maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,984
|
Post by maxque on Jan 1, 2023 23:20:25 GMT
And yet, your party is the one who started that harmful trend and refuses to back any action to reverse it. You're going to have to explain that one. Reducing the overall number of councillors has been a trend going on for a very long time. Each successive change since the establishment of district councils at the end of the 19th century has resulted in fewer members of local authorities, and most of them have been carried out by Conservative governments. Which party was in power during Cornwall, Durham and Northumberland unitarisation? Who published the white paper that led to it?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 1, 2023 23:52:05 GMT
You're going to have to explain that one. Reducing the overall number of councillors has been a trend going on for a very long time. Each successive change since the establishment of district councils at the end of the 19th century has resulted in fewer members of local authorities, and most of them have been carried out by Conservative governments. Which party was in power during Cornwall, Durham and Northumberland unitarisation? Who published the white paper that led to it? Why pick on that change? What about the Banham commission and the unitaries in Berkshire, Avon, Cleveland and Humberside? What about the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils? What about the 1974 reforms which cut the number of local elected officials by something like two thirds in one go?
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,984
|
Post by maxque on Jan 2, 2023 0:06:22 GMT
Which party was in power during Cornwall, Durham and Northumberland unitarisation? Who published the white paper that led to it? Why pick on that change? What about the Banham commission and the unitaries in Berkshire, Avon, Cleveland and Humberside? What about the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils? What about the 1974 reforms which cut the number of local elected officials by something like two thirds in one go? Because that's the last time Labour was in power? It's more relevent to the current parties behaviour than the 1974 reforms or the Poor Law Unions.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 2, 2023 0:39:56 GMT
Why pick on that change? What about the Banham commission and the unitaries in Berkshire, Avon, Cleveland and Humberside? What about the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils? What about the 1974 reforms which cut the number of local elected officials by something like two thirds in one go? Because that's the last time Labour was in power? You're therefore admitting this is a circular argument. Your claim that Labour "started the harmful trend" of reducing the number of elected officials depends on arbitrarily picking a change made under a Labour government as the point from which to measure when the trend started. Unless you can produce a specific, objective justification for picking that point, why not admit defeat?
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,282
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jan 2, 2023 0:47:23 GMT
It's a technocratic position that governments of both parties have been persuaded by for a long time, not anything partisan or ideological in character. The (mistaken) view is that local government would be more capable, more responsive, more accountable and less corrupt if there were fewer councils, fewer councillors and if those councillors were more professional than was historically the case in Britain. The same general position also explains the mania for executive mayors and, again, there's no partisan pattern to support or hostility to that concept.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,531
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 2, 2023 10:39:12 GMT
Why pick on that change? What about the Banham commission and the unitaries in Berkshire, Avon, Cleveland and Humberside? What about the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils? What about the 1974 reforms which cut the number of local elected officials by something like two thirds in one go? Because that's the last time Labour was in power? It's more relevent to the current parties behaviour than the 1974 reforms or the Poor Law Unions. Your original statement was that Labour "started" this process of cutting back councils and councillors. Even treating the 1986 local authority abolitions as a one-off, the move away from the 1973 local government settlement began under the Major administration in the mid 1990s when the first non-Met unitaries came into being.
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jan 2, 2023 11:55:11 GMT
Why pick on that change? What about the Banham commission and the unitaries in Berkshire, Avon, Cleveland and Humberside? What about the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils? What about the 1974 reforms which cut the number of local elected officials by something like two thirds in one go? Because that's the last time Labour was in power? It's more relevent to the current parties behaviour than the 1974 reforms or the Poor Law Unions. That's not even an arbitrary choice of starting date but one chosen to be skewed. Just look at the total number of councillors in the UK that has been eroded by merger, abolition and the paring of elected members even in authorities that have stayed intact. David B is correct and has also omits other factors such as the creation of Unitary Councils in the mid 1990s which ripped large areas away from their previous counties.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 2, 2023 11:56:24 GMT
It's a technocratic position that governments of both parties have been persuaded by for a long time, not anything partisan or ideological in character. The (mistaken) view is that local government would be more capable, more responsive, more accountable and less corrupt if there were fewer councils, fewer councillors and if those councillors were more professional than was historically the case in Britain. The same general position also explains the mania for executive mayors and, again, there's no partisan pattern to support or hostility to that concept. Even now many councils are still stuck in this mindset-in reality reducing councillor numbers reduces accountability and efficiency.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,047
|
Post by peterl on Jan 2, 2023 13:35:31 GMT
It's a technocratic position that governments of both parties have been persuaded by for a long time, not anything partisan or ideological in character. The (mistaken) view is that local government would be more capable, more responsive, more accountable and less corrupt if there were fewer councils, fewer councillors and if those councillors were more professional than was historically the case in Britain. The same general position also explains the mania for executive mayors and, again, there's no partisan pattern to support or hostility to that concept. For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,984
|
Post by maxque on Jan 2, 2023 18:14:09 GMT
It's a technocratic position that governments of both parties have been persuaded by for a long time, not anything partisan or ideological in character. The (mistaken) view is that local government would be more capable, more responsive, more accountable and less corrupt if there were fewer councils, fewer councillors and if those councillors were more professional than was historically the case in Britain. The same general position also explains the mania for executive mayors and, again, there's no partisan pattern to support or hostility to that concept. That's feeding in my point. By embracing failed technocrats, both parties are betraying their electors and the country.
|
|
|
Post by jm on Jan 4, 2023 13:49:11 GMT
I am not averse to a reasonable reduction in councillor numbers in some cases, providing they are all elected in single member wards.
Take the East Riding, for example, massive 3-member wards that are the size of the pre-1974 districts. The answer is not more councillors but to divide the wards into smaller units. Why does the LGBCE insist on 3-member wards in London when they are all-ups every four years? Multi-member wards only make sense if you are electing by thirds or halves.
In Bassetlaw we have 48 councillors which is far too many for a small district council. Reduce the number of councillors and split the wards. We have a LGBCE review after the May 23 elections and I hope this is rectified
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,512
|
Post by European Lefty on Jan 4, 2023 19:47:16 GMT
Flexibility around Cllr numbers allows for better boundaries. Dursley (the neighbouring ward to me) is a single, contained town and the right size for three cllrs. Splitting it into three wards just because you want single-member wards would be insane and ridiculous
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 4, 2023 20:28:05 GMT
I am not averse to a reasonable reduction in councillor numbers in some cases, providing they are all elected in single member wards. Take the East Riding, for example, massive 3-member wards that are the size of the pre-1974 districts. The answer is not more councillors but to divide the wards into smaller units. Why does the LGBCE insist on 3-member wards in London when they are all-ups every four years? Multi-member wards only make sense if you are electing by thirds or halves. In Bassetlaw we have 48 councillors which is far too many for a small district council. Reduce the number of councillors and split the wards. We have a LGBCE review after the May 23 elections and I hope this is rectified If you look at the LGBCE reviews for London boroughs that were implemented for last year's London elections, you will find that most of the boroughs contain at least one ward which does not have 3 members; in fact some London boroughs have single member wards (e.g. Park Hill & Whitgift in Croydon)!
|
|
Wisconsin
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,051
Member is Online
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jan 5, 2023 0:31:14 GMT
Multi-member wards only make sense if you are electing by thirds or halves. Have you never been lumbered with a lazy and/or crap councillor?
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 5, 2023 11:26:28 GMT
It's a somewhat misleading write-up. The LGBCE proposed a reduction from 78 to 70 following a joint report signed off on by both the Conservative and Labour groups on the council, so whatever the circumstances under which 99 councillors were proposed (and that is too many for the area, frankly) it's clearly not one that a majority of the council support any longer.
|
|
WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,089
|
Post by WJ on Jan 19, 2023 13:58:31 GMT
Consultations for Shropshire UA have been open since the 22nd of November and will be open until the 30th of January. Timetable here: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/west-midlands/shropshire/shropshire-unitary-authority-uaThe number of councillors will stay at 74. A quick look at the numbers suggests that there will need to be considerable changes in the Shifnal area, which needs at least one extra councillor* and Shrewsbury requires at least one extra too. These could potentially come at the expense of Bridgnorth and the SW. Something odd is happening in Prees too (odder than normal that is). However the rest of the county by and large will just need a little bit of shuffling here and there to get each ward into shape. Ward division boundaries are pretty sensible at the moment, with the notable exception of the Loton and Tern divisions which are abominable. In particular the Loton division which contains two very different sets of communities, completely cut off from one another by a bridgeless Severn. To get from north to south you need to either head east to Montford Bridge or west into Wales. *Why the hell Shifnal, Cosford and Albrighton remain in Shropshire and did not find themselves in Telford and Wrekin is a complete mystery to me. They really don't fit, but I guess that's a story for another thread... I made an error here. the LGBCE has proposed to keep the number of councillors at 74. The council have published a proposal to up the number by 2 to 76. A summary of the council's justification of this is below, the full proposal can be found here: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/West%20Midlands/Shropshire/Council%20Size%20Submission%20Template%20-%2004.10.22%20(002).pdfA pretty minor change that seems fairly reasonable to me.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,607
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 19, 2023 16:26:28 GMT
A pretty minor change that seems fairly reasonable to me. When Scarborough Borough Council's ward review was starting, we asked the commissioners of there was leaway to adjust the final figures if it was discovered in the warding process that the numbers made things fiddly, and they assured us minor adjustments were possible. In the end we went up from the initial proposal of 45 to 46 (down from 50) which allowed Scarborough Town to be an exact set of 3xN wards.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,280
|
Post by YL on Feb 14, 2023 9:18:43 GMT
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,841
|
Post by jamie on Feb 14, 2023 12:31:23 GMT
The councils proposals were in some cases outright mad, so the Conservatives seem to have won by default (though there is a lot of good in their proposals nonetheless). In particular, the councils defence of 3 wards being beyond the 10% variance (“these are long established, geographically contained communities and any splitting of those communities would be wholly artificial”) is pretty disprovable by a quick glance at the repeated artificial splitting of geographically contained communities they themselves propose. Positives/Negatives: The Monkseaton/Whitley Bay Area remains a mess, but the proposed boundaries are an improvement on the status quo. The proposed Tynemouth ward is a vast improvement on the status quo, losing the east of North Shields. The splitting of Marden is unfortunate, but on balance necessary. The Conservatives will be very happy if these ward boundaries are adopted. The new ‘Preston with Preston Grange’ ward is also very good, and also coincidentally very good for the Conservatives. The abomination that is Riverside (so awful even the BCE wanted it split for Parliamentary purposes) is abolished, with Howdon being added to Howdon ward, the Meadow Well area being added to Chirton and the rest of Meadow Well ward, and central North Shields being included in a ward with, God forbid, the rest of central North Shields. Northumberland ward has been recognised as what it is, Wallsend North. Benton ward includes even less of Forest Hall so is renamed ‘Benton and Forest Hall’, as you do. Holystone should be renamed ‘North Tyneside Central’ and be done with it. ‘Annitsford, Burradon and Backworth’ is not as awful as it sounds, but it’s clear which end of the borough the commission started at. Not sure whether to read anything into the commission having a subsection entitled ‘Northern North Tyneside’ stretching from Wideopen to northern Whitley Bay, which is not a geographic division of North Tyneside I, or anybody else in the world, had ever previously considered or hopefully ever will again. TLDR: All in all a surprisingly good set of proposals, and in many cases an improvement on the current ward boundaries, albeit the North West of the borough remains a mess that I hope will be partially fixed in the revised proposals. I don’t know if wysall has any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 14, 2023 19:32:28 GMT
This morning, approximately at the corner of Churchill Way and Exchange Street, Macclesfield, I saw this, and naturally assumed that everybody here would want to see it.
|
|