|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 16, 2020 9:48:07 GMT
On the other hand, if East Anglian Lefty feels West Essex is so very different from the rest of the county that Uttlesford can't possibly marry Chelmsford, there is another combination that might work which is Uttlesford+Harlow+ Epping +Brentwood as a West Essex authority at 387k, leaving Colchester+Tendring at 342k, Chelmsford + Braintree at 396k, and the Southend and Basildon based unitaries as before at 362k and 361k respectively. Remarkably even population bases at least. I will say though I have lived in Essex for a time and stayed in all parts at some time. Uttlesford is the bit I know least well, which maybe shows its a bit different. Presumably Maldon goes in with Chelmsford and Braintree here. Personally I favour larger authorities with a popuation in the region of half a million As with Kent, Essex divides neatly into three  |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Jul 16, 2020 10:35:50 GMT
On the other hand, if East Anglian Lefty feels West Essex is so very different from the rest of the county that Uttlesford can't possibly marry Chelmsford, there is another combination that might work which is Uttlesford+Harlow+ Epping +Brentwood as a West Essex authority at 387k, leaving Colchester+Tendring at 342k, Chelmsford + Braintree at 396k, and the Southend and Basildon based unitaries as before at 362k and 361k respectively. Remarkably even population bases at least. I will say though I have lived in Essex for a time and stayed in all parts at some time. Uttlesford is the bit I know least well, which maybe shows its a bit different. Presumably Maldon goes in with Chelmsford and Braintree here. Personally I favour larger authorities with a popuation in the region of half a million As with Kent, Essex divides neatly into three Obliterating Bedfordshire from the face of the earth? My mate would approve, he's a life-long Watford fan and has no love of Luton, and Bedfordshire in general. His pub has had about ten thousand different beers from breweries all over the UK... but not a single one from Bedfordshire. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 16, 2020 11:03:53 GMT
On the other hand, if East Anglian Lefty feels West Essex is so very different from the rest of the county that Uttlesford can't possibly marry Chelmsford, there is another combination that might work which is Uttlesford+Harlow+ Epping +Brentwood as a West Essex authority at 387k, leaving Colchester+Tendring at 342k, Chelmsford + Braintree at 396k, and the Southend and Basildon based unitaries as before at 362k and 361k respectively. Remarkably even population bases at least. I will say though I have lived in Essex for a time and stayed in all parts at some time. Uttlesford is the bit I know least well, which maybe shows its a bit different. It's not that it's different, it's that it's distant. Uttlesford's major transport links are north-south (M11, train line) and east-west (A120). Connections to the south-east aren't as good. In terms of employment, it mostly looks south to Harlow and London or north to Cambridge (although a lot of people in Braintree and Colchester work at Stansted, the converse isn't as true.) I do rather like your proposed arrangement - though maybe Brentwood would go better with Chelmsford? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 16, 2020 11:42:26 GMT
Presumably Maldon goes in with Chelmsford and Braintree here. Personally I favour larger authorities with a popuation in the region of half a million As with Kent, Essex divides neatly into three Obliterating Bedfordshire from the face of the earth? My mate would approve, he's a life-long Watford fan and has no love of Luton, and Bedfordshire in general. His pub has had about ten thousand different beers from breweries all over the UK... but not a single one from Bedfordshire. Much as I'd like to, I haven't obliterated Bedfordshire. I've just evidently renamed it as er.. Eastern 006 |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 16, 2020 11:48:16 GMT
So you have "damnatio memoriae'd" it, close enough  |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,833
|
Post by iang on Jul 16, 2020 12:43:00 GMT
Kind of but if you're Birmingham and you're told you can have Harborne or Smethwick, what are you going to do? It's had odd long term effects - my parish from church includes a pretty deprived council or ex-council estate area called Welsh House Farm. The church in the past has applied to an organisation called Harborne Parish Lands for funds, as WHF historically counts as Harborne (it is back in Harborne Ward now after having been in Quinton until the last round of boundary changes). Sandwell Council Housing department was the main body that actually allocated money from Harborne Parish Lands because of the Smethwick connection - the Housing Director of Sandwell was one of the key voices on the charity |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 16, 2020 12:51:09 GMT
On the other hand, if East Anglian Lefty feels West Essex is so very different from the rest of the county that Uttlesford can't possibly marry Chelmsford, there is another combination that might work which is Uttlesford+Harlow+ Epping +Brentwood as a West Essex authority at 387k, leaving Colchester+Tendring at 342k, Chelmsford + Braintree at 396k, and the Southend and Basildon based unitaries as before at 362k and 361k respectively. Remarkably even population bases at least. I will say though I have lived in Essex for a time and stayed in all parts at some time. Uttlesford is the bit I know least well, which maybe shows its a bit different. I think Uttlesford, being a much more rural authority, is more like the rest of rural East Anglia in character and this is why it wouldn't fit in with most of the other districts. I wonder if it might be split with half being moved into East Herts which is very similar in character and the rest split between Chelmsford(Great Dunmow and the surrounding area)and Braintree. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jul 16, 2020 15:16:34 GMT
Obliterating Bedfordshire from the face of the earth? My mate would approve, he's a life-long Watford fan and has no love of Luton, and Bedfordshire in general. His pub has had about ten thousand different beers from breweries all over the UK... but not a single one from Bedfordshire. Much as I'd like to, I haven't obliterated Bedfordshire. I've just evidently renamed it as er.. Eastern 006
Bedfordshire is really annoyed at you for that, it wanted to be 007.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 16, 2020 16:09:49 GMT
On the other hand, if East Anglian Lefty feels West Essex is so very different from the rest of the county that Uttlesford can't possibly marry Chelmsford, there is another combination that might work which is Uttlesford+Harlow+ Epping +Brentwood as a West Essex authority at 387k, leaving Colchester+Tendring at 342k, Chelmsford + Braintree at 396k, and the Southend and Basildon based unitaries as before at 362k and 361k respectively. Remarkably even population bases at least. I will say though I have lived in Essex for a time and stayed in all parts at some time. Uttlesford is the bit I know least well, which maybe shows its a bit different. Presumably Maldon goes in with Chelmsford and Braintree here. Personally I favour larger authorities with a popuation in the region of half a million As with Kent, Essex divides neatly into three As tempting as this sort of division it, it also creates a problem of peripheral areas to towns that don’t lead their own unitary authority. For example, The wards to the south of Maldon on the Dengie Peninsula would look to Maldon as their main town. This is fine, as they are within the same UA. However, if they then look for the nearest major town/city this would clearly be Chelmsford or Southend over Colchester. There comes a point where combining areas ceases to make sense as the periphery ends up closer to another authority’s hub. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jul 18, 2020 0:23:13 GMT
Scrap Test Valley. Completely ridiculous as a council.
|
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 18, 2020 2:32:03 GMT
Scrap Test Valley. Completely ridiculous as a council. I don't know, the southern parts would fit well in Eastleigh or perhaps Winchester, but Andover doesn't really have much in common with Basingstoke. It's a council of the all the parts of western Hampshire that don't fit in other districts. The best thing to do here would be to merge Test Valley into a Central Hants district with Winchester and Eastleigh. West End,Hamble,Burseldon and Netley should be transferred to Southampton,as well as Nursling and Rownhams from Test Valley and the part of Basingstoke and Deane west of the A34 transferred to the new Central Hants. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 10:33:00 GMT
This entire thread reminds me of a line from a Terry Pratchett book: "men like that don't need a reason. They have a nightmare and try to make it happen".
Seriously, what is this obsession with turning local government into one layer of massive bodies that are too remote to be an actual "local" government?
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,599 
|
Post by cibwr on Jul 19, 2020 10:59:52 GMT
We first need to look at function - and what level that is best exercised at, and then at how that works on the ground. Local government has changed out of all recognition since 1888 in England and Wales. I think we start as local as possible and look at what representative bodies there should be that cover what are communities in Wales and parishes in England. Parish English urban areas, and then work up. As people know I prefer a two tier system above community in Wales, with district councils dealing with small ticket functions and regions dealing with strategic functions and those that need a certain scale to operate. Id all so merge in to those regions the plethora of joint board and nominated bodies that exist, to democratise them. I have read the local government commission interim report for Wales in the mid 1960s and it makes interesting reading about the capacity of areas to attract qualified people to run the services and quite damming about the way some councils operated (Denbighshire's education committee consisted of the whole council and 1/3 extra nominated members, for example!). Redcliff-Maude was about unifying urban areas with their rural hinterland and creating some regional structure in England around strategic and economic planning - the 1974 changes largely implemented this, in a two tier structure. We are now going back to the metro counties in all but name with nominated bodies/joint boards replacing the previous directly elected bodies. Maybe its time for England to have another commission that looks at this root and branch, and adopts a devolutionist approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 19, 2020 13:04:59 GMT
This entire thread reminds me of a line from a Terry Pratchett book: "men like that don't need a reason. They have a nightmare and try to make it happen". Seriously, what is this obsession with turning local government into one layer of massive bodies that are too remote to be an actual "local" government? Basically, because lower tier district councils are too financially vulnerable to survive, and because there is often confusion and waste when you have district and county councils pulling in opposite directions. I think the answer is to get rid of county councils, which I think are sometimes too big for many purposes, but then districts need to be a bit bigger than at present to take on all the county functions. This I think particularly applies to the bigger counties with too many undersized districts under them- the likes of Kent, Essex ,Hampshire, and Lancashire. I generally like to see authorities running strategic functions in planning, social services and education at somewhere between a quarter of a million and half a million population. I also think there is a case for local committees for what might be thought of as district functions, and these could easily be more localised than on the old district boundaries. So , far from voting for R.E. Mote as the old saying was, I want to see increased localisation. On the same basis, I would like to see regional government in an ideal world, but only to regionalise powers presently concentrated at Westminster. |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 19, 2020 13:23:36 GMT
What is the population requirement for unitary authorities these days? It seems strange that the recent abominations such as Dorset and East/West Northamptonshire have populations of 300,000+ yet the unitaries in the former "Cleveland" area have populations of around 100,000 or less in the case of Hartlepool. I notice many of you have proposed a unitary Bassetlaw (which I would support) but it only has a population of 100,000. As the government seem unwilling to divide districts between unitaries I would imagine the most likely option in Nottinghamshire is an expanded Nottingham encompassing Nottingham, Broxtowe and Gedling with the rest of the county in a unitary Nottinghamshire. I wouldn't be surprised if they also shove Rushcliffe in with Nottingham and create a 'Nottingham and South Nottinghamshire' authority rather than just move West Bridgford into Nottingham. I quite like that, despite being so close to each other, Notts County’s football ground is in Nottingham, and Nottingham Forest’s ground is in Notts County Council’s jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 19, 2020 14:01:54 GMT
Much as I'd like to, I haven't obliterated Bedfordshire. I've just evidently renamed it as er.. Eastern 006
Bedfordshire is really annoyed at you for that, it wanted to be 007.
Sorry, that's reserved for Basildon (Bond). |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 19, 2020 16:37:58 GMT
This entire thread reminds me of a line from a Terry Pratchett book: "men like that don't need a reason. They have a nightmare and try to make it happen". Seriously, what is this obsession with turning local government into one layer of massive bodies that are too remote to be an actual "local" government? Basically, because lower tier district councils are too financially vulnerable to survive, and because there is often confusion and waste when you have district and county councils pulling in opposite directions. I think the answer is to get rid of county councils, which I think are sometimes too big for many purposes, but then districts need to be a bit bigger than at present to take on all the county functions. This I think particularly applies to the bigger counties with too many undersized districts under them- the likes of Kent, Essex ,Hampshire, and Lancashire. I generally like to see authorities running strategic functions in planning, social services and education at somewhere between a quarter of a million and half a million population. I also think there is a case for local committees for what might be thought of as district functions, and these could easily be more localised than on the old district boundaries. So , far from voting for R.E. Mote as the old saying was, I want to see increased localisation. On the same basis, I would like to see regional government in an ideal world, but only to regionalise powers presently concentrated at Westminster. I entirely agree.Create bigger unitaries in a county without the county council,move some of the powers to the unitaries and some to a regional government(although I'd suggest using the EU NUTS regions for this with some modifications in the North. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,474
|
Post by peterl on Jul 19, 2020 17:23:12 GMT
Large unitaries and regional government based around NUTS regions is probably the worst system imaginable. No local representation. Government built around illogical areas that people do not identify with, but at the same time are too small to be given any real power.
|
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jul 19, 2020 17:29:27 GMT
Large unitaries and regional government based around NUTS regions is probably the worst system imaginable. No local representation. Government built around illogical areas that people do not identify with, but at the same time are too small to be given any real power. Anything that puts Oxford in the south-east needs to be discounted for this reason! |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jul 19, 2020 17:41:04 GMT
Large unitaries and regional government based around NUTS regions is probably the worst system imaginable. No local representation. Government built around illogical areas that people do not identify with, but at the same time are too small to be given any real power. Anything that puts Oxford in the south-east needs to be discounted for this reason! Or High Peak in the 'East Midlands'! Buxton and Glossop residents actually tune into North West Tonight for their local news! |
|
