sdoerr
Conservative
Posts: 149 
|
Post by sdoerr on Aug 11, 2015 14:06:28 GMT
Your 'Westminster' could perhaps be 'Ossulstone'. I don't approve of merging parts of Middlesex and Essex in 'Bow' though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 16:21:44 GMT
Your 'Westminster' could perhaps be 'Ossulstone'. I don't approve of merging parts of Middlesex and Essex in 'Bow' though. Thank you. A day is never lost when you learn something (even if it had to be via google!) |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 11, 2015 16:34:08 GMT
I keep wondering about trying to find Oswald's Stone. It must be somewhere.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,869
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Aug 12, 2015 9:26:00 GMT
For this version the results of GE'15 are as follows:
Middlesex-North: 35.67% - 46.61% - 5.39% - 7.42% - 4.21% - 0.70%
Middlesex-West: 37.95% - 43.75% - 7.06% - 7.49% - 3.25% - 0.50%
OuterM. (N&W): 37.10% - 44.82% - 6.43% - 7.46% - 3.61% - 0.57%
InnerMiddlesex: 30.71% - 50.13% - 4.64% - 5.79% - 7.73% - 1.00%
MIDDLESEX (I&O): 34.75% - 46.77% - 5.77% - 6.85% - 5.13% - 0.73%
InnerEssex: 13.76% - 72.99% - 6.25% - 2.18% - 3.76% - 1.07%
OuterEssex: 33.40% - 44.05% - 15.60% - 3.04% - 3.44% - 0.48%
ESSEX (I&O): 29.45% - 49.87% - 13.72% - 2.87% - 3.50% - 0.60%
InnerKent: 24.70% - 52.38% - 8.77% - 5.52% - 7.32% - 1.31%
OuterKent: 49.63% - 24.89% - 16.60% - 4.90% - 3.15% - 0.83%
KENT (I&O):
InnerSurrey: 30.60% - 47.97% - 3.85% - 10.05% - 6.53% - 1.01%
OuterSurrey: 41.30% - 29.30% - 8.39% - 16.74% - 3.79% - 0.47%
SURREY (I&O): 36.40% - 37.85% - 6.31% - 13.68% - 5.04% - 0.72%
P.scr.: Sorry, that I wrote "Middle..." ("No sex please, we are British!") |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by cibwr on Aug 12, 2015 16:20:54 GMT
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. I would argue the exact reverse in Wales, unitary local government has been a disaster - move to a two tier system of 5 regional councils absorbing the nominated bodies and quangos and return to a layer of 25 or so local councils running smaller ticket functions and around 200 - 300 community councils dealing with hyper local issues. I would suggest that in London pan London issues should be run by the London Assembly and below that boroughs of around 250,000 population would be about right - I would suggest moving education to an all London level, likewise social services and health (abolish the trusts) - and as ever at a community level community councils for neighbourhoods to run hyper local services. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,820
|
Post by john07 on Aug 12, 2015 16:48:34 GMT
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. Indeed. I suspect that the 1973 reorganisation of Local Government increased costs substantially. Equally subsequent rationalisation of local government will have had little or no impact on the cost of delivery of services. Maybe it even increased costs because of the reduction in perceived accountability in amorphous monstrosities like Cheshire East as opposed to the previous arrangements. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 12, 2015 17:58:14 GMT
I can see a strong case for unitary local authorities in urban areas but for rural areas and small towns I think it is nonsense. To provide the higher level of services authorities invariably end up being far too large for a supposedly "local" authority. Shropshire is a classic case. How can Ludlow seriously be in the same "local" authority as Oswestry?
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Gadsden on Oct 9, 2015 18:45:09 GMT
I can see a strong case for unitary local authorities in urban areas but for rural areas and small towns I think it is nonsense. To provide the higher level of services authorities invariably end up being far too large for a supposedly "local" authority. Shropshire is a classic case. How can Ludlow seriously be in the same "local" authority as Oswestry? Cornwall is even worse, of course. But there has been a rise of some pretty large parish councils - starting with the UDC "successor parishes" of 1974, but also such large parishes as Salisbury and Hereford. Ludlow and Oswestry have their local representative functions done by their town (parish) councils, rather than by Shropshire County, surely? I could see London being run by an enlarged GLA and a lower level that was really local, as super-parish councils, covering areas like Kilburn, or Wembley, or Brixton, or Twickenham - so you'd end up with a hundred or so such councils, and then the GLA above, though you'd probably need to increase the size of the authority to keep track of the stuff that was transferred up; there aren't enough GLA members to provide proper accountability for that kind of increased function (you'd probably be looking at secondary education at the GLA level, for instance, and quite possibly housing). |
|
