Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,241
|
Oxford
Apr 30, 2024 6:30:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by Chris from Brum on Apr 30, 2024 6:30:45 GMT
Hartlepool and Stockton could have merged (back) into Durham, though the part of Stockton south of the Tees would have marched with pitchforks as a result. Likewise, Middlesbrough and Langbaurgh (now Redcar and Cleveland) could have "returned" to North Yorkshire, and no pitchforks would have resulted. But there was a reason that Teesside county borough, and subsequently Cleveland county, were created, and cross-river bodies still function for that reason. 1) All hail Emperor Thread-drift 2) The first proposals of the Banham Commission covered both Cleveland and Durham, but clearly recommended Hartlepool be a unitary council on its own; the main alternative considered was a unitary Hartlepool with Teesside forming a single unitary council instead of three separate ones. This was on the basis of "the very strong sense of identity and community in Hartlepool". Well, I guess Hartlepool is, er, "different". Comes from being rather out on a limb from everywhere else, probably.
|
|
|
Post by arnieg on Apr 30, 2024 7:19:27 GMT
Because Cleveland had to be abolished, and that meant either Hartlepool became a unitary on its own, or it was force-merged with Stockton. Whereas taking Oxford out of Oxfordshire would destabilise service delivery from the County Council. But how does that differ from say Leicester and Leicestershire. [Note: I was quite heavily involved in the Leicestershire re-organisation of the mid-nineties, and I suspect the answer comes down to no more than differences in the local political terrain at the time.]
|
|
|
Oxford
Apr 30, 2024 7:22:12 GMT
Post by carlton43 on Apr 30, 2024 7:22:12 GMT
1) All hail Emperor Thread-drift 2) The first proposals of the Banham Commission covered both Cleveland and Durham, but clearly recommended Hartlepool be a unitary council on its own; the main alternative considered was a unitary Hartlepool with Teesside forming a single unitary council instead of three separate ones. This was on the basis of "the very strong sense of identity and community in Hartlepool". Well, I guess Hartlepool is, er, "different". Comes from being rather out on a limb from everywhere else, probably. England is quite a small compact country for this to be said about nearly anywhere. I lived in Wester Ross, now that was remote and out on a limb. But friends in Texas, Wyoming and Montana think that is really funny as well.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,241
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Apr 30, 2024 7:50:32 GMT
Well, I guess Hartlepool is, er, "different". Comes from being rather out on a limb from everywhere else, probably. England is quite a small compact country for this to be said about nearly anywhere. I lived in Wester Ross, now that was remote and out on a limb. But friends in Texas, Wyoming and Montana think that is really funny as well. It's all relative. The old town of Hartlepool - the place that hung the monkey - is out on a headland protruding into the North Sea. It does feel quite isolated, though less so now that it joins up with the more modern West Hartlepool, which has the main town centre and railway station. But there's still rivalry between the two towns, especially at rugby where West Hartlepool and Hartlepool Rovers are not best friends. But, as we all know, people can be funny buggers.
|
|
jdc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 77
|
Oxford
Apr 30, 2024 9:25:33 GMT
Post by jdc on Apr 30, 2024 9:25:33 GMT
|
|
|
Oxford
Apr 30, 2024 9:39:54 GMT
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 30, 2024 9:39:54 GMT
It was never really a serious possibility, but if the 1990s reorganisation had favoured big unitaries rather than small ones and had taken less heed of existing local authority boundaries, you could split the area covered by the Tees Valley mayoralty fairly evenly into the bits that are historically Yorkshire and the bits that are historically Durham.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Apr 30, 2024 17:56:34 GMT
I'm not sure that there's anything that peculiar about the chair of a Local Party for Local People turning out to be a crank...
|
|
jdc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 77
|
Oxford
May 1, 2024 9:22:59 GMT
Post by jdc on May 1, 2024 9:22:59 GMT
I'm not sure that there's anything that peculiar about the chair of a Local Party for Local People turning out to be a crank... No though it's got to be more unusual when that person is a former senior manager in the public sector who chaired various local partnership bodies.
|
|
jdc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 77
|
Oxford
May 1, 2024 13:06:02 GMT
Post by jdc on May 1, 2024 13:06:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 1, 2024 15:47:55 GMT
I'm not sure that there's anything that peculiar about the chair of a Local Party for Local People turning out to be a crank... No though it's got to be more unusual when that person is a former senior manager in the public sector who chaired various local partnership bodies. This seems an unduly positive view of public sector management and local partnership bodies.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,640
|
Oxford
May 2, 2024 15:10:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by john07 on May 2, 2024 15:10:32 GMT
Because Cleveland had to be abolished, and that meant either Hartlepool became a unitary on its own, or it was force-merged with Stockton. Whereas taking Oxford out of Oxfordshire would destabilise service delivery from the County Council. But how does that differ from say Leicester and Leicestershire. [Note: I was quite heavily involved in the Leicestershire re-organisation of the mid-nineties, and I suspect the answer comes down to no more than differences in the local political terrain at the time.] The move to two-tier authorities in the mid-1970s caused a lot of grief. Coventry volunteered to go into West Midlands rather than stay in Warwickshire, even though there was little connection. The reason was that Coventry did not want to lose Education and Social Services to Warwickshire. It didn’t work out that well with constant disputes about issues on apparently minor issues such as grass cutting on highway verges. That was something I had to sort out at a crisis meeting in Birmingham. Meantime, the Labour-inclined Leicester City lost key services involving 70% of spending to Conservative Leicestershire. Leicester sorted their issues out while Oxford have not.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,371
|
Oxford
May 2, 2024 15:22:22 GMT
Post by Sibboleth on May 2, 2024 15:22:22 GMT
The underlying issue was that the County Boroughs did not deal as well as the County Councils (the London County Council very much included here) with the postwar deal between central and local government: more powers and more funding in exchange for more responsibilities and fewer freedoms. This was not helped by the fact that the population criteria for the establishment of a county borough was set at a level that was rather stupidly low, so a lot were just not capable. This is why you had Crossman's bungled mergers in the mid 60s. Of course the other issue was that the members of some of the various district councils (which were very weak and deliberately so) did not like their functional role as rate-collectors for the County Councils and wanted power, and rather a lot of these people were senior members of various Conservative Associations.
|
|
|
Post by arnieg on May 2, 2024 15:26:41 GMT
But how does that differ from say Leicester and Leicestershire. [Note: I was quite heavily involved in the Leicestershire re-organisation of the mid-nineties, and I suspect the answer comes down to no more than differences in the local political terrain at the time.] The reason was that Coventry did not want to lose Education and Social Services to Warwickshire. It didn’t work out that well with constant disputes about issues on apparently minor issues such as grass cutting on highway verges. That was something I had to sort out at a crisis meeting in Birmingham. Our equivalent in Leicester was the 'Rutland dinosaur'. Should the bones stay in Leicester City museum or should they be repatriated to Rutland?
|
|
|
Post by Rutlander on May 2, 2024 16:06:59 GMT
The reason was that Coventry did not want to lose Education and Social Services to Warwickshire. It didn’t work out that well with constant disputes about issues on apparently minor issues such as grass cutting on highway verges. That was something I had to sort out at a crisis meeting in Birmingham. Our equivalent in Leicester was the 'Rutland dinosaur'. Should the bones stay in Leicester City museum or should they be repatriated to Rutland? Lestah kept that 'Rutland dinosaur' so we produced another - the 'Rutland sea dragon'.
|
|
|
Oxford
May 3, 2024 14:18:47 GMT
Post by jamesdoyle on May 3, 2024 14:18:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by carolus on May 3, 2024 14:36:34 GMT
Northfield Brook - Lab hold (7 votes over IOA).
|
|
|
Oxford
May 3, 2024 14:54:24 GMT
Post by jamesdoyle on May 3, 2024 14:54:24 GMT
Holywell Grn gain from Lab Osney & St Thomas Lab hold
|
|
|
Oxford
May 3, 2024 15:38:00 GMT
Post by jamesdoyle on May 3, 2024 15:38:00 GMT
Carfax & Jericho Lab hold Temple Cowley Ind gain from Lab
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on May 3, 2024 21:21:19 GMT
I have aggregated the votes across Oxford City council as follows -
Lab 14,849 Grn 6,780 Ind Oxford Alliance 6,200 LD 6,052 Con 2,705 Ind 1,893 TUSC 331 No description 173 Workers Party 31
The split between the two respective constituencies is -
Oxford East Lab 10,562 IOA 6,200 Grn 4,587 LD 3,160 Ind 1,834 Con 1,446 TUSC 331 ND 173 Workers 31
Oxford West and Abingdon Lab 4,287 LD 2,892 Grn 2,193 Con 1,259 Ind 59
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,130
|
Oxford
May 9, 2024 20:10:08 GMT
Post by maxque on May 9, 2024 20:10:08 GMT
Third: Lab 10 (-7), LD 5, Grn 4 (+2), IOA 4 (+4), Ind 1 (+1) Council: Lab 20 (-2), LD 9, Grn 8 (+2), Ind 7 (-4), IOA 4 (+4)
IOA gain over Labour in: Cowley (by 228 votes) Littlemore (by 84 votes) Lye Valley (by 61 votes) Rose Hill and Iffley (by 56 votes)
Green gain over Labour in: Holywell (by 80 votes) St Clement's (by 49 votes)
Independent gain over Labour in: Temple Cowley (by 231 votes)
Close holds: Barton and Sandhills (Lab hold by 52 votes over IOA, by 281 over Ind defector) Blackbird Leys (double election, Lab hold by 32/83 votes over Ind) Donnington (Grn hold by 165 votes over Lab) Marston (Lab hold by 150 votes over Grn) Northfield Brook (Lab hold by 7 votes over IOA) Quarry and Risinghurst (LD hold by 7 votes over Lab) Summertown (LD hold by 73 votes over Lab)
|
|