Alicia Kearns MP Says "There’s Something Very Wrong, and Deeply Undemocratic, at Rutland County Council" Over Local Government Reform Vote
Rutland and Stamford MP Alicia Kearns has voiced serious concerns regarding the handling of Local Government Reform discussions within Rutland County Council (RCC), citing a lack of formal voting mechanisms for all councillors and an apparent suppression of debate on the critical issue.
In a recent social media post, the MP highlighted a stark contrast between RCC's approach and that of neighbouring councils, suggesting that democratic processes are being undermined in Rutland.
According to Alicia Kearns, the administration at Rutland County Council prevented all councillors from holding a formal and recorded vote on the proposed Local Government Reform. Furthermore, she states that Conservative councillors were unable to "lay a motion, amendment or recommendation to express our shared position formally."
The MP also criticised the council's leadership, stating, "The Council leader and her cabinet also chose not to develop and put forward their own preferred model." This lack of a formal proposal from the leadership is seen as a failure to engage constructively with the reform process, which will significantly impact the county's governance structure.
Alicia Kearns drew a direct comparison with how two neighbouring authorities managed the process:
Lincolnshire County Council and South Kesteven District Council both engaged in a full debate on Local Government Reorganisation.
The full council in both authorities voted on a formal recommendation to its executive.
Crucially, each council member’s vote was recorded in the minutes, ensuring transparency and accountability.
Both councils also put forward their own proposal for the reform structure.
The disparity in practice has led Alicia Kearns to conclude that Rutland County Council is operating in a way that is "deeply undemocratic." The ability for elected representatives to formally debate, amend, and vote on major constitutional changes is fundamental to local democracy. By allegedly restricting these actions, the council is accused of stifling the voices of elected members and, by extension, the residents they represent.
The MP’s intervention signals that the procedures adopted by RCC's leadership are under intense scrutiny and that the transparency and accountability of the council's decision-making on the future of local governance are being seriously questioned.
Editor's Comment and Oakham Town Councillor Martin Brookes.
The Democratic Cost of 'Efficiency' in Local Government Reform
The debate surrounding Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), and specifically the push toward larger unitary authorities, has reached a critical point. While proponents tout the potential for efficiency and financial savings the classic 'economies of scale' argument we must weigh these bureaucratic gains against the fundamental principles of local democracy. The concerns raised by local representatives, suggest we are trading proximity and accountability for centralised control, a cost Rutland, and the nation, cannot afford.
The core of the democratic deficit lies in the dilution of representation. Merging smaller councils into mega-authorities inevitably leads to a significant reduction in the number of elected councillors. These remaining few must then represent increasingly vast geographical areas and far larger populations.
In this scenario, the councillor becomes physically and politically remote. When a representative is expected to cover a ward containing multiple distinct towns, villages, and communities each with unique needs and identities the essential local link is compromised. It becomes harder for residents to engage, know who to hold accountable, and feel that their voice is truly heard by a decision-maker who understands their street, not just their region.
It is argued that some democratic threats like centralising services from a two-tier structure may not apply directly to Rutland County Council as it is already a single-tier unitary authority. However, this is precisely where the danger intensifies. If LGR forces Rutland to merge with a much larger neighbour, the established civic identity of Britain’s smallest county could be swallowed entirely, becoming a mere administrative outpost.
Moreover, the existing concern in Rutland about low public trust and reduced participation due to a perceived distance between the council and its residents risks becoming exponentially worse. When decisions are made by officials in a distant administrative centre, the feeling that "they don't understand our locality" deepens, further reducing the willingness of residents to engage.
The despair felt by some is a clear warning that the government is focusing reform at the wrong end of the democratic spectrum. While the top tier is streamlined for 'efficiency,' the lowest tier the town and parish councils remains deeply flawed.
These councils are the closest form of local government to the people, yet many "fail their residents" by possessing "little or no powers" to effect meaningful change. Residents frequently feel they "cost a fortune for very little in return." This disconnect is a primary reason for disillusionment. Until the government focuses on reforming and empowering this lowest tier granting genuine powers and clarity of purpose any reorganisation at the top will be built on a weak, unengaged foundation.
LGR, particularly when viewed as a top-down imposition from Whitehall, undermines the very spirit of local self-governance. It substitutes local autonomy for central bureaucracy. We must resist the idea that 'bigger is better' when it comes at the expense of accountability, identity, and the essential democratic link between the council and the people it serves. The focus must shift from saving money to strengthening the democratic muscle at the grassroots.
.jpg)
