Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 17:48:15 GMT
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. No create smaller unitaries. Turn districts into unitaries and give them the funding they need to function. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 19, 2020 18:09:00 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! If not in the South East then where? |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jul 19, 2020 18:15:46 GMT
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. No create smaller unitaries. Turn districts into unitaries and give them the funding they need to function. No need to give them funding - just scrap the council tax cap and let them set and keep their own business rates. Until a fairer funding system - flat rate local income tax or LVT comes along. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 19, 2020 18:18:22 GMT
Anything that puts Oxford in the south-east needs to be discounted for this reason! If not in the South East then where? A new small region called Thames Valley. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jul 19, 2020 18:19:20 GMT
Anything that puts Oxford in the south-east needs to be discounted for this reason! If not in the South East then where? "Chiltern" region - Beds, Berks, Bucks, Oxon and Herts. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jul 19, 2020 18:25:20 GMT
If not in the South East then where? "Chiltern" region - Beds, Berks, Bucks, Oxon and Herts. Controversially I'd add Northants to that list - being rather different in character to the rest of the East Midlands and with much of the county looking to London, Banbury, and/or MK for work and leisure. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 19, 2020 18:56:41 GMT
"Chiltern" region - Beds, Berks, Bucks, Oxon and Herts. Controversially I'd add Northants to that list - being rather different in character to the rest of the East Midlands and with much of the county looking to London, Banbury, and/or MK for work and leisure. Totally agree. I dislike Northants+Leics combinations, as Northants is a Southern county. And Rutland obviously belongs with Stamford in Lincolnshire. If Leicestershire needs to cross boundaries with anything, ideally it should be Warwickshire, as Hinckley and Nuneaton at least mirror one another. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 19, 2020 19:09:11 GMT
Bedfordshire is really annoyed at you for that, it wanted to be 007.
Sorry, that's reserved for Basildon (Bond). Someone who would turn up to the opening of an envelope. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 19, 2020 20:31:53 GMT
No create smaller unitaries. Turn districts into unitaries and give them the funding they need to function. No need to give them funding - just scrap the council tax cap and let them set and keep their own business rates. Until a fairer funding system - flat rate local income tax or LVT comes along. Whilst I'm certain Westminster and Camden would enjoy having their budgets increase exponentially, in every other respect this remains as terrible an idea as it's always been. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Jul 19, 2020 20:33:08 GMT
Redcliffe-Maud put Saffron Walden in with Cambridge and we on the Borough Council supported that, by a majority. Our hospital was Addenbrookes. My daughter was born in Mill Road. My father died there and my mother in Fulbourn. I supported Cambridge United, fitfully. My golf area card included the Gogs, Girton, St Neots, Ely and Ramsey, but nowhere else in Essex. We went to the cinema and the theatre in Cambridge. I could go on. But the cause is long lost.
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,474 
|
Post by peterl on Jul 19, 2020 21:30:44 GMT
Funding wise, if central government took over responsibility for funding social care, there would be plenty of money to provide local services without requiring large council tax increases. One of those rare issues where there actually is a simple, easy and workable solution avaliable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 19, 2020 21:33:13 GMT
If not in the South East then where? A new small region called Thames Valley. That would be too small. Create a West Anglia region with Oxon,Bucks,Northants and Herts. Potentially Beds as well,but I'm worried that would make the East Anglia region too small. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 19, 2020 21:38:26 GMT
If not in the South East then where? "Chiltern" region - Beds, Berks, Bucks, Oxon and Herts. No *500. Berkshire is firmly in the South East and we will resist all attempts to put us in a West Anglian (your Chiltern) region. The Thames should be the boundary between the regions (and counties),except in London,Reading,Slough and beyond Lechlade. Move the Vale and parts of South Oxon from Oxon to Berks. Move Burnham,Taplow and Iver into Slough from Bucks. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 19, 2020 21:40:39 GMT
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. No create smaller unitaries. Turn districts into unitaries and give them the funding they need to function. Some current districts would be too small to deliver the services that county councils currently deliver. You know I live in a county where there is no CC,so I see it first hand when councils struggle to deliver services with the current poor boundaries. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 20, 2020 13:31:19 GMT
Funding wise, if central government took over responsibility for funding social care, there would be plenty of money to provide local services without requiring large council tax increases. One of those rare issues where there actually is a simple, easy and workable solution avaliable. As long as the government don't run it that's fine for the government to guarantee sufficient funding for social care. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jul 20, 2020 14:16:12 GMT
Redcliffe-Maud put Saffron Walden in with Cambridge and we on the Borough Council supported that, by a majority. Our hospital was Addenbrookes. My daughter was born in Mill Road. My father died there and my mother in Fulbourn. I supported Cambridge United, fitfully. My golf area card included the Gogs, Girton, St Neots, Ely and Ramsey, but nowhere else in Essex. We went to the cinema and the theatre in Cambridge. I could go on. But the cause is long lost. Quite so. But Stansted and Great Dunmow are clearly in Essex, and not in the orbit of Cambridge. There has been extreme reluctance going back decades to mess with pre-existing boundaries, however much rational benefit would be gained from realignment. I quite fancy being a dictator sorting all this out, however much faced with manure and pitchforks, in the knowledge that in a few years time most people would agree that the changes were sensible and for the better. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Jul 20, 2020 14:22:21 GMT
Redcliffe-Maud put Saffron Walden in with Cambridge and we on the Borough Council supported that, by a majority. Our hospital was Addenbrookes. My daughter was born in Mill Road. My father died there and my mother in Fulbourn. I supported Cambridge United, fitfully. My golf area card included the Gogs, Girton, St Neots, Ely and Ramsey, but nowhere else in Essex. We went to the cinema and the theatre in Cambridge. I could go on. But the cause is long lost. Quite so. But Stansted and Great Dunmow are clearly in Essex, and not in the orbit of Cambridge. There has been extreme reluctance going back decades to mess with pre-existing boundaries, however much rational benefit would be gained from realignment. I quite fancy being a dictator sorting all this out, however much faced with manure and pitchforks, in the knowledge that in a few years time most people would agree that the changes were sensible and for the better. I agree about Dunmow, but Stansted/Birchanger etc. clearly belong with Bishop's Stortford. So Uttlesford should be trisected! |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 20, 2020 15:44:59 GMT
I would argue that both Dunmow and Bishop's Stortford are in fact in the orbit of Stansted, to the very limited extent that any of them are large enough to have a hinterland.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 20, 2020 17:13:46 GMT
It is worth remembering that there are no second-tier borough/district councils anywhere in England with a population of 300,000 or more, so mergers will be compulsory if the general plan (to essentially abolish all remaining counties and county councils) goes ahead. Some unitary authorities will end up simply absorbing those councils e.g. Nottingham absorbing Gedling and Leicester absorbing Oadby & Wigston.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 20, 2020 19:42:40 GMT
It is worth remembering that there are no second-tier borough/district councils anywhere in England with a population of 300,000 or more, so mergers will be compulsory if the general plan (to essentially abolish all remaining counties and county councils) goes ahead. Some unitary authorities will end up simply absorbing those councils e.g. Nottingham absorbing Gedling and Leicester absorbing Oadby & Wigston. Doubtful. It's administratively easier to just chuck them in a unitary with neighbouring districts, even if it doesn't make any sense on the ground. And let's be honest, DCLG is going to care a lot more about what's easy than what enables effective local government administration. |
|
