|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Apr 12, 2019 17:18:05 GMT
From the views that you express here, I am delighted that the LDs are your least favourite party. We should wear it as a badge of honour Tony.  |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 12, 2019 17:53:20 GMT
There is an argument that both Leonard and Drakeford are "place holders" before a younger left winger is ready to take over. Wouldn't be surprised. Let's not wait too long though, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Apr 12, 2019 19:26:35 GMT
I'm appalled. And it also seems a surprisingly Blairite view from you!
First, casework brings councillors (and MPs) into some form of contact with the realities of policy delivery. As a senior councillor (who certainly developed policy) I had little time for those who didn't do their casework and merely played eggheads instead. Such was the marginality of many wards in Cambridge and the sharp way in which elections were fought that they tended not to survive that long.
Secondly, casework can (and certainly did in my case) inspire policy development. Listening to folk and their experiences and then trying to address their problems can readily prompt ideas on novel, better ways of doing things and, sometimes, new services.
Thirdly, while CABs are valuable, few would argue that their caseworkers and governance were representative of the wider community. To pass the whole task of dealing with complaints and concerns widens the democratic deficit. Finally, there are functions that are placed with councillors acting in a quasi judicial role - for example deciding on planning and various regulatory matters. Presumably you'd pass those to officers? While councillors do operate within a legal framework (or there are consequences) local people do at least have some avenue to decision-making.
I think local government is a largely superfluous wasteful mess. Surely you must have grasped that I'm a centralist and generally cynical about localism? I can see why you were once a Blair fan!! He was uninterested, and where any interest sparked, unsympathetic to local government. |
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,285 
|
Post by cj on Apr 12, 2019 20:13:02 GMT
I'm appalled. And it also seems a surprisingly Blairite view from you!
First, casework brings councillors (and MPs) into some form of contact with the realities of policy delivery. As a senior councillor (who certainly developed policy) I had little time for those who didn't do their casework and merely played eggheads instead. Such was the marginality of many wards in Cambridge and the sharp way in which elections were fought that they tended not to survive that long.
Secondly, casework can (and certainly did in my case) inspire policy development. Listening to folk and their experiences and then trying to address their problems can readily prompt ideas on novel, better ways of doing things and, sometimes, new services.
Thirdly, while CABs are valuable, few would argue that their caseworkers and governance were representative of the wider community. To pass the whole task of dealing with complaints and concerns widens the democratic deficit. Finally, there are functions that are placed with councillors acting in a quasi judicial role - for example deciding on planning and various regulatory matters. Presumably you'd pass those to officers? While councillors do operate within a legal framework (or there are consequences) local people do at least have some avenue to decision-making.
Surely you must have grasped that I'm a centralist and generally cynical about localism? I think it has become that, but that is because of the centralism of Thatcher and Blair, to disconnect local power and autonomy for market solutions and/or central Government edicts based on modelling. This further promotes apathy in local democracy, which in turn enables, almost encourages, worsening local government which of course then reinforces the negative view of local government and promotes more attacks upon it.
Without strong local input local Government officers operate on auto-pilot to DCLG direction, we have centralism with the expensive trappings of local authority. The solution is not to further rationalise operations and strip away the trappings of local democracy it is to gut and re-found local control.
Far more effective and resilient 'municipal socialism' can be be created by more people than can be gifted to the populace by leaders.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,440
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Apr 12, 2019 20:24:26 GMT
I think local government is a largely superfluous wasteful mess. Surely you must have grasped that I'm a centralist and generally cynical about localism? I think it has become that, but that is because of the centralism of Thatcher and Blair, to disconnect local power and autonomy for market solutions and/or central Government edicts based on modelling. This further promotes apathy in local democracy, which in turn enables, almost encourages, worsening local government which of course then reinforces the negative view of local government and promotes more attacks upon it. Without strong local input local Government officers operate on auto-pilot to DCLG direction, we have centralism with the expensive trappings of local authority. The solution is not to further rationalise operations and strip away the trappings of local democracy it is to gut and re-found local control. Far more effective and resilient 'municipal socialism' can be be created by more people than can be gifted to the populace by leaders.
That I wouldn't disagree with, but there would need to be some clear boundaries 1. Local authorities must again focus on running services, not just agreeing to dole out contracts for outsourced work 2. They need to have the ability to raise money and make genuine decisions, and if that means raising more money, so be it. The electorate can always throw them out 3. Local councillors need to start making decisions again, not this focus on casework when they have little actual influence on the issue concerned. That means abandonment of mayors, cabinet systems etc. 4. Like the Tories set caps on service provision in terms of money, Labour should ensure that councils like Wandsworth cannot treat their poorest like shit. If they want to prioritise bin collections, let them, but they can't do it at the expense of vital provision for the poorest. This is I suppose what I mean when I say I'm a centralist. I strongly support minimum standards enforced from the centre. I simply wouldn't allow Tory boroughs to farm out vital services required by those in the greatest need to the private sector, for example. 5. And this means that funding must also be sorted. The tactics of failing to ensure that the boroughs with the greatest social problems were properly funded and using special grants to make up the shortfall ended up with what we have now, but the effective depoliticisation of local government where Labour councils grit their teeth and carry out Tory cuts using the argument that it would be much worse under the Tories, and to feel they are still doing some good throw themselves into hours and hours of casework to make up for their lack of ability to deliver real change...that must cease. Municipal socialism has absolutely nothing to do with liberal 'localism' which is largely 'take the politics out of politics' writ large |
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,285
|
Post by cj on Apr 12, 2019 20:43:33 GMT
I think it has become that, but that is because of the centralism of Thatcher and Blair, to disconnect local power and autonomy for market solutions and/or central Government edicts based on modelling. This further promotes apathy in local democracy, which in turn enables, almost encourages, worsening local government which of course then reinforces the negative view of local government and promotes more attacks upon it. Without strong local input local Government officers operate on auto-pilot to DCLG direction, we have centralism with the expensive trappings of local authority. The solution is not to further rationalise operations and strip away the trappings of local democracy it is to gut and re-found local control. Far more effective and resilient 'municipal socialism' can be be created by more people than can be gifted to the populace by leaders.
That I wouldn't disagree with, but there would need to be some clear boundaries 1. Local authorities must again focus on running services, not just agreeing to dole out contracts for outsourced work 2. They need to have the ability to raise money and make genuine decisions, and if that means raising more money, so be it. The electorate can always throw them out 3. Local councillors need to start making decisions again, not this focus on casework when they have little actual influence on the issue concerned. That means abandonment of mayors, cabinet systems etc. 4. Like the Tories set caps on service provision in terms of money, Labour should ensure that councils like Wandsworth cannot treat their poorest like shit. If they want to prioritise bin collections, let them, but they can't do it at the expense of vital provision for the poorest. This is I suppose what I mean when I say I'm a centralist. I strongly support minimum standards enforced from the centre. I simply wouldn't allow Tory boroughs to farm out vital services required by those in the greatest need to the private sector, for example. 5. And this means that funding must also be sorted. The tactics of failing to ensure that the boroughs with the greatest social problems were properly funded and using special grants to make up the shortfall ended up with what we have now, but the effective depoliticisation of local government where Labour councils grit their teeth and carry out Tory cuts using the argument that it would be much worse under the Tories, and to feel they are still doing some good throw themselves into hours and hours of casework to make up for their lack of ability to deliver real change...that must cease. Municipal socialism has absolutely nothing to do with liberal 'localism' which is largely 'take the politics out of politics' writ large Ah, this is more understandable, and with the exception of casework* nothing that I would disagree with, I was genuinely taken aback by your previous post, I never had you down for a tankie!
The fragment in bold is something I have personal experience of just before parting ways with the local Labour group as they carried out 'neccessary' budget cuts to services whilst consistently chucked discretionary funding towards culture and tourism (the only area of cuts that the public were content according to an expensive local survey that the Labour cabinet decided to carry out).
* From my experiences of casework both in local government, welfare and as a trade unionist nothing is as good as casework at keeping you grounded, exploring loop-holes and failings in policy or process and avoiding the need to employ consultants.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Apr 12, 2019 21:10:34 GMT
* From my experiences of casework both in local government, welfare and as a trade unionist nothing is as good as casework at keeping you grounded, exploring loop-holes and failings in policy or process and avoiding the need to employ consultants. [/div][/quote] This. Casework should be subsidiary to the main role, but still important. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Apr 12, 2019 21:17:03 GMT
This reminds me a bit of being a teacher. A good teacher is not simply a lecturer. You can't teach children well if you don't question them, mark their books, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Apr 12, 2019 21:50:59 GMT
And another thing ....
Full-time councillors.
Shouldn't happen. Terrible idea. *
* Yes, I know it's almost inevitable in large unitaries and counties, but boy does it remove councillors from real life.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,440
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Apr 12, 2019 22:08:54 GMT
That I wouldn't disagree with, but there would need to be some clear boundaries 1. Local authorities must again focus on running services, not just agreeing to dole out contracts for outsourced work 2. They need to have the ability to raise money and make genuine decisions, and if that means raising more money, so be it. The electorate can always throw them out 3. Local councillors need to start making decisions again, not this focus on casework when they have little actual influence on the issue concerned. That means abandonment of mayors, cabinet systems etc. 4. Like the Tories set caps on service provision in terms of money, Labour should ensure that councils like Wandsworth cannot treat their poorest like shit. If they want to prioritise bin collections, let them, but they can't do it at the expense of vital provision for the poorest. This is I suppose what I mean when I say I'm a centralist. I strongly support minimum standards enforced from the centre. I simply wouldn't allow Tory boroughs to farm out vital services required by those in the greatest need to the private sector, for example. 5. And this means that funding must also be sorted. The tactics of failing to ensure that the boroughs with the greatest social problems were properly funded and using special grants to make up the shortfall ended up with what we have now, but the effective depoliticisation of local government where Labour councils grit their teeth and carry out Tory cuts using the argument that it would be much worse under the Tories, and to feel they are still doing some good throw themselves into hours and hours of casework to make up for their lack of ability to deliver real change...that must cease. Municipal socialism has absolutely nothing to do with liberal 'localism' which is largely 'take the politics out of politics' writ large Ah, this is more understandable, and with the exception of casework* nothing that I would disagree with, I was genuinely taken aback by your previous post, I never had you down for a tankie! The fragment in bold is something I have personal experience of just before parting ways with the local Labour group as they carried out 'neccessary' budget cuts to services whilst consistently chucked discretionary funding towards culture and tourism (the only area of cuts that the public were content according to an expensive local survey that the Labour cabinet decided to carry out). * From my experiences of casework both in local government, welfare and as a trade unionist nothing is as good as casework at keeping you grounded, exploring loop-holes and failings in policy or process and avoiding the need to employ consultants.
I have my tankie moments - I do get a bit irritated by those who look for reasons why we can't do something and I often think that whoever said that if Labour PM's looked after their class as well as the Tories look after theirs, we would do rather better. My feelings on casework is that its so often done so bloody badly. There are too many very self-important people in local government who love to spend time and energy writing letters and emails on topics which they have precisely no influence on at all, in the hope that something written by Councillor Whoever will do the trick. Its actually a bit of a con and builds peoples hopes up for nothing. My real beef with it, though, is that with the advent of the cabinet system most councillors have no influence over policy making, couldn't do scrutiny to save their lives, and so end up having nothing to do other than casework. So thats what they spend their time doing. LibDems absolutely love that sort of thing, hence the 'taking the politics out of politics' jibe. They get genuinely excited about pavements and dogshit. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 13, 2019 9:34:15 GMT
There is an argument that both Leonard and Drakeford are "place holders" before a younger left winger is ready to take over. Wouldn't be surprised. Let's not wait too long though, eh? They may well agree with that themselves tbf. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Apr 13, 2019 10:22:23 GMT
That is a huge number of polling stations, especially in an urban area! The electorate is about 24,000. The equivalent electorate in Croydon would have about 15 polling stations. Greenhead and Ashbrow wards in Huddersfield have 6 polling stations for ~13k voters, and Ashbrow is larger in area than Leith Walk I suspect. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Apr 13, 2019 10:31:50 GMT
Having spent 15 years training Citizens’ Advice volunteers I can think of few things more inappropriate and downright dangerous. Having the service run by volunteers is the main problem. I have been both a deputy manager and a management committee member of CABx. They do the best they can but it's not sufficiently well resourced. However they do far more use that the bulk of local councillors who are time wasting busybodies irrespective of party. Moving to the cabinet system has made most of them superfluous to requirements. I would also abolish the second chamber and stop Mps doing so-called casework which does nothing but waste the time of those trying their best to do a difficult job. The time MPs waste on that could be spent doing proper scrutiny work. Again with teeth - not the farcical excuse for it which goes on at local government level. It really makes hardly any difference who runs local councils these days. They run few services directly, can't set the budget they want, and most of the expenditure is prescribed - adult social care etc. The rhetoric changes but what a council can really do is so limited. Labour councillors can do little but impose central government cuts in a less damaging way. I think you have summed up very eloquently why I could never be a member of the Labour Party (where I have experienced this viewpoint many times, even though very rarely admitted)! We are talking about a very different spectrum from left and right and it is interesting how much you and Carlton agree on this sort of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 13, 2019 10:40:59 GMT
Wouldn't be surprised. Let's not wait too long though, eh? They may well agree with that themselves tbf. Aspiring Minister: So Prime Minister what would you like me to do now? Attlee: I want your portfolio. Aspiring Minister: But I don't understand... Attlee: Afraid you're just not up to it. Good Morning |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Apr 13, 2019 11:18:37 GMT
I think it has become that, but that is because of the centralism of Thatcher and Blair, to disconnect local power and autonomy for market solutions and/or central Government edicts based on modelling. This further promotes apathy in local democracy, which in turn enables, almost encourages, worsening local government which of course then reinforces the negative view of local government and promotes more attacks upon it. Without strong local input local Government officers operate on auto-pilot to DCLG direction, we have centralism with the expensive trappings of local authority. The solution is not to further rationalise operations and strip away the trappings of local democracy it is to gut and re-found local control. Far more effective and resilient 'municipal socialism' can be be created by more people than can be gifted to the populace by leaders.
That I wouldn't disagree with, but there would need to be some clear boundaries 1. Local authorities must again focus on running services, not just agreeing to dole out contracts for outsourced work 2. They need to have the ability to raise money and make genuine decisions, and if that means raising more money, so be it. The electorate can always throw them out 3. Local councillors need to start making decisions again, not this focus on casework when they have little actual influence on the issue concerned. That means abandonment of mayors, cabinet systems etc. 4. Like the Tories set caps on service provision in terms of money, Labour should ensure that councils like Wandsworth cannot treat their poorest like shit. If they want to prioritise bin collections, let them, but they can't do it at the expense of vital provision for the poorest. This is I suppose what I mean when I say I'm a centralist. I strongly support minimum standards enforced from the centre. I simply wouldn't allow Tory boroughs to farm out vital services required by those in the greatest need to the private sector, for example. 5. And this means that funding must also be sorted. The tactics of failing to ensure that the boroughs with the greatest social problems were properly funded and using special grants to make up the shortfall ended up with what we have now, but the effective depoliticisation of local government where Labour councils grit their teeth and carry out Tory cuts using the argument that it would be much worse under the Tories, and to feel they are still doing some good throw themselves into hours and hours of casework to make up for their lack of ability to deliver real change...that must cease. Municipal socialism has absolutely nothing to do with liberal 'localism' which is largely 'take the politics out of politics' writ large Well, I actually agree with much of that. But local councillors need to be rooted in the communities they serve (which also have different needs). At the moment we have a huge trust issue in politics, partly because politicians at all levels have stopped talking to local people (other than party members). There are so many safe seats where one leaflet at election time is the most anyone gets |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Apr 13, 2019 11:44:49 GMT
They may well agree with that themselves tbf. Aspiring Minister: So Prime Minister what would you like me to do now? Attlee: I want your portfolio. Aspiring Minister: But I don't understand... Attlee: Afraid you're just not up to it. Good Morning I have heard that story a few times. I am a great admirer of Attlee , but had I been spoken to in that way my response would have been 'Why not start with yourself?' |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 13, 2019 11:51:13 GMT
Aspiring Minister: So Prime Minister what would you like me to do now? Attlee: I want your portfolio. Aspiring Minister: But I don't understand... Attlee: Afraid you're just not up to it. Good Morning I have heard that story a few times. I am a great admirer of Attlee , but had I been spoken to in that way my response would have been 'Why not start with yourself?' Which would have rather proved his point. |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Apr 13, 2019 11:59:26 GMT
I have heard that story a few times. I am a great admirer of Attlee , but had I been spoken to in that way my response would have been 'Why not start with yourself?' Which would have rather proved his point. I am not sure that follows. It would not have been an unreasonable response - unlike giving Attlee a mouthful of abuse by inviting him to 'Go and f... himself'.! |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 13, 2019 12:22:49 GMT
Aspiring Minister: So Prime Minister what would you like me to do now? Attlee: I want your portfolio. Aspiring Minister: But I don't understand... Attlee: Afraid you're just not up to it. Good Morning I have heard that story a few times. I am a great admirer of Attlee , but had I been spoken to in that way my response would have been 'Why not start with yourself?' Ah! But the PM holds the microphone and he was just a member of the audience to be laughed at. Quiet and dull but decisive and concise in his actions. Would that.................. ? |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 13, 2019 16:45:04 GMT
Am I supposed to understand the Attlee/portfolio anecdote? What portfolio?
|
|
