The latest in a long line of changes facing local government in England 

The recent Written Ministerial Statement from Jim McMahon MP, the Local Government Minister, marks yet another change for local government in England. The Government has announced its intention to make the Leader and Cabinet model mandatory for all councils, scrapping the option for the committee system entirely—except in the 13 areas that already have directly elected Mayors. 

Local government has been subject to a steady stream of changes and announcements from the Government since it took power nearly a year ago; from devolution deals to funding reviews and proposed reforms to planning and housing policy. Now, governance structures themselves are being reshaped. But it raises the question: is this genuine reform, or simply an afterthought tacked onto a long list of Whitehall interventions? 

The Government’s rationale is straightforward: the committee system is seen as outdated, cumbersome, and opaque. By contrast, the Leader and Cabinet model, already operating in most councils, delivers clearer lines of accountability, faster decision-making, and better public understanding of who is responsible for what. 

Will this make it easier to get planning permission? Not necessarily.  

Leader and Cabinet models continue to operate with Planning Committees in place, ensuring that decisions on individual planning applications remain subject to a transparent, quasi-judicial process. However, the areas where changes may become more apparent are in relation to the development of Local Plans and the political support provided by Cabinets for allocated sites and strategic growth areas.  

So why is the Government pursuing this course of action? 

Currently serving in a borough council cabinet, I can see why this structure appeals. For stakeholders, residents, and businesses, it provides clarity. You know which Cabinet Member to approach. Decision-making, at least in theory, becomes more efficient. 

But let’s not overlook the political reality. The Leader and Cabinet model concentrates power within the ruling party, giving a small group significant control over council decisions. That works well for those in charge, but leaves opposition parties with little more than the tools of scrutiny and occasional public interventions. 

In coalition administrations, the picture becomes even more complicated. Where multiple parties share power, Cabinet positions are often divided to maintain political balance rather than strictly on the basis of competence. Behind closed doors, fragile alliances and compromises can shape decision-making, while the formal structure projects an image of unity. 

While the system provides clarity to the public, it can conceal the complexity, or instability, of coalition governance. 

However, the uncomfortable truth is that simply changing governance structures won’t fix poor performance. Councils struggling with weak leadership, poor culture, or ineffective decision-making won’t suddenly transform under a Leader and Cabinet model. If anything, concentrating power in the hands of a few risks deepening those problems if accountability, transparency, and good leadership are lacking. 

Equally, high-performing councils will continue to succeed—not because of structures, but because of strong leadership, sound governance, and genuine commitment to public service. 

Against the backdrop of repeated Government interventions in local government, this latest change feels like it risks being more of an administrative tidying exercise than a bold step towards real improvement. The real question is whether it’s the meaningful reform councils need, or just an afterthought in a long line of Whitehall tinkering.