Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 6:08:10 GMT
|
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944 
|
Post by johnr on Jul 29, 2015 7:52:39 GMT
I think there are two options - either Boroughs are too small to be cost-effective, or they are too large to be accountable. Given that there is a London Assembly, then a transfer of some functions to City Hall (perhaps with more AMs able to provide scrutiny), and with smaller district councils to provide local community services would be the way to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tangent on Aug 1, 2015 21:18:45 GMT
This has been an old argument, ever since the Met boroughs were created. But it is strange to hear it from a Conservative. From the 1880s, Conservative voices were generally the proponents of a degree of 'tenification' and devolution of powers to boroughs which retained some of the community characteristics of smaller districts and parishes; whereas the left and the technocrats generally wanted a strong central London authority and bigger authorities able to achieve economies of scale.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,869
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Aug 10, 2015 11:42:33 GMT
Instead of "boroughs" - a senseless terminus, if You do not have a medieval town with a wall anymore - the old shires could be restored by establishing:
- City
- InnerMiddlesex
- OuterMiddlesex-North (Barnet)
- OuterMiddlesex-West (Brent-Harrow)
- InnerSurrey
- OuterSurrey
- InnerKent
- OuterKent
- Essex
|
|
sdoerr
Conservative
Posts: 149
|
Post by sdoerr on Aug 10, 2015 12:41:11 GMT
I was thinking along similar lines: NW Kent, NE Surrey, SW Essex, and however many divisions of Middlesex seem appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 10, 2015 14:26:15 GMT
Instead of "boroughs" - a senseless terminus, if You do not have a medieval town with a wall anymore - the old shires could be restored by establishing: - City - InnerMiddlesex - OuterMiddlesex-North (Barnet) - OuterMiddlesex-West (Brent-Harrow) - InnerSurrey - OuterSurrey - InnerKent - OuterKent - Essex But does it really matter where the county lines used to be? The Thames and the Lea are the only really strong internal boundaries in London, and in the case of the latter it's not a cultural dividing line (e. g. Plaistow has a lot more in common with Poplar than with Chingford). If you're going to create new authorities, they ought to be based on how it makes sense to provide services now, not upon which county they used to be in a century ago. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,044
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Aug 10, 2015 15:53:18 GMT
Its curious isn't it, that as the population rises the number of local government units falls. I'm not sure if this is entirely logical.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 10, 2015 17:31:45 GMT
There's a continual tension among Conservatives on this issue. There's the belief in maintaining tradition and keeping decision-making close to the people, against the ceaseless and artless drive to save money so that rich people can pay less tax. For some time, the latter faction have been winning out, with a few notable exceptions where local Tories have been very loud, e.g. Rutland.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2015 17:34:25 GMT
Maybe just go the whole hog, & have a council for the whole of greater London.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 10, 2015 18:15:33 GMT
Its curious isn't it, that as the population rises the number of local government units falls. I'm not sure if this is entirely logical. Surely you understand that we have to cut the cost of politics? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 10, 2015 19:40:14 GMT
How about  |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Aug 10, 2015 19:56:50 GMT
Its curious isn't it, that as the population rises the number of local government units falls. I'm not sure if this is entirely logical. Surely you understand that we have to cut the cost of politics? No, that's plainly utter nonsense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2015 21:12:07 GMT
Instead of "boroughs" - a senseless terminus, if You do not have a medieval town with a wall anymore - the old shires could be restored by establishing: - City - InnerMiddlesex - OuterMiddlesex-North (Barnet) - OuterMiddlesex-West (Brent-Harrow) - InnerSurrey - OuterSurrey - InnerKent - OuterKent - Essex Wouldn't Essex, Kent and Surrey become confused with the respective south/east local authority areas? That's some messy names though I must say... How about (using historic district/county names other than Newham and City)... - City of London (constitutionally required to be a separate county)
- City (known also as North Inner London or simply Inner London, combines boroughs of: Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea, City of Westminister, Camden, Hackney, Islington and Tower Hamlets) / Population: 1.5m
- Brixton [Surrey] (known also as South Inner London, combines boroughs of: Wandsworth, Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham and Greenwich) / Population: 1.5m
- Wallington [Surrey] and Woolwich [Kent] (known also as South Outer London, combines boroughs of: Richard-upon-Thames, Kingston-upon-Thames, Merton, Sutton, Croydon, Bromley and Bexley) / Population: 1.7m
- Newham [Essex] (known also as North-East Outer London, combines boroughs of: Waltham Forest, Newham, Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham and Havering) / Population: 1.3m
- Middlesex (known also as North-West Outer London, combines boroughs of: Hillingdon, Hounslow, Ealing, Harrow and Brent) / Population: 1.5m
- Barnet [Hertfordshire] (known also as North Outer London, combines boroughs of: Barnet, Enfield and Haringley) / Population: 1.0m
OMG no! How on earth can you even envisage putting Wandsworth with Greenwich! If we have to reduce the number: South Wandsworth, Richmond, Kingston Merton, Sutton, Croydon Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham Bromley, Bexley, Greenwich Alternatively, if you want even larger boroughs: Wandsworth, Richmond, Kingston, Merton Sutton, Croydon, Bromley, Bexley Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2015 21:25:20 GMT
Surely you understand that we have to cut the cost of politics? No, that's plainly utter nonsense. I disagree. I've supported a great big red reset switch being pulled for years. Local authorities across the country hardly reflect communities any more, and often the fudged boundaries of the 1970s are crossed by councils working increasingly together on projects and service delivery. Larger authorities, with more relevant boundaries, overseen by councillors elected by a proportional system should be the least we demand from constitutional reform. Two tier governance is wasteful. Scrap it to save money. It is proven in UAs and Met Boroughs across England that two-tier government is a utter waste of duplicated resources and reckless spending. Reduce the size of government, local and national, to reinvigorate the politics in all areas of the UK. |
|
sdoerr
Conservative
Posts: 149
|
Post by sdoerr on Aug 10, 2015 22:04:36 GMT
how about (using historic district/county names other than Newham and City)... - Brixton [Surrey] (known also as South Inner London, combines boroughs of: Wandsworth, Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham and Greenwich) / Population: 1.5m
- Wallington [Surrey] and Woolwich [Kent] (known also as South Outer London, combines boroughs of: Richard-upon-Thames, Kingston-upon-Thames, Merton, Sutton, Croydon, Bromley and Bexley) / Population: 1.7m
Woolwich is in LB Greenwich. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 10, 2015 22:13:51 GMT
Surely you understand that we have to cut the cost of politics? No, that's plainly utter nonsense. Indeed. It is however a idea that seems to be widely accepted. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 11, 2015 8:01:43 GMT
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 11, 2015 10:24:49 GMT
No, that's plainly utter nonsense. Indeed. It is however a idea that seems to be widely accepted. The real irony being, of course, that having fewer MPs/councillors doesn't really "cut the cost of politics" at all. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 11, 2015 11:43:35 GMT
Best attempt I've seen yet. I'm not convinced of the split in north-east London though - Chingford is certainly distinct from Walthamstow, but Ilford and Barking increasingly look more and more like Newham, so I'm not convinced the A406 is that strong a boundary. What was the logic in dividing these? Did partisan considerations play any effect? Presumably the Tories might be able to carry Becontree in good years, and could probably still win even while behind in the popular vote. How long that will be the case for is another question. Personally, I'd have Becontree stretching right up to the Lea and merge the rest of Bow into Westminster (City?) Also, Thamesmead should certainly be unified, probably in Bromley. I do like the conceit of using hundred names, but if you're going to go with that then I'd rename Southwark to Brixton and Greenwich to Blackheath. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 11, 2015 12:04:36 GMT
I agree about Thamesmead althoguh I should probably put it in Greenwich.
I actually hadn't known that Brixton was the name of a hundred covering a very similar area to what I have called Southwark and I based that name and that of Greenwich on the longevity and significance of those places. Obviously i used the Hundreds names to describe the various subdivisions of Middlesex which are names I was familiar with while I only just discovered Becontree was a hundred
|
|
