Public Perceptions of Local Government Reorganisation in England (2024–2025)

Awareness and Engagement

• Low public engagement: National polling indicates that the general public is largely disengaged from the ongoing local government reorganisation agenda. An early 2025 Ipsos/LGIU survey found 63% of English adults were not following the Government’s local government overhaul closely or at all. In other words, nearly two-thirds of people are not tuned into debates about councils merging or new mayoralties. This lack of awareness is echoed in specific contexts – for example, fewer than half of residents in some newly formed combined authority areas even realized that mayoral elections were happening in 2024. In the North East and East Midlands (which elected mayors for the first time in May 2024), only 45–48% of those polled said they intended to vote, and many non-voters cited “lack of knowledge” about the new positions (42% gave this reason). These findings suggest a significant information gap: reforms are advancing faster than public understanding in many areas.
  
  
• Uncertainty about process: When confronted with specific implications of reorganisation, a large segment of the public is unsure how to respond. For instance, in a February 2025 YouGov poll (5,463 GB adults), people were asked whether local elections scheduled in areas due to be reorganised (e.g. gaining a new unitary council or mayor in the next year) should be postponed. The results were divided – 43% said the local elections should go ahead as normal, 27% favored a delay until the new council arrangements are in place, and 30% answered “Don’t know”. The plurality inclined to proceed with elections suggests a public instinct not to disrupt democratic routines, but the high “Don’t know” percentage underlines widespread public confusion or ambivalence about how reorganisation should be handled. In short, many people have no strong opinion on the mechanics of these changes, reinforcing the notion that the topic is outside most citizens’ radar.
  

Support for Unitarisation vs Two-Tier Structures

• No clear majority for structural change: Public opinion on the structure of councils (two-tier vs. unitary) is mixed and lacks consensus. The Ipsos/LGIU poll in early 2025 asked English residents which local government setup they think works best. Just under 40% said the current two-tier system of county and district councils “works best,” whereas only 26% preferred a single-tier unitary council model (the remaining one-third did not express a clear preference). In other words, support for abolishing district/county councils in favor of unitary authorities stands at roughly one-quarter of the public, while a larger share leans toward the status quo. Most others are unsure or indifferent, indicating that, at the national level, there is not (yet) an overwhelming popular demand for unitarisation.
  
  
• Localized exceptions notwithstanding: This lukewarm national sentiment does not mean there is active resistance to any change; rather, it implies ambivalence. Even among the minority who prefer unitaries, it’s a relatively small cohort. Notably, a substantial portion of the public appears open-minded or unconcerned about the council structure in their area – consistent with the high “not following” numbers. It’s also worth noting that these are broad national findings; in specific local areas undergoing reorganisation, opinions can be sharper (for instance, there have been local debates in places like Somerset or Cumbria during their transitions to unitary councils). But nationally, there is no strong mandate either for or against creating more unitary authorities. This helps explain why the Government’s push to “end two-tier arrangements” has been a top-down initiative – the agenda is driven more by policy goals (e.g. efficiency, consistency, devolution deals) than by public clamor.
  
  
• Attitudes toward election delays: One tangible indicator of how the public weighs structural change against democratic continuity is the election scheduling issue mentioned earlier. The YouGov poll from February 2025 – conducted just after the Government announced plans to postpone certain May 2025 local elections to accommodate forthcoming reorganisations – highlights a mild public preference for not letting reforms disrupt local elections. Only 27% of respondents agreed with delaying elections for the new arrangements, whereas 43% said elections should proceed on schedule. (The government did in fact postpone elections in 9 council areas to May 2026, as part of the reorganisation timetable.) This suggests that where the public does express a view, it tends to err on the side of normalcy and caution in implementation. There isn’t strong popular pressure to “hurry up” structural reforms at the expense of representation; if anything, people would rather local democracy continue uninterrupted, with the changes phased in gradually.

 

Attitudes Toward Devolution and Elected Mayors

• Positive views of devolved leadership: In contrast to the mixed feelings on structural reorganisation, the idea of devolution – handing more powers to local areas and having visible local leaders like mayors – enjoys relatively broad support. The Ipsos/LGIU poll found that 43% of people agreed that having a directly elected mayor gives a local area a stronger voice in Westminster (only a minority disagreed, while the rest were neutral or unsure). Similarly, other surveys show that people value the figure of a mayor: according to Centre for Cities polling in early 2024, metro mayors are now the most recognisable local political figures in areas that have them. On average, 74% of residents in mayoral combined authority areas could name their metro mayor, vastly higher than the proportion who know their council leader (only 20%) or even their local MP (43%). For example, 83% of Greater Manchester respondents could correctly identify Andy Burnham as their Mayor. This visibility suggests that the public in those areas has connected with the concept of a single accountable local leader.
  
  
• Appetite for local decision-making: There is also evidence of public appetite for further devolution of powers. The Centre for Cities/Focaldata poll (March 2024) found that people in existing mayoralties want local leaders to control more policy levers. Majorities of respondents felt that issues such as housing, transport and homelessness should be decided at the local or regional level (by metro mayors or local councils, rather than by central government). This aligns with national findings: an Opinium poll in April 2024 (for the New Economics Foundation’s RORE project) showed 37% of Britons think local government should have more power and resources to solve local problems, versus only 11% who think local authorities should have less power (the remainder were either content with the status quo or undecided). In short, those with an opinion are three times more likely to want power shifted downwards rather than upwards. This pro-devolution sentiment likely reflects frustration with distant decision-makers and a belief that local leaders understand local needs better.
  
  
• Mayors and accountability: The creation of metro mayors (as part of combined authority devolution deals) appears to be meeting one of its key objectives: giving the public a focal point of leadership. The recognition rates cited above indicate that mayors have, in many places, succeeded in establishing a high public profile. According to Centre for Cities, “the level of recognition for mayors shows they are fulfilling the purpose their role was created for – establishing a visible and accountable leader for their place.” Indeed, one striking finding was that in mayoral elections, 51% of voters say they will base their vote mainly on the individual candidate, rather than on party allegiance, whereas in a general election only ~34% vote based on the individual (most vote by party). This suggests people see mayoral contests as choosing a local figurehead, not just another party vote. The public wanting “a say over decisions that make a difference to their lives” at the local level is a recurrent theme, and metro mayors are one mechanism for that.
  
  
• Challenges – awareness gaps: Despite these positives, there are challenges in the public perception of devolved governance. As mentioned, awareness of new mayoralties is not universal. In areas like the North East and East Midlands, which elected mayors for the first time in 2024, public awareness lagged – less than half of poll respondents in those regions even knew an election was imminent. Among people who said they wouldn’t vote in those mayoral elections, 42% cited lack of information about the candidates/role, and 34% cited distrust in politicians generally. This indicates that while existing, well-established mayors (London, Manchester, etc.) are well-known, introducing new devolved structures needs significant public engagement. Another issue is that outside the areas that already have deals, the concept of “devolution” can seem abstract. For example, 46% of manufacturing firms surveyed by Make UK were unsure if their company was located in an area with a devolution deal (nearly half of these business respondents didn’t know if their region had a combined authority or mayor). So, a knowledge gap persists about who has what powers where. Going forward, improving public understanding of new local governance arrangements will be crucial to their legitimacy.

 

Trust and Demand for Local Powers

• Higher trust in local government: One consistent finding across research is that people trust their local leaders more than national politicians when it comes to delivering on local needs. The RORE/Opinium poll (April 2024) quantified this clearly: 29% of the public say they trust local government to improve their area, compared to just 14% who trust national government – making people about twice as likely to have confidence in local leaders. Although these percentages may seem low in absolute terms (reflecting an overall climate of political cynicism), the gap is telling. It suggests that empowerment of local authorities could resonate with a populace that is skeptical of Whitehall but relatively more confident in their town halls. This trust differential underpins many calls for devolution. (Notably, the Government’s own English Devolution White Paper in 2024 references evidence that “people think more power should come down from national government” and that elected mayors are widely recognized figures in their areas.)
  
  
• Public services and accountability: Many people link the idea of local control with better outcomes. A large majority perceive that public services and local conditions have declined in recent years, and they tend to blame central government for it. In the NEF/Opinium poll, 59% of respondents said that people’s lives in their local area had worsened in the last ten years (only 11% thought things had improved). Crucially, among those who saw a decline, 40% believe national government is primarily responsible, while only 13% blamed local government (around 36% said both share blame). This gap in perceived responsibility implies that many citizens feel local authorities are hamstrung or under-resourced, and that central decisions (austerity, funding cuts, etc.) have done more harm to their communities. It dovetails with the finding that 38% think their area would have fared better over the past decade if local government had been given more powers and resources, whereas only 15% think more local power would have made things worse (the remainder felt it wouldn’t have changed outcomes). In essence, there is a notable segment of the public that sees devolution as not just a constitutional nicety but as a means to improve day-to-day services and quality of life.
  
  
• Polling on service satisfaction: To illustrate the current mood, an Ipsos “Public Services Tracker” in mid-2024 found Britons deeply dissatisfied with the state of public services – it noted 69% of people believed public services overall had gotten worse in the past few years. While this figure isn’t directly about local reorganisation, it provides context: any reorganisation or devolution effort is happening against a backdrop of public frustration with outcomes. This creates both an opportunity and a risk. The opportunity is that reforms which promise better services might gain support. The risk is that if these changes are perceived as irrelevant to fixing services (or worse, a distraction from the real issues), the public could become even more disillusioned. Currently, the polling suggests the public is receptive to the argument that empowering local government could help solve problems – as evidenced by the one-third who explicitly call for more local power, and the majority who do not finger local authorities as the main culprit for decline. This is likely why even political parties have framed devolution as a way to “restore trust” and improve delivery.

 

Stakeholder Perspectives and Reactions

In addition to general public opinion, it’s instructive to consider how key stakeholder groups – local government officials, businesses, and advocacy organisations – perceive the unitarisation and devolution agenda in 2024–25. While not “national public opinion,” these perspectives influence and reflect the broader debate:

• Local council leaders and staff: Within local government, opinions differ by council type. District councils, in particular, have voiced concern about being abolished or merged into large unitaries. In a January 2025 survey by the District Councils’ Network (DCN), which gathered views from 102 district councils, 79% of districts said they were not opposed in principle to some form of reorganisation – showing an openness to change – but only 15% believed that a single unitary council with a population of 500,000+ (the model the Government was pushing) would be suitable for their area. In fact, a majority of district council respondents favored much smaller unitary configurations: when asked what population an ideal unitary should serve, over 60% picked an option under 400,000 residents (with the most popular preferred size being under 300,000). The clear message from districts is that “mega-councils” covering an entire county are too remote – new councils should remain close to communities, in the DCN’s words. This reflects worries that local identity and accountability could be lost if counties with many diverse towns are flattened into one authority. The DCN survey also revealed process concerns: 70% of districts reported having had no engagement from central government prior to the White Paper’s publication (they felt cut out of the conversation), and only 12% had “full and active” collaboration with their county council on reorg proposals. Furthermore, practical anxieties loom large – 87% of districts anticipated that the reorganisation drive would make it harder to recruit and retain staff in the coming months. This indicates a fear of disruption: council employees may seek more secure jobs or delay moving, given the uncertainty in authorities slated for abolition or merger. In summary, district councils are willing to consider reform but are pushing back against one-size-fits-all unitarisation. They advocate “bottom-up” solutions and warn that purely structural debates, if done without local buy-in, could harm morale and effectiveness.
  
  
• Counties and unitary authorities: By contrast, county councils (and some existing unitaries) often support consolidation – many have long argued that having a single county-wide authority is more efficient and clearer for residents. The County Councils Network (CCN) has cited research suggesting that replacing two-tier systems with unitary councils can save substantial money. An analysis by EY and ResPublica (referenced by CCN) estimated that creating 27 county-wide unitaries in England could yield around £2.9 billion in net savings over five years, due to economies of scale and reduced duplication. Proponents also claim benefits like simpler strategic planning and easier partnerships: one frequent complaint has been that having multiple districts in a county leads to fragmented decisions (for example, investors or developers navigating many small councils). The CCN has pointed to cases like Wiltshire or Durham – counties that went unitary in past reforms – as examples where service integration improved and significant budget savings were achieved. Indeed, the Government’s December 2024 White Paper explicitly embraced these arguments, aiming to “complete the map” of unitary local government in order to align with strategic authority areas and reduce the total number of councils (and councilors) for a “more efficient state”. That said, even among county-level stakeholders there is nuance: some counties prefer a single unitary covering the whole county, while others have lobbied for splitting large counties into two smaller unitaries (to better reflect distinct communities). The White Paper’s initial stance of a minimum 500k population per new unitary stirred controversy – many felt this arbitrary threshold forced overly large mergers. The Local Government Minister later hinted at more flexibility, balancing identity and efficiency. In summary, the “official” stakeholder landscape pits potential efficiency and cost-savings against concerns of localism and representation. Both sides acknowledge the need for change but differ on scale and method.
  
  
• Local business community: Businesses and economic stakeholders have generally been supportive of devolution, seeing it as a chance to boost regional growth – provided it’s done in a business-friendly way. Polling commissioned by Make UK (the manufacturers’ association) in 2024 found overwhelming support among manufacturers for the devolution agenda. Over 70% of manufacturing firms said that decision-making at the local/regional level was important to their future success, and over 60% wanted to see devolution deals better structured and strengthened, even suggesting a new Act of Parliament to consolidate all the disparate local government and devolution laws into one coherent framework. Manufacturers, like other businesses, crave clarity and consistency – they are saying, yes, devolve more powers, but make the system simpler. One notable insight: nearly half (46%) of manufacturers didn’t actually know if their company was based in an area with a devolution deal or metro mayor. This highlights that the current patchwork (with only 61% of England covered by deals by 2024) is confusing even to engaged stakeholders. The British Chambers of Commerce similarly welcomed the Government’s devolution plans in principle, calling for businesses to be “key partners” in the new arrangements. They’ve stated that business will welcome more devolution “if it helps drive forward local economic growth” – signaling that the private sector’s main concern is outcomes. Chambers and local enterprise partnerships have often advocated for devolved skills programs, transport investment, and planning powers, which they believe could be tailored to local economic needs better than centralized programs. In sum, business stakeholders are broadly pro-devolution, viewing it as an opportunity to unleash regional potential, but they also emphasize the importance of execution: proper implementation, avoiding excessive bureaucracy, and ensuring that new structures have real power (and are not just “talking shops”). There is also an implicit caution: devolution must not lead to parochialism or protectionism at the local level – businesses operate across council boundaries, so they favor strategic regional approaches (hence interest in combined authorities that cover functional economic areas).
  
  
• Think tanks and advocacy groups: Various research institutes and advocacy groups have contributed analyses of public and stakeholder sentiment. For example, Centre for Cities (an urban policy think tank) published polling in 2024 (cited above) and concluded that “the public wants powers to be held at a local level… a strong appetite for devolution to move further and faster”. They emphasize the success of mayors in becoming identifiable champions, and argue that this visible accountability is key to winning public trust in local governance. On the other hand, organisations like the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) have pointed out that with more powerful mayors and fewer councils, it’s vital to ensure democratic legitimacy – ERS has campaigned for reforms like proportional representation in local elections, so that new larger councils or mayoralties truly reflect voter preferences. They note, for instance, that since the switch to first-past-the-post voting for mayors (in 2022), some mayors have won office with barely one-third of the vote, which could undermine the claim of a broad mandate. Meanwhile, the Local Government Association (LGA) – representing all councils – has generally supported devolution (arguing for more funding and powers to be devolved) but has also cautioned against forced reorganisation without local consent. The LGA’s line has been that structural changes should be locally led and not distract from the urgent funding crisis councils face. This was evident in the debate around the 2024 White Paper: the DCN (part of the LGA) publicly criticized any top-down imposition of “mega-unitaries” as “a sterile and tiresome debate about structures” that could ignore what works best for communities. They and others call for flexibility – for example, allowing some areas to collaborate in combined authorities without necessarily merging all their councils. In summary, advocacy groups tend to support the principle of devolution (more local power, better local democracy) but urge careful design of the form it takes. Ensuring ongoing public engagement, maintaining community identity, and enhancing democratic representation are common themes in their recommendations.
  
  

Key Trends, Concerns, and Levels of Support

Bringing together the above findings, a few key trends emerge in 2024–2025 regarding English public perceptions of unitarisation and devolution:

• 1. Cautious Support for Decentralisation: There is a notable undercurrent of support for decentralising power in England. Many people feel that local leaders understand local issues better and should be given more authority (with polls showing roughly 3:1 support in favor of “more local power” vs “less” among those with an opinion). Trust in local government, while not high in absolute terms, is significantly higher than trust in national government. This indicates a receptive environment for the idea of devolution – the public, on balance, likes the concept of decisions being made closer to them. We see this in positive views of elected mayors providing a voice for their area, and in the strong recognition and approval ratings that well-established metro mayors enjoy. It’s also reflected in stakeholder attitudes: businesses and local leaders alike are asking for more empowerment at the local/regional level (from control over skills spending to transportation policy).
  
  
• 2. Tepid Interest in Structural Reorganisation: While people favor “devolution” in principle, they are much less animated about the specific structural changes (unitary councils, boundary redraws) that often accompany it. Public support for converting two-tier counties into single-tier unitaries is lukewarm – more respondents actually prefer the status quo system, and a very large segment has no opinion. Essentially, unitarisation is a technocratic solution that has not captured the public imagination. Most people are not following these reforms closely, and there isn’t a grassroots demand to abolish district councils. In areas that have undergone or will undergo restructuring, we often see low public awareness until changes directly impact them (e.g. their local election is delayed or their council disappears – only then does it become salient). The implication is that any push for wholesale reorganisation is elite-driven and needs to be carefully explained and justified to residents, who might otherwise be indifferent or even skeptical. The relatively modest 26% who explicitly back unitary councils nationwide suggests that the government faces an uphill task convincing the public that bigger councils = better services. Without clear evidence of improved outcomes, support is unlikely to rise dramatically.
  
  
• 3. Concern for Local Identity and Representation: A strong theme, especially among local stakeholder groups and residents in rural areas, is the fear of losing the “local” in local government. The prospect of merging many small district councils into a single county-wide authority raises worries about democratic deficit and community identity. People value having representatives who know their town or village. Polling of the general public has shown, for example, that smaller councils are seen as more in touch with local communities (this was evident in earlier consultations and is implicitly supported by the DCN survey, where districts favored smaller unitaries). In debates, residents often express concern that a distant unitary based in the county town might not pay attention to outlying areas. The data we have – such as district council leaders overwhelmingly saying any new units should be under 400k population – underscores this point. So, one key concern is representation: ensuring that reorganisation doesn’t mean remoteness. Elected mayors mitigate this somewhat by providing a high-profile champion, but they cover large regions, so ensuring community voices are heard in big combined authorities or unitaries remains an important issue. We also see this in the ERS’s focus on electoral systems – they argue that if councils get larger (covering more people), it’s even more important to have proportional representation so diverse local views aren’t shut out.
  
  
• 4. Demand for Practical Benefits: Both the public and stakeholders consistently frame their support (or lack thereof) in terms of outcomes. People want to see tangible improvements – better services, more jobs, economic growth – as the payoff for any governance changes. There is notable frustration with current service levels (e.g. concerns about roads, housing, social care, etc.), and a feeling that things have been getting worse. This creates a window in which they might endorse reforms if they are convinced those will help. For instance, in the NEF poll many thought stronger local powers could have prevented some decline. Likewise, business support for devolution comes with the expectation of more effective local economic policy. However, if people suspect that reorganisation is merely an administrative shuffle or a political power play, support drops. The public’s lukewarm stance on unitary councils likely stems from uncertainty about how it benefits them directly. Conversely, the relatively positive view of mayors is tied to the perception that mayors can “get things done” and stand up for the area. Key takeaway: There is conditional support for these changes – the condition being that they lead to noticeable improvements in local governance or services. This is perhaps why the government, in pitching its devolution agenda, has emphasized potential benefits like simpler transport systems, more homes with infrastructure, and accountable leadership driving growth. They are essentially addressing the public’s unspoken question: “What’s in it for us?”
  
  
• 5. Risks of Public Apathy and Backlash: Finally, a trend that worries policymakers is the risk of public apathy turning into opposition if reforms are mishandled. Right now, apathetic or neutral segments of the public aren’t actively resisting reorganisation – they’re simply not engaged. But apathy can become backlash if changes result in perceived loss (like beloved local institutions being closed, or if people feel decisions are being made without them). The data already hints at some discontent: e.g., in areas where elections were postponed in 2025, one can imagine frustration from those who wanted to vote. The 43% vs 27% finding on that question shows that a notable minority was okay with delay, but a larger group was not – if their preference is overridden by government fiat, it could breed resentment or at least cynicism. Similarly, the lack of consultation with district councils (70% reporting no engagement) and by extension with residents, could fuel a narrative of “Westminster/Government imposing changes on us.” The public generally dislikes the sense of distant control – which is ironically what devolution seeks to counter. So there is a delicate balance: reforms intended to empower local areas must feel locally owned and not just imposed. Transparency and public input will be key to maintaining support. At present, because awareness is low, there hasn’t been large-scale public protest against reorganisation (with a few exceptions in specific locales). But the potential for controversy exists, especially if council mergers lead to council tax equalization issues, changes in service delivery, or job losses – things that directly touch people’s lives.
  
  

In conclusion, public opinion in 2024–25 can be summarized as “supportive in principle, but cautious in practice.” People in England broadly like the idea of devolving power – they trust local government more and would welcome decisions being made closer to home, as evidenced by polling from Ipsos, YouGov, Opinium and others. There is also a recognition of the role strong local leaders (mayors) can play in giving their area a voice and identity. However, when it comes to the specifics of local government reorganisation – like replacing two-tier councils with unitaries or introducing new governance structures – public enthusiasm is muted. Awareness is low, confusion is high, and there’s no outright majority pushing for these changes. Key stakeholders echo these mixed sentiments: they see opportunities for efficiency and better coordination, but also raise concerns about scale, local democracy, and implementation challenges. The polling and survey data suggest that the public’s ultimate judgment will hinge on results. If unitarisation and devolution deliver visible improvements (better services, more say for communities, economic uplift), then support will likely grow. If not, reforms could be met with indifference or even opposition, with people asking why their familiar council was scrapped or what difference an elected mayor really makes. Thus, any governance changes must be accompanied by clear communication, genuine local engagement, and a focus on outcomes that matter to residents. Only by addressing the public’s concerns – keeping what works at the local level, while changing what doesn’t – can policymakers ensure a durable mandate for reorganisation and devolution.

Sources:

• Ipsos/LGIU “State of the Locals” polling (2024–2025) – public attitudes on council structure, local elections, and councillors
• YouGov survey results (February 2025) on delaying local elections in reorganisation areas
• New Economics Foundation (RORE) & Opinium poll (Apr 2024) – public views on trust in local vs national government, and desire for more local power
• LocalGov news report on Ipsos survey (Apr 2025) – 63% not following reorg; preference for status quo vs unitary; perceptions of elected mayors
• Centre for Cities/Focaldata polling (Mar 2024) – awareness of metro mayors (74% name recognition on average) and support for devolved decision-making in mayoral areas; data on low election awareness in new combined authorities
• District Councils’ Network survey (Jan 2025) – 79% of districts open to reorg but only 15% support 500k+ “mega-councils”; preferred unitary sizes, engagement and workforce concerns
• Make UK / Manufacturing poll (May 2024) – 70%+ of firms value local decision-making; 60%+ want stronger devolution framework; 46% unsure if in a devolved area
• British Chambers of Commerce statement on devolution (2024) – business welcomes devolution if tied to local growth
• ResPublica report / CCN (Referenced by Public Finance, 2017) – potential £2.9 billion savings from switching all counties to unitaries; debate between CCN and DCN on restructuring vs local needs
• UK Government English Devolution White Paper (Dec 2024) – context of policy aims (completing devolution map, aligning reorganisation with combined authorities) and footnoted evidence on public attitudes to mayors/power shift.