A Post-Election Reckoning
Following significant changes in local political control across England, members of the Independent R&B Discussion Group gathered to reflect on what these results may signal for local government policy, operations, and stability. Chaired by Malcolm Gardner, the session featured contributions from a wide range of experienced voices in local taxation, housing, and welfare policy.
The standout result from the elections was the unexpected success of Reform UK, which secured over 600 council seats and took control of ten authorities. While these results signal a shift in public sentiment, participants were quick to acknowledge the practical implications for councils now under new leadership.
Naomi Armstrong highlighted the operational and political implications in Cambridgeshire: “A major shift from Conservative to Liberal Democrat control at county level will inevitably colour discussions around local government reorganisation.”
Rachael Walker, reporting from Lancashire, now Reform-led in parts, noted: “It’s still early days. The landscape hasn’t changed overnight, but the tone of local debate could shift—particularly around discretionary services and policy priorities.”
Kevin Stewart emphasised the need to monitor the performance of newly Reform-led unitary authorities, particularly in complex service areas like revenues and benefits. “The next few months will show whether campaign messaging can translate into effective governance,” he said.
Thomas Clark raised the question of statutory obligations and legal constraints, noting that many new councillors may need time to understand the limits within which they can operate: “It’s one thing to campaign on efficiency and reform, another to navigate social care or discretionary housing payments within the law.”
From Rhetoric to Responsibility
Several contributors suggested that Reform UK’s policy stance—particularly its messaging around migration, benefits, and public services—could prove difficult to deliver at local level.
Gareth Morgan relayed anecdotal comments from a newly elected councillor that appeared to misjudge the scope of council powers. “There’s likely to be a gap between expectations and reality,” he noted.
Sean O’Sullivan outlined the legal and procedural framework that constrains councils from acting beyond their remit. “Being advised against something by your Section 151 officer doesn’t protect you if the decision is unlawful. The onus remains with councillors,” he cautioned.
Paul Howarth provided a broader policy analysis: “What’s interesting is that Reform’s economic stance sometimes appears interventionist, while their social policies are more conservative. That mismatch may present challenges in terms of consistent governance.”
While some policy divergence is to be expected from any new entrant into local government, the group noted that Reform councillors would now need to pivot from campaigning to delivery—repairing potholes, setting budgets, and meeting statutory duties—amid intense public scrutiny.
Managing Local Risk
A recurring theme was the potential for disruption where elected members are inexperienced or where internal party organisation is still emerging.
Malcolm Gardner noted several reported resignations from Reform councillors shortly after election, including cases in County Durham and Shropshire, suggesting some were “paper candidates” not expecting to win.
Naomi Armstrong commented on the public cost of such turnover: “Running elections is not without cost. When councillors resign days after winning, it undermines confidence and wastes public money.”
That said, the group acknowledged that internal change within any party, especially one with rapid electoral gains, is not unusual. As Paul Howarth observed, “The challenge for Reform will be to build local cohesion and deliver effectively—something all parties must contend with.”
VOA Abolition: The Next Disruption?
The session also addressed the government’s surprise announcement that the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) is to be absorbed into HMRC.
Kevin Stewart, reflecting on past quango closures, expressed scepticism: “It may bring savings on paper, but whether it brings value to the tax system or users is another question.”
Tom Clark welcomed the opportunity for reform in principle, but added: “Whether it goes to HMRC or elsewhere, we need a rethink. In some countries, rating and valuation are digitised and automated—why not here?”
Robert Fox and Paul Howarth raised concerns about the future of key VOA functions, including its role in setting Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates and supporting housing benefit delivery. “We risk throwing away valuable expertise without a clear plan for replacement,” Howarth warned.
Sean O’Sullivan pointed out that private providers already use drone and data-driven tools to support valuation. “Innovation is possible—perhaps this is the moment to grasp it,” he said.
Conclusion
The discussion ended with cautious optimism that the current shake-up—whether electoral or institutional—could create space for renewed scrutiny of long-standing assumptions in local government.
While the group acknowledged the unpredictability introduced by a new political force like Reform UK, they also noted this as an opportunity for learning and adaptation across all parties. As Elizabeth Whitehead-Davies concluded: “Changes to housing policy or discretionary support could have far-reaching effects—but if we’re aware and engaged, we can plan for that.”
The recording can be found here.
The documents, reports, and tables below
Please note that the handout contains additional slides covering other items of interest in the news and job adverts, which are provided in partnership with Business Smart Solutions (https://www.businesssmartsolutions.co.uk/).