In late 2024, before the government had even issued formal invitations for local government reorganisation, Labour MP Oliver Ryan wrote to his own party’s local government minister Jim McMahon calling Lancashire’s council system “anachronistic, inefficient, opaque and distant.” He proposed replacing 15 councils with 3 or 4 unitaries. No costings. No impact assessment. No consultation with the residents he claimed to represent. Just a letter from a newly elected MP to a minister from his own party, asking for a top-down restructure of a county he had represented for less than six months.
That letter set the wheels in motion. By February 2025, Labour’s Secretary of State had issued statutory invitations to all 21 remaining two-tier areas in England, affecting 180 councils and 20 million residents simultaneously. No English government has attempted structural reform at this scale since 1974. Lancashire, the largest and most complex area, became the test case for a policy that Labour had not costed, not piloted, and not put to a public vote.
When Reform UK won 53 of 84 LCC seats in May 2025, the largest mandate in the council’s history and the first time a party outside Labour or the Conservatives had ever controlled a county council, we inherited a reorganisation process started by a Labour government, championed by a Labour MP, and imposed without local consent under powers Labour voted for in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023.
Rather than playing politics with it, we did something no other council in England has done: we commissioned and published the most detailed independent financial analysis of LGR ever produced for a single county. 35 pages. 12 tables. 33 references. Every assumption sourced. Every figure from GOV.UK data. While Labour’s MPs wrote letters, Reform UK did the maths. This is what responsible governance looks like.
What We Found
The financial case for LGR is positive, but barely. The two-unitary model (which we submitted as the best available option) generates net annual savings of £79.4m at 75% realisation, against transition costs of £62.1m. The ten-year NPV is £668.8m. Those are real numbers. But they are not the whole story.
The status quo, enhanced by the kind of systematic efficiency reviews Reform UK has already begun at LCC, would deliver £552m over the same period without any transition costs. Our own MTFS targets £65m in savings for 2026/27 alone. That matches the net savings of the two-unitary model in a single budget year, with zero restructuring risk.
The net benefit of LGR over the status quo is £116.5m across ten years. Spread across 1.6 million residents, that is £7.28 per person per year. That is the margin on which the government proposes to dismantle 15 councils, transfer 45,000 staff, merge IT systems, harmonise pay scales, and reorganise every open child protection case.
The Risks Nobody Priced
Three material risks are absent from every submitted proposal.
Equal pay. When 15 councils merge, pay scales must be harmonised under the Single Status Agreement. Where pay differs, and it always does, the resulting claims create a legal obligation. Birmingham’s equal pay liabilities reached £760m and triggered a section 114 notice. Our analysis estimates Lancashire’s exposure at £85.5m. No proposal mentions it. The CCN/PwC baseline ignores it. The government’s impact assessment does not address it.
The timeline. Every completed English LGR since 2009 has taken at least 24 months from decision to vesting. The average is 30 months. Labour’s government proposes 18 for the most complex case in England. Paul Rowsell, the former MHCLG Director who oversaw Buckinghamshire, Dorset, and North Yorkshire, has said publicly that the civil service can manage approximately three reorganisations per year. Labour is attempting twenty simultaneously, with the same MHCLG team, the same parliamentary counsel, and the same Local Government Boundary Commission. This is not ambition. It is recklessness dressed as reform.
Council tax harmonisation. Our modelling shows that under the two-unitary model, Ribble Valley residents face a £93 per year increase in their council tax. Preston residents see a £102 decrease. Nobody has told them. No submitted proposal addresses the harmonisation timetable or quantifies the household impact.
Options Ranked
| Option | Net Savings | Transition Cost | Payback | Meets 500K |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Status Quo + Efficiency | £58m/yr | £0 | Immediate | N/A |
| Two Unitaries (Reform) | £79.4m/yr | £62.1m | 1.0 years | Yes |
| Three Unitaries | £66.6m/yr | £93.2m | 1.8 years | No |
| Five Unitaries (Burnley) | £46.0m/yr | £155.2m | 4.2 years | No |
The Burnley Problem
The five-unitary model was not proposed by the government, by LCC, or by independent analysts. It was submitted by Burnley and Pendle borough councils. They designed it, they championed it, and on 19 November 2025, Burnley’s full council voted unanimously to back it. Every Labour, Independent, Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Green councillor. A named vote was requested by Cllr Anwar. Labour’s deputy leader Sue Graham said: “I chose not to speak tonight because I don’t believe in grandstanding. This Labour group will be voting for the proposal.”
Here is what they actually voted for.
Every Burnley councillor, regardless of party, voted for the option that costs £93m more in transition, delivers £33m less per year in savings, fails the government’s own population test, and would create an East Lancashire authority of 272,000 people that is structurally underfunded from birth, inheriting the highest deprivation, the highest asylum dispersal costs, and the fastest growing SEND demand in Lancashire on the smallest tax base.
I represent Padiham and Burnley West at county level. I represent the same residents these borough councillors claim to serve. The difference is that Reform UK published the analysis. We did the modelling. We identified the risks. And we submitted a proposal that actually meets the government’s own criteria. What Burnley’s councillors did was treat a generational financial decision as a popularity contest, asking “do you want to stay separate from Blackburn?” and then unanimously voting yes without checking the price tag.
The consultation showed 80% support. Nobody asked respondents: “Would you pay £155m in transition costs and accept £33m less per year in savings to avoid sharing a council with Blackburn?” That is the question the five-unitary model actually poses. Burnley’s councillors did not ask it because they did not want to hear the answer.
Oliver Ryan started this process with a letter calling for reform. His own Labour councillors in Burnley then voted for the worst financial option on the table. The party that demanded change cannot even get the numbers right. Meanwhile, Reform UK, the party they said could not govern, produced the analysis, built the model, and published the evidence.
If this is the quality of financial judgment Burnley’s councillors bring to a generational decision, unanimously choosing the option that costs £93M more, delivers £33M less per year, produces £57M less value over a decade, and fails the government’s own population test, residents should ask what other decisions are being made with the same rigour.
What Should Happen Next
As Cabinet Member Ged Mirfin put it: “A delay is not a retreat, but an act of responsibility.”
Reform UK’s position is clear:
- Extend the timeline to 30 months minimum, consistent with every completed English LGR
- Commission an independent financial analysis, not one paid for by the County Councils Network
- Mandate an equal pay risk assessment before any decision
- Sequence reorganisations nationally because 20 simultaneous is reckless
- Ring-fence children’s social care budgets during transition
- Publish a counterfactual because the status quo alternative must be properly costed
The consultation closes on 26 March 2026. Labour’s government is not bound by the outcome. Under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Secretary of State may impose any model, including one no council submitted. The consultation is a statutory requirement, not a democratic exercise. Oliver Ryan asked for a “top-down approach” because, in his words, the government “cannot rely on all Lancashire districts to naturally coalesce around a proposal.” He got what he asked for: a process in which the government consults, and then does whatever it intended to do anyway.
The Full Analysis
The full 35-page research paper is available at aidoge.co.uk/lancashirecc/lgr. Every figure is sourced. Every assumption is documented. Every model is replicable.
If your councillor voted for a model without reading the numbers, ask them why. If your Labour MP started this process with a letter to his own minister and no financial analysis, ask him what evidence he used. Oliver Ryan called the current system “anachronistic.” We call his approach to replacing it reckless. The numbers are public. The paper is free. The question is whether Labour’s government will read the evidence before making a decision that cannot be undone, or whether they will do what Oliver Ryan asked and impose change from the top down regardless.