|
|
Post by Admin Twaddleford on Mar 13, 2020 20:46:09 GMT
North Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
Post by David Boothroyd on Feb 22, 2021 20:29:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by london(ex)tory on Feb 23, 2021 9:04:39 GMT
"Rescheduling local elections avoids the possibility of the electorate being asked to vote for councils while at the same time they are being given the opportunity to express their views on the possible abolition of those councils."Why not just use the elections (which surely represent the easiest and most effective way for the electorate to engage with their local authorities) as the "opportunity to express their views"? Or would that be too heretical an idea?
|
|
finsobruce
Labour
Adopt an orphan ward now!
Posts: 32,021 
Member is Online
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 23, 2021 9:18:36 GMT
"Rescheduling local elections avoids the possibility of the electorate being asked to vote for councils while at the same time they are being given the opportunity to express their views on the possible abolition of those councils."Why not just use the elections (which surely represent the easiest and most effective way for the electorate to engage with their local authorities) as the "opportunity to express their views"? Or would that be too heretical an idea? They are going to do what they want to do regardless of 'local opinion', and not having an election will help this.  No chance of 'oppose the change' candidates for one thing. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 8,327
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 23, 2021 9:52:37 GMT
"Rescheduling local elections avoids the possibility of the electorate being asked to vote for councils while at the same time they are being given the opportunity to express their views on the possible abolition of those councils."Why not just use the elections (which surely represent the easiest and most effective way for the electorate to engage with their local authorities) as the "opportunity to express their views"? Or would that be too heretical an idea? NYCC made a case that doing so would be opening up the election to people getting elected opposed to what the NYCC wanted to do. |
|
|
|
Post by london(ex)tory on Feb 23, 2021 11:51:31 GMT
"Rescheduling local elections avoids the possibility of the electorate being asked to vote for councils while at the same time they are being given the opportunity to express their views on the possible abolition of those councils."Why not just use the elections (which surely represent the easiest and most effective way for the electorate to engage with their local authorities) as the "opportunity to express their views"? Or would that be too heretical an idea? NYCC made a case that doing so would be opening up the election to people getting elected opposed to what the NYCC wanted to do. That's why I suggested letting the voters decide in the time honoured way of voting would be a heretical idea! I honestly don't know what I think in abstract terms on the core question of unitarisation. I have lived in areas that have two tier local government, I have lived in areas with a single tier and right now I live in London so in theory we have single tier but then we have the GLA as well. I can see the argument for cutting duplication and waste, but I also see the need to keep local government genuinely local - otherwise what is the point of it in the first place? But right now, with all that is going on re: covid and the recovery from it, I just can't see how any degree of local government reorganisation can be a priority for anyone. Surely we need all levels of government - local, national and (where it exists) regional - to focus relentlessly on getting society and the economy back up and running properly, rather than wasting energy, time and resource on arguments over how the deckchairs are arranged. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 8,327
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 23, 2021 13:08:46 GMT
NYCC made a case that doing so would be opening up the election to people getting elected opposed to what the NYCC wanted to do. That's why I suggested letting the voters decide in the time honoured way of voting would be a heretical idea! I honestly don't know what I think in abstract terms on the core question of unitarisation. I have lived in areas that have two tier local government, I have lived in areas with a single tier and right now I live in London so in theory we have single tier but then we have the GLA as well. I can see the argument for cutting duplication and waste, but I also see the need to keep local government genuinely local - otherwise what is the point of it in the first place? But right now, with all that is going on re: covid and the recovery from it, I just can't see how any degree of local government reorganisation can be a priority for anyone. Surely we need all levels of government - local, national and (where it exists) regional - to focus relentlessly on getting society and the economy back up and running properly, rather than wasting energy, time and resource on arguments over how the deckchairs are arranged. Horses for courses. The biggest failing of the last 50 years of local government reform is trying to impose a single model on the whole country. Unitaries fine for coherent urban areas - modern county boroughs Unitaries with a megacity coordinating authority for Greater X's. Greater Manchester, Greater London, Greater Birmingham. Not Greater Sheffield, not Greater Leeds. Two-tier for large rural areas. North Yorkshire. And then there's that line between rural and urban that's always going to be argued over. If properly-drawn Leicester is a city unitary, is the rest of Leciestershire a two-tier county or a unitary county? etc. Should Halifax County Borough go all the way to the edge of Rochdale? etc. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Don't vote. It only encourages them.
Posts: 32,141
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 23, 2021 13:21:34 GMT
That's why I suggested letting the voters decide in the time honoured way of voting would be a heretical idea! I honestly don't know what I think in abstract terms on the core question of unitarisation. I have lived in areas that have two tier local government, I have lived in areas with a single tier and right now I live in London so in theory we have single tier but then we have the GLA as well. I can see the argument for cutting duplication and waste, but I also see the need to keep local government genuinely local - otherwise what is the point of it in the first place? But right now, with all that is going on re: covid and the recovery from it, I just can't see how any degree of local government reorganisation can be a priority for anyone. Surely we need all levels of government - local, national and (where it exists) regional - to focus relentlessly on getting society and the economy back up and running properly, rather than wasting energy, time and resource on arguments over how the deckchairs are arranged. Horses for courses. The biggest failing of the last 50 years of local government reform is trying to impose a single model on the whole country. Unitaries fine for coherent urban areas - modern county boroughs Unitaries with a megacity coordinating authority for Greater X's. Greater Manchester, Greater London, Greater Birmingham. Not Greater Sheffield, not Greater Leeds. Two-tier for large rural areas. North Yorkshire. And then there's that line between rural and urban that's always going to be argued over. If properly-drawn Leicester is a city unitary, is the rest of Leciestershire a two-tier county or a unitary county? etc. Should Halifax County Borough go all the way to the edge of Rochdale? etc. The outcome is an incoherent patchwork quilt of chaos. All for a layer of Government which if replaced by non elected commissioners would be in practice exactly the same. Only cheaper. Unless local government is to be given tax raising powers and something to actually run - that doesn't include outsourcing - we may as well get rid. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 8,327
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 23, 2021 20:29:57 GMT
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Er/ihn/ihm
Posts: 5,190
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 23, 2021 22:25:42 GMT
That's why I suggested letting the voters decide in the time honoured way of voting would be a heretical idea! I honestly don't know what I think in abstract terms on the core question of unitarisation. I have lived in areas that have two tier local government, I have lived in areas with a single tier and right now I live in London so in theory we have single tier but then we have the GLA as well. I can see the argument for cutting duplication and waste, but I also see the need to keep local government genuinely local - otherwise what is the point of it in the first place? But right now, with all that is going on re: covid and the recovery from it, I just can't see how any degree of local government reorganisation can be a priority for anyone. Surely we need all levels of government - local, national and (where it exists) regional - to focus relentlessly on getting society and the economy back up and running properly, rather than wasting energy, time and resource on arguments over how the deckchairs are arranged. Horses for courses. The biggest failing of the last 50 years of local government reform is trying to impose a single model on the whole country. That was its biggest and most laudable ambition, not a failing. Sadly at least 3 areas I can think of were left as exceptions even then: the City of London, the Isles of Scilly and County Fermanagh. Beyond that it was uniform, but it already started to unravel in the 1980s, unfortunately. I do think there should be some flexibility though: three-tier local government for areas that want to be parished, two-tier local government for everywhere else. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 17,915
|
Post by neilm on Feb 28, 2021 13:01:16 GMT
Horses for courses. The biggest failing of the last 50 years of local government reform is trying to impose a single model on the whole country. That was its biggest and most laudable ambition, not a failing. Sadly at least 3 areas I can think of were left as exceptions even then: the City of London, the Isles of Scilly and County Fermanagh. Beyond that it was uniform, but it already started to unravel in the 1980s, unfortunately. I do think there should be some flexibility though: three-tier local government for areas that want to be parished, two-tier local government for everywhere else. What's the situation in County Fermanagh? |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Er/ihn/ihm
Posts: 5,190
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 28, 2021 23:10:54 GMT
That was its biggest and most laudable ambition, not a failing. Sadly at least 3 areas I can think of were left as exceptions even then: the City of London, the Isles of Scilly and County Fermanagh. Beyond that it was uniform, but it already started to unravel in the 1980s, unfortunately. I do think there should be some flexibility though: three-tier local government for areas that want to be parished, two-tier local government for everywhere else. What's the situation in County Fermanagh? Now? It's part of Fermanagah and Omagh UA, which confusingly enough seems to call itself a district council. My point was that from 1972 to 1994 I think it was the only recognised county in the whole UK (other than the City) not to have any districts or boroughs within it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Mar 1, 2021 10:16:31 GMT
What's the situation in County Fermanagh? Now? It's part of Fermanagah and Omagh UA, which confusingly enough seems to call itself a district council. My point was that from 1972 to 1994 I think it was the only recognised county in the whole UK (other than the City) not to have any districts or boroughs within it. Fermanagh was actually a unitary authority from 1968 when Enniskillen borough and the county's three rural districts were merged into the county council. But it wasn't a county council from 1973 to 2015, it was a district council. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Er/ihn/ihm
Posts: 5,190
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 1, 2021 20:20:40 GMT
Now? It's part of Fermanagah and Omagh UA, which confusingly enough seems to call itself a district council. My point was that from 1972 to 1994 I think it was the only recognised county in the whole UK (other than the City) not to have any districts or boroughs within it. Fermanagh was actually a unitary authority from 1968 when Enniskillen borough and the county's three rural districts were merged into the county council. But it wasn't a county council from 1973 to 2015, it was a district council. Thanks for the clarification. It was a district with no county above it rather than a county with no districts beneath it, then. But it was and is still commonly referred to as County Fermanagh, just like all traditional Irish counties are often prefixed with 'County'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Mar 1, 2021 22:11:30 GMT
Fermanagh was actually a unitary authority from 1968 when Enniskillen borough and the county's three rural districts were merged into the county council. But it wasn't a county council from 1973 to 2015, it was a district council. Thanks for the clarification. It was a district with no county above it rather than a county with no districts beneath it, then. But it was and is still commonly referred to as County Fermanagh, just like all traditional Irish counties are often prefixed with 'County'. A couple of years back I found myself in conversation with the then Lord-Lieutenant of County Antrim, who was a lovely lady. Lieutenancy is about the only thing Northern Irish counties are still used for. Every other county function went with the Troubles. |
|
|
|
Post by David Boothroyd on Mar 1, 2021 22:17:00 GMT
One thing that's often overlooked is that the reform of local government in 1973 which created the 26 district councils in NI was actually passed by the Stormont Parliament - not imposed under direct rule. It was about the last thing Stormont did.
|
|
No chance of 'oppose the change' candidates for one thing. 
