Something happened last week. We managed to get a sneak view of the truth.

In that dark and murky world inhabited by Reform’s Cllr. Dan Harrison on the one hand, and the leaders of the boroughs and districts, including Harborough, led by Cllr. Phil Knowles, the Red Knight, Sir Peter Soulsby, Mayor of Leicester City, has revealed that despite their protestations to the contrary, they are all prepared to concede districts and boroughs to an enlarged City in what could become known as the ‘Boundary Growth Agreement’.

Whilst there’s been no debate in Harborough about this – perhaps elsewhere – because apparently it’s not important that there’s public scrutiny of a decision that could last for many decades, Leicestershire County Council did debate a motion submitted by the Liberal Democrats.

The substantive part of the motion was to adopt the approach all Liberal Democrats want (to ensure they remain relevant in local government) that of a North, City, South split of Leicestershire. This was comfortably defeated, and the previous administration’s position reaffirmed in an amendment that Reform and the Conservatives supported.

However, on the second part of the original motion, not to concede boundaries to the City, there was unanimity. Which makes Reform’s and the Liberal Democrat’s relative positions all the more curious.

Sir Peter Soulsby, the day after the Council met and agreed its approach, appeared to let the cat out of the bag by implying that that there is an open understanding between Leicestershire County Council’s leadership and the City that boundaries will have to change; and that a more covert undertaking with the largely Liberal Democrat led boroughs and districts recognising a similar outcome.

If this is the case, and why would he say such a thing, then neither Reform nor the Liberal Democrats have been truthful about where they stand, but it’s clear that they’ll do anything or say anything, to get an outcome that suits them politically rather than what’s in the interests of our residents.

What does all this mean?

To be really clear, the government has prescribed that it wants all parties to come together and submit plans that present a unitary structure (that is all services in specific areas to be run by one authority, not several).

At the moment, the majority of services are run at county level with the districts owning planning as the biggest single focus of activity.

Government also wants proposals that are locally led ensuring improved service delivery, stronger local leadership, clear accountability and significant savings.

It has also stated that a unitary proposal must have a population of 300,000 but its preference is for 400,000 to 600,000 or more. The government is also really clear it doesn’t want any additional layers of bureaucracy from combined authorities unless there is clear justification.

As things stand, it’s very clear that the City is a mess. Its services are poorly managed, they’re failing and cuts are being made to scale them back – the council is effectively bankrupt. But, it’s a Labour run City, with Labour MPs. It therefore matters and is going nowhere – literally!

Whereas, Leicestershire County Council, a former Conservative run county for 20 years or so, is efficient, albeit in deficit, but not in debt, spends over £1bn and provides a range of highly successful services to a population of twice that of the City, with a per-capita spend that is £866 versus the city’s £1,145, with half the population.

Leicestershire County Council is acknowledged to be one of the lowest funded authorities in the country, to the tune of about £150 per capita according to some estimates, yet it continues to win awards for a broad range of services including social services, public health, mental health, education services, transport, highways, waste disposal and others besides.

What Sir Peter and Leicester City need is a massive cash injection from new council tax bands – from a significant expansion of the city’s boundaries. On the chopping block are areas of Blaby, Charnwood, Harborough and Oadby and Wigston, including places like Great Glen, Fleckney Glenfield, Anstey, Birstall, Kirby Muxloe, Thurmaston, Leicester Forest East, and rural parts South of Countesthorpe.

Accessing these areas crudely means unlocking wealth from new council tax bands and increasing the land supply for housing. It would increase the population of the City to c.600,000 people, making it a very strong candidate for additional devolutionary powers. Greater Leicester, here we come.

Whilst this might sort out the City, temporarily, it would be damaging to the County structure, but even more damaging for the North, City and South model.

For a start both would suffer a considerable reduction in their tax receipts as the areas that are vulnerable to annexation are some of the most economically active and productive parts of the the County and the boroughs/districts in which they reside.

Removing these areas would make sustainable services very difficult for the County and make it almost impossible under a North South model – there just wouldn’t be any economies of scale. It would significantly undermine the efficiency and deliverability of services, making them more expensive and more difficult to coordinate.

On the other hand, placing these target areas into the City makes the arbitrary division of North and South Leicestershire even less viable, than the County model – the City would be a population of 600,000 creating a massive distortion in populations, with North and South populations resting at about 300,000 to 400,000, very close to the government’s minimum consideration.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers wrote a report in 2019 where they advanced a view that the most efficient and cost-effective model was a single county-wide unitary, with savings of up to £35m annually. The fragmentation of population and gutting of centralised services, systems and provision by a North, City South model would add complexity and deliver very few savings, if at all.

It’s very likely that what looked unviable, even without the population carve out to the City before, that the North and South model would be completely financially unsustainable and the two councils would have to increase council taxes massively or reduce services.

Effectively everyone living in Leicestershire becomes a loser. For the enrichment of a City that even with the poor record that it has, and significantly more funding per head of population than the County today, there will be a greater strategic gap across the county in terms of efficiencies, planning, transport and all the other services currently provided. Every resident should be worried.

So where does that leave us? We have two groups that are prepared to cut a deal, Reform and the Liberal Democrats, seemingly without fully understanding the implications. Whereas we have a strong Conservative voice that simply says ‘no’.

Forgotten in all this are the residents. There is seemingly no interest and no mechanism for consulting the population for a Labour policy that was undeclared in its manifesto.

Despite this, a large body of opinion has registered it’s position against the creep of the City in a series of petitions across a number of Leicestershire constituencies. The mass of people across Leicestershire want nothing to do with the City, they see it for the basket case that is it, and would rather absorb than be part of it, but who is going to listen?

At the end of the day, it’s very hard not to feel that residents across Leicestershire have been well and truly betrayed and deceived by those who support City enlargement.

Politicians have clearly said one thing, and have done another in yet another example of grubby backroom deals by bearded, white haired old men, in the Autumn of their political careers, all prepared to leave a mess for future generations, whilst potentially picking up their gongs for ‘a long and distinguished commitment to public service’. How ironic.