peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473 
|
Post by peterl on Aug 26, 2016 17:09:36 GMT
The long awaited consultation on options for the future of local government in Dorset starts on Tuesday. You can already have a look the four options being considered and there are more details about each. Unfortunately, the details are excessively focused on the impact on council tax rather than local identity, public services or maintaining some semblance of local democracy. 1. No change 2a. Council 1 - Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch, East Dorset Council 2 - North Dorset, West Dorset, Weymouth, Purbeck 2b. Council 1 - Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch Council 2 - East Dorset, North Dorset, West Dorset, Weymouth, Purbeck 3. Council 1 - Bournemouth, Poole Council 2 - Christchurch, East Dorset, North Dorset, West Dorset, Weymouth, Purbeck I like option 1 best and 2a by far the least. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Aug 26, 2016 19:56:42 GMT
If you like city regions then 2a shades 2b. To me it seems eminently sensible that whole urban conurbations have a single upper tier council, and that satellite commuter villages are included in it. The wider spread also makes for politically competitive elections, which most of us agree is a good thing.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 26, 2016 21:01:11 GMT
If you like city regions then 2a shades 2b. To me it seems eminently sensible that whole urban conurbations have a single upper tier council, and that satellite commuter villages are included in it. The wider spread also makes for politically competitive elections, which most of us agree is a good thing. Well, city regions exist, and therefore are important in strategic planning, but they are severely lacking as units of local democracy: distant and often run by one party or interest group despite the fact that the area will be very mixed. The old model of urban and rural councils was the best system, followed by the 1974 districts, and county councils last. Virtually no-one knows what their county council does or is doing. And people in small towns and villages are democratically overwhelmed by the power of the city. So I think city-region LAs are a mistake. As much as possible, democratic units should not change over time unless a community has grown, or neighbouring communities overwhelmingly agree to merge. As far as strategic planning is concerned, there should be city-region or larger bodies that the smaller LAs send representatives to, with the actual power remaining as close to the local level as possible. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 21:12:55 GMT
I prefer unitary councils only.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 26, 2016 23:54:00 GMT
The long awaited consultation on options for the future of local government in Dorset starts on Tuesday. You can already have a look the four options being considered and there are more details about each. Unfortunately, the details are excessively focused on the impact on council tax rather than local identity, public services or maintaining some semblance of local democracy. 1. No change 2a. Council 1 - Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch, East Dorset Council 2 - North Dorset, West Dorset, Weymouth, Purbeck 2b. Council 1 - Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch Council 2 - East Dorset, North Dorset, West Dorset, Weymouth, Purbeck 3. Council 1 - Bournemouth, Poole Council 2 - Christchurch, East Dorset, North Dorset, West Dorset, Weymouth, Purbeck I like option 1 best and 2a by far the least. I'd probably vote for option 2a but as always witht hese exercies the problem arises from sticking to existing council boundaries like mud. If you're going tro reorganise , then fucking reorganise - we always had this problem in Hertfordshire as to where does Hertsmere go. Well Hertsmere isn't a place so if you get over that, then Bushey goes with Watford, Potters Bar goes elsewhere. In this case it makes little sense for a primarliy urban authority based on the Bournemouth-Poole conurbation to extend all the way out to Sixpenny Handley (East Dorset) but not to include Upton (Purbeck) |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Aug 27, 2016 8:49:22 GMT
2a really makes the least sense. East Dorset has little in common with Bournemouth being a largely rural area with a few small towns. Similarly as a smallish town Christchurch really has more in common with Dorset than with Bournemouth. In my view, 2a is the nightmare scenario. The only way to make it worse would be to put one of those awful city mayors in charge of it.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,005
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 27, 2016 10:11:39 GMT
Four really poor options.
Three unitaries would do the trick. Bournemouth and Christchurch. Poole, East Dorset and Purbeck. West Dorset, North Dorset and Weymouth and Portland. As Pete says it would be better to not have to stick to existing district boundaries.
Poole and Bournemouth, though they are 'twin towns' actually have very different hinterlands. Bournemouth to the east, Poole to the north, west and south so the new unitaries should reflect that and the different identities of the two places. The rural north and west authority makes perfect sense but under no circumstances should Purbeck be in a different unitary to Poole, that really is truly crazy.
As for the reasoning being about council tax, well this is exactly the reasoning given by the Tories in Hampshire for their proposed abomination, the county-wide unitary. It's their only justification for these kind of bloated unitaries because you can't exactly use community links to justify them...
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 27, 2016 10:19:55 GMT
The logic for putting East Dorset in with the 'Greater Bournemouth' unitary is that East Dorset is administratively linked with Christchurch BC (because Christchurch BC is probably now too small to work effectively on its own). Christchurch logically fits in with 'Greater Bournemouth' but having to untangle the administration and then relink it with Bournemouth and Poole would be a complicated and expensive process. And most of the population of East Dorset is in the south of the district, with some ties to Bournemouth.
It's odd that the idea of dividing districts seems to have been ruled out. There is a case for it in Dorset.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Aug 27, 2016 10:32:33 GMT
Have there been any academic studies looking at whether past local government mergers / reorgs have achieved the benefits originally claimed?
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Aug 27, 2016 10:34:32 GMT
The logic for putting East Dorset in with the 'Greater Bournemouth' unitary is that East Dorset is administratively linked with Christchurch BC (because Christchurch BC is probably now too small to work effectively on its own). Christchurch logically fits in with 'Greater Bournemouth' but having to untangle the administration and then relink it with Bournemouth and Poole would be a complicated and expensive process. And most of the population of East Dorset is in the south of the district, with some ties to Bournemouth. It's odd that the idea of dividing districts seems to have been ruled out. There is a case for it in Dorset. First tier services in East Dorset and Christchurch are currently provided by Dorset CC. That means the transfer of all those functions to Greater Bournemouth (for want of a better name) whereas putting Christchurch and East Dorset with Dorset (option 3) avoids this. Asides from my general suspicion of unitary authorities and placing so much control in so few pairs of hands (especially when coupled with the cabinet system), the only real problem I have with option 3 is merging Bournemouth and Poole, especially given the poor financial state of Poole. Bournemouth has a population of some 180,000 and is the largest council in the county (not counting DCC), certainly sustainable on its own. But other than that, it seems the least bad change. Option 2a has the added disadvantage that the remainder of Dorset authority (N Dorset, W Dorset, Purbeck and Weymouth) is below government guidelines as far as population is concerned for new unitary authorities. Option 2b satisfies then guidelines but has the disadvantage of needing to disentangled the Christchurch and East Dorset Partnership. While I favour no change, option 3 seems the least bad change on the table. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2016 10:59:42 GMT
Have there been any academic studies looking at whether past local government mergers / reorgs have achieved the benefits originally claimed? Here's a quote from an open access comparative study:
Surprisingly, the research on the impact of mergers provides evidence for improved quality of local
government service but does not find evidence on significant cost savings (Hemmings, 2006). This
might be explained by the fact that measures that stimulate mergers usually come with increased
level of resources given to the local government which decreases incentives to reduce costs. It is also
possible that large governments take over additional responsibilities that have to be financed. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 27, 2016 12:22:39 GMT
The old model of urban and rural councils was the best system, followed by the 1974 districts, and county councils last. Totally agree. Was even better when rural districts could cross county boundaries. The invention of the county council was the single biggest mistake made in local government history. So you'd revert to the pre-1888 (1889 in Cornwall) set up? I can see merit in it but I'm surprised anyone would advocate it. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,759
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 27, 2016 12:52:26 GMT
The long awaited consultation on options for the future of local government in Dorset starts on Tuesday. ... 1. No change 2a. Council 1 - Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch, East Dorset Council 2 - North Dorset, West Dorset, Weymouth, Purbeck 2b. Council 1 - Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch Council 2 - East Dorset, North Dorset, West Dorset, Weymouth, Purbeck 3. Council 1 - Bournemouth, Poole Council 2 - Christchurch, East Dorset, North Dorset, West Dorset, Weymouth, Purbeck Show me the maps, or it doesn't exist. I've trawlled around the linked site and can't find any maps of the proposals, the best I've been able to manage is print the 'existing setup' map and scribble on it. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 28, 2016 10:33:27 GMT
The long awaited consultation on options for the future of local government in Dorset starts on Tuesday. ... 1. No change 2a. Council 1 - Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch, East Dorset Council 2 - North Dorset, West Dorset, Weymouth, Purbeck 2b. Council 1 - Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch Council 2 - East Dorset, North Dorset, West Dorset, Weymouth, Purbeck 3. Council 1 - Bournemouth, Poole Council 2 - Christchurch, East Dorset, North Dorset, West Dorset, Weymouth, Purbeck Show me the maps, or it doesn't exist. I've trawlled around the linked site and can't find any maps of the proposals, the best I've been able to manage is print the 'existing setup' map and scribble on it. There are maps on the downloadable PDFs. Took me less than a minute to find them on my phone. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 28, 2016 12:09:05 GMT
The logic for putting East Dorset in with the 'Greater Bournemouth' unitary is that East Dorset is administratively linked with Christchurch BC (because Christchurch BC is probably now too small to work effectively on its own). Christchurch logically fits in with 'Greater Bournemouth' but having to untangle the administration and then relink it with Bournemouth and Poole would be a complicated and expensive process. And most of the population of East Dorset is in the south of the district, with some ties to Bournemouth. It's odd that the idea of dividing districts seems to have been ruled out. There is a case for it in Dorset. First tier services in East Dorset and Christchurch are currently provided by Dorset CC. That means the transfer of all those functions to Greater Bournemouth (for want of a better name) whereas putting Christchurch and East Dorset with Dorset (option 3) avoids this. Asides from my general suspicion of unitary authorities and placing so much control in so few pairs of hands (especially when coupled with the cabinet system), the only real problem I have with option 3 is merging Bournemouth and Poole, especially given the poor financial state of Poole. Bournemouth has a population of some 180,000 and is the largest council in the county (not counting DCC), certainly sustainable on its own. But other than that, it seems the least bad change. Option 2a has the added disadvantage that the remainder of Dorset authority (N Dorset, W Dorset, Purbeck and Weymouth) is below government guidelines as far as population is concerned for new unitary authorities. Option 2b satisfies then guidelines but has the disadvantage of needing to disentangled the Christchurch and East Dorset Partnership. While I favour no change, option 3 seems the least bad change on the table.
Under current government guidelines, what is the minimum allowable population for any new unitary authority? This will be useful if and when county councils get abolished.
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Aug 28, 2016 16:33:35 GMT
The guideline is 400,000 minimum and 600,000 maximum.
|
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Aug 28, 2016 18:07:08 GMT
The guideline is 400,000 minimum and 600,000 maximum. 400,000 ??! I think only 4 current unitaries meet that (Bristol, Cornwall, Durham and Wiltshire). It's hardly local government. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Aug 28, 2016 18:09:49 GMT
Well those are the thresholds stated in the Dorset consultation documents. Option 2a states "The population in the Small Dorset unitary (286,400) is lower than the government guidelines (400,000 to 600,000) for an efficiently-functioning unitary council."
And no its not local government, its *shudders* regional government.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,005
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 29, 2016 0:19:34 GMT
Well those are the thresholds stated in the Dorset consultation documents. Option 2a states "The population in the Small Dorset unitary (286,400) is lower than the government guidelines (400,000 to 600,000) for an efficiently-functioning unitary council." And no its not local government, its *shudders* regional government. The thresholds the government put on unitaries are ridiculous. Smaller unitaries run perfectly well (150k plus, even some a little smaller) and of course in the '90s when they brought them in, it was the Tories who blocked councils coming together to create larger, more cohesive unitaries (not right in every case, but in some areas would have made more sense). The numbers in the three unitaries I prefer for Dorset are all of reasonable enough size and cohesive enough. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 30, 2016 7:44:25 GMT
Are people in Dorset keen to see local government reorganised? I mean, has there been a campaign in the local media or anything?
|
|
