ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on May 27, 2021 8:44:11 GMT
Indeed, and we see similar situations on the fringes of Nottingham (where Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe are involved) and Leicester (Charnwood and Blaby). But then there always has to be a boundary somewhere and it's never going to be perfect. I’m of the opinion that a boundary through the middle of a field tends to be a lot better than a boundary through the middle of a suburban street. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 27, 2021 10:28:27 GMT
I'm also of the opinion that a boundary staying in the same place for 50 years isn't usually a good thing (unless it follows a particularly strong natural boundary, obviously.) Urban geographies change and it should be easier for boundaries to change along with them. What we really need is a nice simple system for piecemeal changes to happen in the background, because at the moment minor changes are considered to be too complicated by all concerned and instead we just get major changes which usually involve knocking two or more areas together and trying to sidestep any minor difficulties.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on May 27, 2021 10:41:26 GMT
I'm also of the opinion that a boundary staying in the same place for 50 years isn't usually a good thing (unless it follows a particularly strong natural boundary, obviously.) Urban geographies change and it should be easier for boundaries to change along with them. What we really need is a nice simple system for piecemeal changes to happen in the background, because at the moment minor changes are considered to be too complicated by all concerned and instead we just get major changes which usually involve knocking two or more areas together and trying to sidestep any minor difficulties. A very good point. Merging South Bucks with Aylesbury Vale does absolutely nothing to address the problems of urban overspill and underbounding around Slough. If anything it just makes their inclusion in the new council even more illogical and remote. |
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on May 27, 2021 11:47:41 GMT
There's an issue like that with the eastern fringe of Plymouth. Wembury, Ivybridge and (the new town of) Sherford all look to Plymouth. No one there ever goes to Totnes or Kingsbridge (and don't really look to Exeter). But if you pulled them out of South Hams, the revenue base would collapse. When I was a parish councillor there, I wanted Wembury to be pulled into Plymouth but there was loads of nimby opposition. Eventually, though, something has to give. Indeed, and we see similar situations on the fringes of Nottingham (where Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe are involved) and Leicester (Charnwood and Blaby). Same with Bristol. South Gloucestershire is a ridiculous authority that shouldn't exist. The urban areas of the authority (Filton, Bradley Stoke, Patchway, Kingswood, Mangotsfield, Hanham etc.) should be ceded to Bristol as the people who live in these areas strongly identify with the city (calling themselves 'Bristolians') and are actually quite confused as to why the government considers them to be living in a separate place. Meanwhile, Yate, Thornbury and the rural areas should be returned to Gloucestershire proper, likely triggering a local government reorganisation there too. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 27, 2021 13:33:11 GMT
Indeed, and we see similar situations on the fringes of Nottingham (where Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe are involved) and Leicester (Charnwood and Blaby). Same with Bristol. South Gloucestershire is a ridiculous authority that shouldn't exist. The urban areas of the authority (Filton, Bradley Stoke, Patchway, Kingswood, Mangotsfield, Hanham etc.) should be ceded to Bristol as the people who live in these areas strongly identify with the city (calling themselves 'Bristolians') and are actually quite confused as to why the government considers them to be living in a separate place. Meanwhile, Yate, Thornbury and the rural areas should be returned to Gloucestershire proper, likely triggering a local government reorganisation there too. Similarly, all the Somerset parts of the former county of Avon should have been returned to Somerset and the Lincolnshire parts of Humberside should have been returned to Lincolnshire. Has it not occurred to Whitehall that simply merging existing post-1974 authorities is a bad idea in many cases?? |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 27, 2021 13:34:32 GMT
I'm also of the opinion that a boundary staying in the same place for 50 years isn't usually a good thing (unless it follows a particularly strong natural boundary, obviously.) Urban geographies change and it should be easier for boundaries to change along with them. What we really need is a nice simple system for piecemeal changes to happen in the background, because at the moment minor changes are considered to be too complicated by all concerned and instead we just get major changes which usually involve knocking two or more areas together and trying to sidestep any minor difficulties. Which incidentally is how the Dutch and Germans do it regarding municipal government. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 27, 2021 14:05:06 GMT
I'm also of the opinion that a boundary staying in the same place for 50 years isn't usually a good thing (unless it follows a particularly strong natural boundary, obviously.) Urban geographies change and it should be easier for boundaries to change along with them. What we really need is a nice simple system for piecemeal changes to happen in the background, because at the moment minor changes are considered to be too complicated by all concerned and instead we just get major changes which usually involve knocking two or more areas together and trying to sidestep any minor difficulties. Which incidentally is how the Dutch and Germans do it regarding municipal government. Huh? While the underlying mechanisms are very different and traditions of municipal rights vs the center are stronger, the timeline and extent of changes to local government structure in West Germany and Britain in the past century basically mirror each other. Much needed amalgamations in the industrial conurbations in the interwar years, ossification after the war, huge overbroad and not entirely well thought out reform in the 70s (with state-by-state differences, which admittedly means less in the UK), another stagnant period, piecemeal changes starting up again fairly recently. There is nothing to mirror Thatcher's abolution of the Met Counties, of course. The East German reforms of the 90s can stand in for Major's reorganizations. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 27, 2021 14:22:08 GMT
I'm also of the opinion that a boundary staying in the same place for 50 years isn't usually a good thing (unless it follows a particularly strong natural boundary, obviously.) Urban geographies change and it should be easier for boundaries to change along with them. What we really need is a nice simple system for piecemeal changes to happen in the background, because at the moment minor changes are considered to be too complicated by all concerned and instead we just get major changes which usually involve knocking two or more areas together and trying to sidestep any minor difficulties. A very good point. Merging South Bucks with Aylesbury Vale does absolutely nothing to address the problems of urban overspill and underbounding around Slough. If anything it just makes their inclusion in the new council even more illogical and remote. I suspect around Slough you'd have problems in any case due to people who plainly live in Slough not wanting to admit that Burnham is just a neighbourhood of the town. But certainly a lot of edge of district developments are also edge of settlement developments, and it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man for there to be an agreement that parish and district boundaries would be altered as soon as ground is broken on the development. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on May 27, 2021 18:17:14 GMT
A very good point. Merging South Bucks with Aylesbury Vale does absolutely nothing to address the problems of urban overspill and underbounding around Slough. If anything it just makes their inclusion in the new council even more illogical and remote. I suspect around Slough you'd have problems in any case due to people who plainly live in Slough not wanting to admit that Burnham is just a neighbourhood of the town. But certainly a lot of edge of district developments are also edge of settlement developments, and it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man for there to be an agreement that parish and district boundaries would be altered as soon as ground is broken on the development. Imagine putting Eton and Wraysbury/Stoke Poges into Slough  |
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 27, 2021 19:29:45 GMT
I suspect around Slough you'd have problems in any case due to people who plainly live in Slough not wanting to admit that Burnham is just a neighbourhood of the town. But certainly a lot of edge of district developments are also edge of settlement developments, and it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man for there to be an agreement that parish and district boundaries would be altered as soon as ground is broken on the development. Imagine putting Eton and Wraysbury/Stoke Poges into Slough Cliveden would be dead set against it as well (and Eton would be a mess). |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on May 27, 2021 19:41:08 GMT
Imagine putting Eton and Wraysbury/Stoke Poges into Slough Cliveden would be dead set against it as well (and Eton would be a mess). Cliveden's a bit of way from Stoke Poges/Farnham Common even, but I get your point. And the howls from the masters of Eton College when they get incorporated into a Labour council area would be a sight to behold!  |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on May 27, 2021 21:51:11 GMT
Same with Bristol. South Gloucestershire is a ridiculous authority that shouldn't exist. The urban areas of the authority (Filton, Bradley Stoke, Patchway, Kingswood, Mangotsfield, Hanham etc.) should be ceded to Bristol as the people who live in these areas strongly identify with the city (calling themselves 'Bristolians') and are actually quite confused as to why the government considers them to be living in a separate place. Meanwhile, Yate, Thornbury and the rural areas should be returned to Gloucestershire proper, likely triggering a local government reorganisation there too. Similarly, all the Somerset parts of the former county of Avon should have been returned to Somerset and the Lincolnshire parts of Humberside should have been returned to Lincolnshire. Has it not occurred to Whitehall that simply merging existing post-1974 authorities is a bad idea in many cases?? Ceremonially of course they have been. I've yet to find a valid argument for the utter joke that is two tier local government beyond that it provides for smaller areas of accountability, ignoring of course that areas of huge statutory importance are at much larger, much more remote accountability compared to unitaries that are considerably smaller than counties but bigger than most districts. |
|
|
|
Post by jm on Dec 13, 2021 15:05:40 GMT
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,474 
|
Post by peterl on Dec 13, 2021 15:24:06 GMT
I can't really imagine a worse system that one person elected to make all the decisions in each area. Power concentrated in one person is never a good move, it reduced accountability and makes the council less responsive to people's needs. If Labour are at all worthy of the title "Opposition", they will come out stronly against this levelling down of local government. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 13, 2021 18:53:19 GMT
We are not the USA. We do not have a federal system. This system of mayors/governors will not work for British local government at all. We need smaller council areas not larger ones. |
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on Dec 13, 2021 19:21:26 GMT
I can't really imagine a worse system that one person elected to make all the decisions in each area. Power concentrated in one person is never a good move, it reduced accountability and makes the council less responsive to people's needs. If Labour are at all worthy of the title "Opposition", they will come out stronly against this levelling down of local government.
I am always shocked when people come out with stuff like this because nobody can legitimately believe it is true. The current system breeds lack of accountability and lack of responsiveness.
If you asked the average person on the street...
Who's the leader of the local council? / Who chairs the education committee of the local council? / What powers does the chair of that committee have? / What powers do the unelected officers have?
I'd be surprised if one in a hundred could give an answer. Even fewer would be right.
Yet, we are expected to believe that the current system is accountable. It's doesn't pass the most basic sniff test. In fact, I think a few too many councillors like the current system due to the lack of accountability.
I would never say directly elected mayors were perfect (and shudder at the thought of calling them governors!), but I do think there are a lot of benefits when it comes to democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 13, 2021 21:03:48 GMT
This evening separate meetings of Warwick district council and Stratford-on-Avon district council voted to submit a request to the DLUHC to merge the two councils into a new 'South Warwickshire' district.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 13, 2021 21:23:46 GMT
This evening separate meetings of Warwick district council and Stratford-on-Avon district council voted to submit a request to the DLUHC to merge the two councils into a new 'South Warwickshire' district. Which no doubt will keep both areas under overall Conservative control almost all the time. If this happens no doubt the three northern Warwickshire districts will seek to merge, thus also ensuring the demise of Warwickshire CC in the process. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,474
|
Post by peterl on Dec 13, 2021 21:25:32 GMT
I can't really imagine a worse system that one person elected to make all the decisions in each area. Power concentrated in one person is never a good move, it reduced accountability and makes the council less responsive to people's needs. If Labour are at all worthy of the title "Opposition", they will come out stronly against this levelling down of local government. I am always shocked when people come out with stuff like this because nobody can legitimately believe it is true. The current system breeds lack of accountability and lack of responsiveness. If you asked the average person on the street...
Who's the leader of the local council? / Who chairs the education committee of the local council? / What powers does the chair of that committee have? / What powers do the unelected officers have?
I'd be surprised if one in a hundred could give an answer. Even fewer would be right. Yet, we are expected to believe that the current system is accountable. It's doesn't pass the most basic sniff test. In fact, I think a few too many councillors like the current system due to the lack of accountability.
I would never say directly elected mayors were perfect (and shudder at the thought of calling them governors!), but I do think there are a lot of benefits when it comes to democracy.
Or in other words, something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it. Sounds logic there. One person making decisions is less democratic and accountable than several people being involved, because different voices are being listened to. If we keep going down this road, before long we will have a directly elected executive president. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593
|
Post by bsjmcr on Dec 13, 2021 21:29:54 GMT
There's an issue like that with the eastern fringe of Plymouth. Wembury, Ivybridge and (the new town of) Sherford all look to Plymouth. No one there ever goes to Totnes or Kingsbridge (and don't really look to Exeter). But if you pulled them out of South Hams, the revenue base would collapse. When I was a parish councillor there, I wanted Wembury to be pulled into Plymouth but there was loads of nimby opposition. Eventually, though, something has to give. Indeed, and we see similar situations on the fringes of Nottingham (where Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe are involved) and Leicester (Charnwood and Blaby). Controversial maybe, but I feel there are quite a few ‘pointless’ councils out there (Oadby and Wigston being number one). Understand the issue of taking large suburbs out of a district leaving a sparse, population-poor rural area, but Broxtowe and Gedling as a whole should just be part of Nottingham. And the current situation for Nottingham itself is that it sometimes comes up top of ‘most deprived’ rankings because the boundaries are so tight and there are few affluent areas, but a disproportionate number of commuters come in and use council services/facilities every day. Rushcliffe is a difficult one as adding the whole district would be too rural and not fitting of ‘Nottingham’ and only taking W.Bridgford would leave very little left as said before it also would be too remote to join Newark/Sherwood, if anything those rural parts are closer to Loughborough. In the North, one could argue for Hucknall joining Nottingham but that’s a big chunk of Ashfield too, but there perhaps what’s left of Ashfield could join Mansfield to become… Mashfield? |
|
