity also describes the share capital of a business with its related meaning of proportionality, what you get out is proportional to what you put in. Equity can also mean the opposite; in situations of disadvantage, sometimes it is desirable to put in more resource and support to level up the playing field, towards ‘equality of opportunity’,  please don’t set me off on the word equality! And finally, equity can be used as a synonym for any fairness principle as in, “this is equitable”.

Equity means all of those things, it depends on context, so a report saying “we will provide an equitable solution” means different things to lawyers, economists, business persons, teachers, doctors, and politicians. Councillors have taken different career paths; if equity is proposed by an officer, one councillor might understand it as, “we will help the disadvantaged” and another, sitting opposite, might understand, “we will help those who work harder” and that is before we ask the lawyers. “The subject cries out for conceptual clarity”, those are not my words, although I do agree, I have seven systematic review papers from different disciplines saying just that. Hence my write up is progressing one word at a time, all the way to the 80,000!

Although the PhD write up is slow, my research has already had some practical use in a Council, not Bristol, but one in the South West. You might recall Marcus Rashford’s successful campaign in 2020, he received an MBE; it resulted in the provision of holiday food vouchers for those children in receipt of free school meals, so they could afford to eat during the holidays. That is being withdrawn this year, nationally, and is being replaced by locally agreed systems relying on some holiday activities that provide a free lunch plus Community Fridge or Larder memberships. The Government Guidance says this has to be done fairly without explaining what they mean by fairly. They want each family to apply and be assessed to access these free activities, bearing in mind the family has already been assessed for free school meal provision. And this change is combined with budget cuts.

I was asked by some councillors to use my newly developed fairness template to analyse this and assist them because they were concerned about their Council’s proposals. The fairness template has eight different fairness principles, called realms; I applied each realm to the proposals and it was clear that certain aspects of fairness had not been taken into account. Fair process had been considered, not surprising as this was written by officers, but there was little assessment of outcome fairness. I will give two examples, firstly geographical equity, there was no consideration of families living in areas where there are no Community Larders. Secondly, there was no assessment of proportionality by family size; the food vouchers, those being withdrawn, would have fed a family with three children at lunchtimes for all the summer holidays. However, under the new scheme, free lunches run out when the allocation of 18 days of activities has been met, but there are about 30 weekdays in a summer holiday so 12 days are not covered. The councillors made their statements and the upshot was that the officers were tasked to work out more detailed proposals. It is scheduled to come back to scrutiny and decision making later this Autumn.

So, whilst I debate the meaning of many words in my PhD and the write-up is taking longer than planned, the conceptual clarity it should bring will not only reduce confusion but may improve the quality of reports, debate and even decision making. I can see uses for my work already, and that makes it all worthwhile.

Clive is a former councillor in Bristol and author of the book on Local Government, After the Revolution, Clive followed up on politicians’ conceptions of fairness. He is now in his final year of a PhD at the University of Bristol, interviews are complete and is writing it up. He is hoping Local Government will take heed and improve the clarity of fairness and related concepts.

Learning from the 2026 elections

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment
Photo credit: https://www.southoxon.gov.uk/south-oxfordshire-district-council/local-democracy-and-elections/elections-and-voting/first-time-voters-guide/what-happens-at-an-election-count/

Jason Lowther

The Electoral Commission’s new report on the 2026 English local government and mayoral elections provides largely positive picture of local democracy. Turnout was the highest seen at comparable local elections for a decade, public confidence in the electoral process remained strong, and the overwhelming majority of voters reported satisfaction with both registration and voting. At the same time, the report highlights several challenges that local authorities, elected members and policymakers will need to address if they are to further strengthen local democracy.

Perhaps the most striking finding is the increase in voter turnout. Participation reached 41.2% in metropolitan, London borough, unitary and district council elections and 45.2% in county council elections. The latter represents the highest county council turnout for three decades outside elections held alongside a general election or referendum. These figures suggest that local government increasingly matters to citizens and that many voters remain willing to engage when they feel local issues have real consequences for their communities.

The report also points to generally high levels of public confidence in election administration. Around 94% of voters were satisfied with the voting process.  While 73% of eligible voters expressed confidence that the elections were well run, 9% were not satisfied – reasons for this include the perceived lack of useful information about candidates and/or parties, the voting system being seen as unfair, or the belief that the process of voting is not secure. Local authorities and electoral administrators should take credit for delivering elections effectively despite continuing operational pressures and resource constraints.

However, the report identifies several areas where citizen engagement could be improved. One concerns voter registration. Although most people were satisfied with the registration process, younger voters were less positive, and a significant proportion of dissatisfied respondents argued that registration should be automatic. The Electoral Commission reiterates its support for a consistent automated voter registration system and urges governments across the UK to coordinate reforms.

Accessibility is another continuing concern. Despite very significant efforts by returning officers to provide equipment and support in polling stations, disabled voters still face barriers to participation. Awareness of available assistance remains relatively low, even among people who could benefit from it. This finding highlights the importance of ongoing public communication and inclusive service design.

The report also raises important questions about information quality and democratic engagement. While awareness of the elections was high, many voters remained concerned about misinformation. More than half of respondents reported seeing misinformation during the campaign and around one in ten reported encountering deepfake material. Although the Commission’s pilot work found no evidence that political deepfakes were widespread, the findings underline growing risks associated with digital campaigning.

A major challenge concerns the experience of candidates. Abuse, intimidation and harassment, especially online, continue to affect many people standing for election. Candidates who were female, from an ethnic minority background, had a disability or were standing for Reform UK were more likely to experience abuse and intimidation.  The report warns that these experiences are influencing how some individuals campaign, for example avoiding canvassing alone, and one third of respondents considered not standing for election because of harassment, intimidation or concerns about future abuse.

The report also highlights a wider issue for local democracy: the availability of reliable information about candidates and parties. Although large majorities found it easy to obtain information about voter ID requirements and voting methods, fewer found it easy to access information about candidates. This suggests that there remains a gap between procedural information and substantive information about political choices.

Finally, the report notes the pressures facing electoral administrators. Recruitment challenges, supplier issues and uncertainty surrounding potential electoral reforms all created difficulties for those delivering the elections. While these problems were largely managed successfully, councils and government need to address the long-term capacity and resilience of local electoral services. Effective citizen engagement ultimately depends on electoral systems that remain adequately resourced and capable of adapting to future reforms.

Overall, the 2026 elections offer grounds for cautious optimism. Higher turnout, strong voter satisfaction and confidence in election administration suggest that local democracy remains resilient. Yet the report also shows that participation cannot be taken for granted. Improving accessibility, modernising voter registration, combating misinformation and protecting candidates from abuse will all be central to sustaining citizen engagement and local democracy.

The Participatory Party

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Phil Swann

The urgency of Sonia Busso’s call for councils to develop participatory governance arrangements is evident in her recent INLOGOV policy paper[1], The Participatory Council. Bussu recognises that politicians can enable or block this development and argues that progress can be impeded if the council as an institution is not prepared for meaningful participation. I argue in this blog that an equally important precondition of action is that political parties are engaged in participatory processes, reflecting their roles in both councils and wider civic society.

The Participatory Party should sit alongside the Participatory Council.

Bussu sets out a convincing set of recommendations to advance inclusive participation including developing the role of boundary spanners, building on existing community assets and resources, and adopting an intersectional approach to engage marginalised voices.

She recognises the part that political parties played in two of the five case she refers to: the introduction of participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre in Brazil; and the radical widening of the participatory infrastructure and processes in Barcelona. A third case, the deployment of citizens’ assemblies in the London Borough of Camden, was initiated by the then council leader Georgia Gould[2] following her recognition of the councils’ failure to listen to the residents of tower blocks in the borough before the tragic Grenfell Fire.

Bussu distinguishes between “disjointed events vulnerable to the political cycle” and “coherent processes embedded in day-to-day policymaking”, an ambition which is reflected in Gould’s final leader’s annual report in which she claimed the council was “getting on with a radical shift in power that is seeing democratic renewal led from the bottom up”.

In my view, however.  more attention needs to be paid to how political parties can play bigger roles both in enriching civic society and in embedding participatory process in the way that Bussu seeks. This is particularly important at a time when populist parties are opting for simplistic solutions rather than engaging with the hard graft of participatory policymaking.

Gould, for example, in a lecture in 2022 called for a move beyond a transactional model of public services. Demanding the abandonment of traditional structures and hierarchies and a recognition of the power of communities and the ability of residents to change their lives, she warned that “services that don’t have a connection to communities or an understanding of their needs can be de-humanising, paternalistic and create a transactional model of public services that cannot make lives better in the longer term.”

In terms of the contribution of politicians and political parties to this, there are three key lessons from the experience of three of Gould’s predecessors: Herbert Morrison, leader of the London County Council and dynamo of Atlee’s post-war government; Richard Crossman, Minister for Housing and Local Government in Harold Wilson’s first cabinet; and David Blunkett, leader of Sheffield and holder of three cabinet posts in Tony Blair’s government.

First, the potential for exploiting the contribution of political parties as an important feature of the wider civic society. Morrison, for example, was clear that it was impossible to understand local government without understanding how political parties worked. It was “out of the clash of opinion and principle between the parties” that progress was made. For Crossman vibrant local government hinged on overcoming public apathy and that political parties had the potential to do that so long as party membership provided substantive opportunities to influence party policy. Writing when he was leader of the Labour Group on Oxford City Council in 1939 he said: democracy inside our parties is as valuable a part of our liberties as the right of voting at elections.”

Blunkett believed that the value of local politics was not confined to its legal powers, but to its ability to extend and develop democracy enabling the emergence of new social movements. During the period when he was leader of Sheffield, Blunkett argued that “if we can stimulate the community action that brings people into the [Labour] party and gets them to relate their community problems to a sense of political purpose, then we have begun to change society.”

Second, the value of engagement beyond the council and the party. Towards the end of his period as a leading local politician Blunkett warned that town halls could feel “impossibly remote and anonymous”. Reflecting on the state of local government in 2023, he said council leaders should do more than run their authority: they should see the council as a mechanism for fully engaging local people. Morrison, in his reflections on his period as leader of the LCC in the 1930s, came to a similar conclusion: “It was important that councillors and aldermen, once elected and appointed, should still move among the people they represented. They should be with and for the people, not above them.”

Finally, the key link between local government and wider civic society. Crossman was clear that “the real basis of successful political democracy is not to be found in politics at all, but below the surface in the organisation of a whole network of popular interests”. He argued that the future of the Labour party depended on not on the competence of its leaders and its electoral success, but also on the creation of “new organisations for the conquest of liberties yet unwon.” Blunkett was equally honest about the need for local politicians to avoid paternalism. Writing in 2002, when he was Home Secretary, Blunkett described how every since his first experience of canvassing in his council ward he had been “keen to inform and involve as many residents of Sheffield and its environs as possible in the aims and decision-making of the council.”

Bussu is right to stress that participatory governance requires sustained political commitment and is vulnerable to political change. The work of Gould and politicians such as Morrison, Crossman and Blunkett has created the foundations on which to build a participatory party. And Andy Burnham’s statements about how he intends to lead the Labour Party and listen to communities suggests that now is a good time to do so.

Phil Swann is studying for a PhD on the contribution of politicians to central-local government relations at the University of Birmingham.

[1] The Participatory Council
http://epapers.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/4443/

[2] Now an MP and minister

New Inlogov Policy Papers

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Jason Lowther

I am delighted to let you know about four new policy papers published today by Inlogov. 

Challenger Parties in Power Locally

https://epapers.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/4446

This report examines the experience of ‘challenger parties’, political parties without previous experience of government, on entering power in local government. It examines the experiences of challenger parties in English local government following electoral gains in May 2025, focusing on how Reform UK and the Green Party of England and Wales have adapted to executive roles. Evidence from multiple case studies shows that, rather than transforming local governance, these parties have generally worked within existing institutional frameworks, with some early disruption typically giving way to learning and stabilisation as members adjust to formal procedures and constraints.  The research was developed with colleagues in Inlogov’s monthly Local Government Network webinar. 

The Participatory Council

http://epapers.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/4443/

Councils need to develop participatory governance arrangements to address the declined levels of public trust in government, by giving residents a meaningful voice in decision making, improving transparency, and ensuring policies better reflect community needs and priorities. This report examines how councils can support institutional culture change towards participatory policymaking, drawing lessons from UK and international experiences. Too often, great work by individual officers, members or specific projects is lost because the council as an institution is ill prepared for public participation. The report argues that participatory policymaking must be deeply embedded within governance structures to enable meaningful engagement, mobilise diverse communities, and support mutual learning and transformative change. Achieving this requires facilitative leadership and the cultivation of boundary-spanning roles that bridge divides between government, civil society, and local communities. Advancing inclusive participation also demands an intersectional approach that centres marginalised voices to address systemic inequalities. This paper was written by Dr Sonia Bussu.

Paying For Democracy

https://epapers.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/4445

Councillor remuneration plays a critical role in shaping participation in local democracy and the effectiveness of council governance, yet the current system in England remains inconsistent and increasingly misaligned with modern expectations. The total annual cost is around £230 million. Allowances vary widely between councils, reflecting a structure that has not kept pace with inflation or the growing demands of the role. This misalignment contributes to persistent barriers to participation, particularly for working-age individuals, those without independent financial means, and carers, with evidence indicating that remuneration levels directly affect both the diversity of candidates and their retention in office. Addressing these challenges requires setting more accessible allowance levels to broaden participation, enhancing consistency and transparency, expanding and normalising support mechanisms, and improving the evidence base to support informed and equitable remuneration decisions. Thanks to Emeritus Professor Colin Copus and Mr Ray Tomkinson for co-authoring this paper.

Constitutionalising English Local Government?

http://epapers.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/4444

Government discourse increasingly accentuates devolution and local autonomy, using constitutional language. This paper aims to take the debate forward by examining the prospects for constitutional entrenchment of English local government within the existing uncodified constitutional framework. Encompassing both strategic and principal authorities within the term “local government”, it assesses what entrenchment could mean in the absence of a codified constitution, what obstacles stand in its way, and how constitutional weight could accumulate over time. The paper was written by Inlogov associate Prof Jonathan Davies. 

Labour must listen, learn and change if it is to regain trust

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Ketan Sheth

After two decades as a Labour councillor in Brent, I was deeply disappointed to lose my Wembley seat in the local elections on 7th May —  serving our local residents has been a great honour and privilege, and I remain grateful to everyone who placed their trust in me over the years.

I do feel, though, that Labour needs to learn urgent lessons from these disastrous results. Again and again on the doorstep, people told me that they valued my work as a councillor and would happily vote for me again — but they simply could not bring themselves to put a cross next to a Labour candidate. There is a deep well of anger in Brent, and across the whole country — a feeling that the Labour government has let people down and failed to deliver the change they promised in 2024.

Make no mistake, voters reflected the national political picture rather than what is going on in Brent. People relate local grievances like the state of our roads, pavements and parks to a wider sense of hopelessness based on their view of where we are nationally, rather than voting specifically on local matters. Indeed, many people said they voted on issues like immigration or the economy which local government has no power to fix.

This is arguably always the case in local elections and I’m hardly the first local councillor to lose their seat due to people’s views on how well the national government is or is not doing. But this time felt different. The vitriol directed towards the government, and the Prime Minister, was stronger than anything I have encountered while canvassing in the past. Unless Labour changes direction quickly and radically, it is hard to see how future elections will yield a different result. Labour has made big mistakes in government — our first notable action was the winter fuel payments fiasco and we seemed to go on making mis-steps from there. The appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador was a catastrophic error of judgement. The cost of living crisis remains largely unaddressed — voters do not see their lives or their crumbling public services getting any better. All of these things are exacerbated by our government offering no hope that things are about to improve. We need to listen to what the voters are telling us — and we need a sharp, fast change of direction.

Locally, addressing our collective challenges under a hung council will be difficult, as it is always easier for a Council to have a clear electoral mandate and we now have a position where there will need to be negotiation and trade-offs between the different parties. But I am sure all those involved will take their responsibilities seriously and work together to deliver for the people of Brent.

For my own part, I will hugely miss representing local people as part of Brent Council. I want to thank those who voted for me, the officers and colleagues who supported me over many years. I will continue to be active in local politics and to campaign for a better deal for the communities I was proud to serve.