|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 10, 2020 8:48:39 GMT
I’m amazed that Buckinghamshire Council has 200 councillors. Will that number go down after the next/first election?
Are there any Councils with more?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 10, 2020 8:50:35 GMT
I’m amazed that Buckinghamshire Council has 200 councillors. Will that number go down after the next/first election? Are there any Councils with more? Bucks was supposed to have elections in May, at which the county council divisions would have been used with each electing three councillors. That would mean 147 councillors. |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 10, 2020 8:54:10 GMT
I’m amazed that Buckinghamshire Council has 200 councillors. Will that number go down after the next/first election? Are there any Councils with more? Bucks was supposed to have elections in May, at which the county council divisions would have been used with each electing three councillors. That would mean 147 councillors. Thanks. 147 still sounds quite big. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 10, 2020 9:05:56 GMT
I'm sure that the proposals to unitarise Somerset, East Sussex, Surrey, are down to genuine desire for improvements to democracy and local services and for no other reason.  |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 10, 2020 9:19:22 GMT
While I am at it, I might as well offer my solution for Kent as well. I would suggest 5 unitaries:
Medway& Swale (merger of existing Medway unitary with Swale Borough) 428k
South Kent (merger of Ashford, F&H, and Dover) 365k
Canterbury & Thanet (as it says on the tin) 307k
Mid Kent (merger of Maidstone, Tonbridge & Malling and Tunbridge Wells) 420k
West Kent(merger of Dartford Gravesham and Sevenoaks) 335k
If it were permissable to break up existing districts that could be improved by say moving the Faversham end of Swale into C&T and some of TW (Tunbridge Wells itself? into West Kent)
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,474 
|
Post by peterl on Jul 10, 2020 9:57:20 GMT
Bucks was supposed to have elections in May, at which the county council divisions would have been used with each electing three councillors. That would mean 147 councillors. Thanks. 147 still sounds quite big. Am I right in thinking that 147 makes it the largest council (by number of seats) ever seen in this country? (Not counting the current pre-election arrangement that is). |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Jul 10, 2020 10:03:47 GMT
While I am at it, I might as well offer my solution for Kent as well. I would suggest 5 unitaries: Medway& Swale (merger of existing Medway unitary with Swale Borough) 428k South Kent (merger of Ashford, F&H, and Dover) 365k Canterbury & Thanet (as it says on the tin) 307k Mid Kent (merger of Maidstone, Tonbridge & Malling and Tunbridge Wells) 420k West Kent(merger of Dartford Gravesham and Sevenoaks) 335k If it were permissable to break up existing districts that could be improved by say moving the Faversham end of Swale into C&T and some of TW (Tunbridge Wells itself? into West Kent) I'd break it all up and start from scratch, ignoring current districts and wards, and splitting the area administered by KCC into three. As a rough guide, with suggested names: Garden of England: Maidstone, Tonbridge, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Sevenoaks (excluding the northern parts, round Swanley). Compost Heap: Medway, Swale excluding Faversham area, Gravesham, Dartford, northern Sevenoaks (Swanley area). France: Ashford, Dover, Folkestone & Hythe, Fannit and the Faversham end of Swale. Ideally I'd add parts of Bexley to Compost Heap, and parts of Bromley to both Garden of England and Compost Heap. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 10, 2020 10:34:21 GMT
Thanks. 147 still sounds quite big. Am I right in thinking that 147 makes it the largest council (by number of seats) ever seen in this country? (Not counting the current pre-election arrangement that is). No. Liverpool had 160 pre-1974. There may be another couple with larger councils...Birmingham (156). |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 10, 2020 12:22:41 GMT
The districts need to quickly get off the mark and put together a rival proposal to abolish the county council. I think they're too small to be acceptable to the Government as unitaries, so they'd have to propose some mergers. OTOH Surrey as a whole really ought to be too big to be acceptable as a unitary. Because their population is below 250,000? This is an arbitrary figure that does not take into account genuine local needs and connections. Many unitary authorities created during Sir John Major's tenure as Prime Minister have populations well below 250,000 today. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,846
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 10, 2020 15:14:22 GMT
The districts need to quickly get off the mark and put together a rival proposal to abolish the county council. What would anyone suggest for the best merger of the present 11 Surrey districts down to say 3 or 4 unitaries? For 4 unitaries I might suggest:Surrey Heath+ Runnymede+ Woking (276k); Spelthorne+ Elmbridge (232k); Guildford+ Waverley (273k); Epsom&Ewell+Mole Valley+Reigate&Banstead+ Tandridge (392k). For 3 unitaries: Surrey Heath+Runnymede+Spelthorne+Elmbridge (405k); Guildford+Waverley +Woking (373k); Epsom& Ewell+Mole Valley+Reigate& Banstead+ Tandridge (392k) Labour have been quick off the mark, and going against their innate knee-jerk automatic centralising reaction to abolish districts, have proposed:
Similar to your initial stab, with details in the northern bits. The numbers look about right. Without knowing the locality in details, I'll bring up my usual point that re-organisations always get bogged down in keeping the existing lumps and never seem to countanance adjusting the final boundaries.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,846
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 10, 2020 15:17:59 GMT
I'd break it all up and start from scratch, ignoring current districts and wards, and splitting the area administered by KCC into three.
Quoted to like that specific sentence. Too many times re-organisations refuse to look away from the pre-existing units, often making the new lumps just as arbitary as the old lumps.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 10, 2020 15:41:05 GMT
I'd break it all up and start from scratch, ignoring current districts and wards, and splitting the area administered by KCC into three.
Quoted to like that specific sentence. Too many times re-organisations refuse to look away from the pre-existing units, often making the new lumps just as arbitary as the old lumps.
I understand your point, and there are places which cry out for a rethink from first principles, but where that is not the case it is a lot easier simply to merge two (or three , or four) existing authorities, without redrawing boundaries just for the sake of it. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 10, 2020 15:52:20 GMT
I think they're too small to be acceptable to the Government as unitaries, so they'd have to propose some mergers. OTOH Surrey as a whole really ought to be too big to be acceptable as a unitary. Because their population is below 250,000? This is an arbitrary figure that does not take into account genuine local needs and connections. Many unitary authorities created during Sir John Major's tenure as Prime Minister have populations well below 250,000 today. But a number of those smaller unitaries are exactly the ones now struggling to survive. I agree one should not get hung up with exact numbers, but I firmly believe authorities running a full range of functions work best where the population lies between 250k and 500k. It may work with authorities smaller than that where it is possible to share some fuctions, but that so easily can get messy. I'm not too keen on authorities at this level much bigger than that, either- hence I don't like the idea of Shire Unitaries-with a few big cities like Birmingham it may be unavoidable. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,846
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 10, 2020 15:59:41 GMT
Quoted to like that specific sentence. Too many times re-organisations refuse to look away from the pre-existing units, often making the new lumps just as arbitary as the old lumps. I understand your point, and there are places which cry out for a rethink from first principles, but where that is not the case it is a lot easier simply to merge two (or three , or four) existing authorities, without redrawing boundaries just for the sake of it. As an example. if I was redrawing North Yorkshire, I'd merge Scarborough & Ryedale, but also add in northern bits of Hambleton (more-or-less use the A19 as the split):
That would end up in the position that two unitary districts would best fit, but the usual "glue bits together" method gives this, which is just so wrong: |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jul 10, 2020 16:03:08 GMT
Because their population is below 250,000? This is an arbitrary figure that does not take into account genuine local needs and connections. Many unitary authorities created during Sir John Major's tenure as Prime Minister have populations well below 250,000 today. But a number of those smaller unitaries are exactly the ones now struggling to survive. I agree one should not get hung up with exact numbers, but I firmly believe authorities running a full range of functions work best where the population lies between 250k and 500k. It may work with authorities smaller than that where it is possible to share some fuctions, but that so easily can get messy. I'm not too keen on authorities at this level much bigger than that, either- hence I don't like the idea of Shire Unitaries-with a few big cities like Birmingham it may be unavoidable. I largely agree. There's a huge range in sizes of unitaries with the ridiculous John Major creation, Rutland, at the bottom. Small unitaries must struggle to run the full range of services, economically, with quality professional leadership. There is scope for partnership working but geography (and silliness) can get in the way.
In some cases, as has been done in instances in this round, simply merging smaller adjacent districts and keeping the County may be the best option. In very rural counties where sustainable unitaries woulld be too large in geography that would be better than forcing either a county unitary or very large district mergers.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 10, 2020 19:02:00 GMT
I understand your point, and there are places which cry out for a rethink from first principles, but where that is not the case it is a lot easier simply to merge two (or three , or four) existing authorities, without redrawing boundaries just for the sake of it. As an example. if I was redrawing North Yorkshire, I'd merge Scarborough & Ryedale, but also add in northern bits of Hambleton (more-or-less use the A19 as the split):
That would end up in the position that two unitary districts would best fit, but the usual "glue bits together" method gives this, which is just so wrong: The first option is much better; geographical size needs to be taken into consideration as well as population. Why was Selby ever moved into North Yorkshire when it has far better connections with East Yorkshire (and for that matter, Leeds in the old West Riding of Yorkshire)? North Yorkshire would still have been large enough without it! |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 10, 2020 19:07:24 GMT
I'd break it all up and start from scratch, ignoring current districts and wards, and splitting the area administered by KCC into three. As a rough guide, with suggested names: Garden of England: Maidstone, Tonbridge, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Sevenoaks (excluding the northern parts, round Swanley). Compost Heap: Medway, Swale excluding Faversham area, Gravesham, Dartford, northern Sevenoaks (Swanley area). France: Ashford, Dover, Folkestone & Hythe, Fannit and the Faversham end of Swale. Ideally I'd add parts of Bexley to Compost Heap, and parts of Bromley to both Garden of England and Compost Heap. Just have two unitaries called Kentish County Council and County Council of Kent. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jul 10, 2020 20:14:06 GMT
I understand your point, and there are places which cry out for a rethink from first principles, but where that is not the case it is a lot easier simply to merge two (or three , or four) existing authorities, without redrawing boundaries just for the sake of it. As an example. if I was redrawing North Yorkshire, I'd merge Scarborough & Ryedale, but also add in northern bits of Hambleton (more-or-less use the A19 as the split):
That would end up in the position that two unitary districts would best fit, but the usual "glue bits together" method gives this, which is just so wrong: If I was feeling particularly daring, I would also reform the northernmost parts of the county. Middlesbrough would expand to take Thornaby and the suburban areas around Eston, while East Cleveland and Yarm would become part of the Scarborough/Ryedale/Stokesley authority. Redcar and Ingleby Barwick could feasily go either way, so I'd suggest a referendum in both (I expect the former to vote to join Middlesbrough and the latter would vote massively against Middlesbrough). This would abolish Redcar and Cleveland, and would also pacify the many Yarm residents who want to be free from the yoke of Stockton. While it would destroy the former EU regional boundary, I'm not sure this is used for all that much any more (and this is hardly an area known for its love of the EU). |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 11, 2020 2:23:13 GMT
What would anyone suggest for the best merger of the present 11 Surrey districts down to say 3 or 4 unitaries? For 4 unitaries I might suggest:Surrey Heath+ Runnymede+ Woking (276k); Spelthorne+ Elmbridge (232k); Guildford+ Waverley (273k); Epsom&Ewell+Mole Valley+Reigate&Banstead+ Tandridge (392k). For 3 unitaries: Surrey Heath+Runnymede+Spelthorne+Elmbridge (405k); Guildford+Waverley +Woking (373k); Epsom& Ewell+Mole Valley+Reigate& Banstead+ Tandridge (392k) Labour have been quick off the mark, and going against their innate knee-jerk automatic centralising reaction to abolish districts, have proposed:
Similar to your initial stab, with details in the northern bits. The numbers look about right. Without knowing the locality in details, I'll bring up my usual point that re-organisations always get bogged down in keeping the existing lumps and never seem to countanance adjusting the final boundaries.
Merge Elmbridge,Spelthorne and the parts of Runnymede and Woking inside the M25 into a new London Borough of Staines.Then merge Epsom and Ewell and the parts of Mole Valley,Reigate and Banstead and Tandridge inside the M25 into a new London Borough of Epsom. Finally,organise the unitaries in the rump Surrey as follows : 1) North Surrey or Surrey Vale - most of Woking,Surrey Heath and most of Runnymede. 2) Surrey Hills or Surrey Downs - Guildford and Waverley. 3) East Surrey - Mole Valley,most of Reigate and Banstead and most of Tandridge. |
|
|
|
Post by bigfatron on Jul 11, 2020 8:25:29 GMT
Spelthorne may well want to join Greater London, which it has far more in common with than the rest of Surrey.
You#d probably link Runnymede, Woking and Elmbridge together; likewise Guildford, Waverley and Mole Valley. Surrey Heath could go with either.
Tandridge and Reigate & Banstead sensibly go together also, and Epsom & Ewell would either become part of London or could fit with Reigate/Tandridge.
HQs in Redhill (East Surrey), Guildford (South West Surrey) and Woking (North West Surrey)
One Surrey CC is simply a Tory power grab and will be unbearably clunky - more than 1m residents!
Edit: and the residents of Caterham would be absolutely horrified to be part of a borough of Epsom - no public transport links, which all run north/south.
Labour's proposal seems quite sensible... though I still reckon Spelthorne are more interested in joining London as a 33rd(?) borough
|
|
