It urged local authorities to use history, key events in the past and personal memories to help promote a sense of belonging. It could ‘give people things to be proud of, or give them a story of place'. 

History is important in local government, although the rhetoric of modernisation allows no place for it, since it is proclaimed as change and transformation – an escape from history. The past, it seems, has no guidance for the present. In the past lie only problems which have to be overcome by modernisation. 

This modernising approach, however, creates its own problems by neglecting history. If change can lead to improvement, it is unlikely to do so if it implies total change. Stability is required as well as change. 

There are strengths as well as weaknesses in the inheritance of history. The loss of those strengths is easily ignored when the focus is on the weaknesses of the past. For example, there wer strengths in the traditional committee system which involved all councillors in the work of the authority. Now the lack of such involvement is widely regarded as a weakness of the new structures.

History has helped shape the present. History can be seen in the buildings of local authorities, in particular, in the Victorian and Edwardian town halls built to express the pride of civic government. Many council chambers have been used for many decades, and have structured the debates and procedures of the authority.

The law about local government has been built over time. Phrases in current local government law date back to the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. For example, the power to make bye-laws ‘for the good rule and government' in Section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972 uses the same words as the 1835 Act. 

Legal precedents deriving from past cases are important in present-day local government. Ultra vires, fiduciary duty and Wednesbury principles of reasonableness are part of the parlance of the present, if not for everyone, at least for local government lawyers. 

The history of particular authorities is important in moulding their distinctive cultures, and much can be learned from that history, some recorded in books, such as the history of local politics on Wolverhampton's council from the 1880 to 1960, written by one of us (George Jones). 

The histories of local authorities go back over the trauma of the reorganisations that have changed boundaries over time, although in some authorities, history has been lost in clumsy amalgamations which have all but eliminated recognition of their previous identities.

Yet that sense of identity can survive changes. Great county boroughs reduced to districts by the Local Government Act of 1972 held on to their past identity. That memory and the resentment caused by their loss of status were driving forces behind the reorganisations of the 1990s.

Some local authorities are proud of certain aspects of their history, which can provide potent symbols of something to be emulated. The name of [Edwardian elder statesman] Joseph Chamberlain and his municipal gospel are used by councillors of the three main councillors to support policies claimed to be following paths he laid down. 

Sir Bernard Zissman, a former leader of the Conservative group in Birmingham has written a book based on imagined conversations with Mr Chamberlain returned in spirit to see what has happened in his city, and suggesting his approval for many developments, including the National Exhibition Centre. 

The current proposal to create a municipal bank in Birmingham recalls [British prime minister] Neville Chamberlain, who initiated such a bank when he was lord mayor during the First World War.

Not all that is said about history actually happened, which makes its study so intriguing. Myths can grow up around past leaders which have no basis in fact. 

It is often said that Herbert Morrison, when leading London County Council (LCC) in the 1930s, said he ‘would build the Tories out of London', but there is no evidence he ever said it and one of us (George Jones) who wrote his biography with Bernard (Lord) Donoughue has challenged those who quote it to produce evidence. No-one has done so, despite the offer of a prize. But, apart from the alleged quotation, the record of the LCC under Mr Morrison inspired many of his successors in London leadership, and not merely in the LCC, Greater London Council and today's Greater London Authority. We have seen a framed picture of Mr Morrison on the walls of one leader's office in Hackney, where he was an active mayor in the first Labour council, elected in 1919.

But not only councillors are still remembered. Officers from the past, especially great town clerks, can be celebrated, although probably less often. The name of Henry Morris, a former director of education in Cambridgeshire and the creator of community colleges, is still recalled in the much-enlarged Cambridgeshire. His bust was to be found in the office of the-then director in the 1980s – perhaps it still is.

In many local authorities, some councillors carry history with them, having served many years on the council. Some, such as the late Roy Shaw, of Camden, served for more than 50 years, and brought deep understanding of both Camden and local authorities generally, which would have been lost if the proposal of the Councillors' Commission to place term limits on councillors had applied. 

Long experience can be abused, if treated as a sure guide to the present, but it can be valued when used to deepen and extend discussion beyond the apparent necessities of the present. In former mining areas one of us (John Stewart) found that conversations with councillors who in the past had worked in the pits, reflected that experience even though all the mines in the area had been closed. 

For some, such experience can seem irrelevant to present concerns, but certain traditions in mining, especially solidarity, still have lessons for the present.

Our argument is simple. 

Awareness of history can be important in local authorities for practice and policies in the present and for plans for the future. When authorities are encouraged to carry out analysis in order to draw up plans and provide community leadership, history can inform the process. 

Local authorities represent the distinctiveness of their area, and much of that distinctiveness derives from its history – of its economy, culture, social characteristics and history. And that brings strengths to be built on, as well as problems to be overcome. The distinctiveness of an area has implications for the working of the authority, inserted into it by the experience and attitudes of many councillors and officers, over time. To be a ‘place-shaper' and community leader requires an understanding of the history of both the area and its local authority.

History may not be much considered in discussions of management in local government, but lessons can be learned from the past. Long before recent developments, an area committee for Withington, Manchester, was set up in 1904, based on a distinction between central and local functions. 

It was judged to be ‘as bad and as unworkable a method as the wit of man can devise' (E Simon, A Century Of City Government, 1938). That assessment does not mean that area committees need be a failure today.

Different forms can be used, and circumstances have changed. But there can still be lessons to be learned from this past experience. Equally, it could be we have something to learn from the experience of mayors from the age of Queen Victoria to the 1920s, such as Mr Chamberlain, who were in effect leaders of the authority, often serving for three or more years. 

But they did not exclude other councillors. They involved them in the work of the authority, fully using their experience and skills.

History helps understanding the reasons for present practices and policies. To act without an understanding of history means that the present is imperfectly comprehended. 

History is of even more importance when change is proposed in either policy or practice, for it is vital to know why the policies and practices take their present form, and to recognise what should be preserved as well as what should be changed.

History and experience have created traditions and formed attitudes which can continue even when structures and procedures are changed, and they may undermine these formal changes, but they could sustain them, if properly understood.

Local authorities could do more to cultivate their history, or histories, where a number of predecessor authorities are involved. To learn from or even know or celebrate their history, is too often neglected by authorities. 

The local museum ought to have a display on council history. There should be an up-to-date published council history, and important past political events celebrated. 

Many council buildings have portraits of past leading figures, but without any explanation of their achievements. They could provide the nucleus for a local portrait gallery with proper explanations. History should be part of training programmes helping forge a sense of identity for the council and its councillors and staff? 

The CLG guidance focuses on how history can help promote local identity and social cohesion. Schools could use the history of the places where their children live to make them aware of how their localities developed. Adults could contribute their memories as examples of living history. 

Local authorities can  lead many local groups in discovering and enhancing a sense of a continuing local community. The key question is, can a council afford to neglect its history? 

George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the LSE, and John Stewart is emeritus professor at INLOGOV