|
|
Post by David Boothroyd on Oct 9, 2016 23:46:35 GMT
The easiest way to guarantee that no party ever gets more than 75% of a council is to say that, in the event that they do, sufficient numbers of the defeated candidates who had the highest proportion of the vote are co-opted as councillors representing the whole authority until the next election.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 10, 2016 11:07:15 GMT
I am not a fan of the unitary authority model. It makes a lot of sense to run strategic services like highways at a county level while maintaining local control on things like planning decisions more locally. I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean maintaining district councils, you could establish directly elected planning boards, but the two-tier model does provide a convenient way of keeping local services local while still allowing strategic decision making for a larger area in some areas. My suggested reforms? No unitary authorities except for large cities and islands. Especially no whole county or geographically large unitaries. No combined authorities. Cap of no more than two thirds of the seats on any council being held by any one party - one party states are always badly run. Local citizen initiated referenda. No more elected mayors unless following a referendum requested on petition. Having experienced the move from a well-run two-tier Cheshire to the shambles which is Cheshire East ... I agree with pretty well all of the above. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford (dormant) on Oct 10, 2016 11:14:21 GMT
I am not a fan of the unitary authority model. It makes a lot of sense to run strategic services like highways at a county level while maintaining local control on things like planning decisions more locally. I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean maintaining district councils, you could establish directly elected planning boards, but the two-tier model does provide a convenient way of keeping local services local while still allowing strategic decision making for a larger area in some areas. My suggested reforms? No unitary authorities except for large cities and islands. Especially no whole county or geographically large unitaries. No combined authorities. Cap of no more than two thirds of the seats on any council being held by any one party - one party states are always badly run. Local citizen initiated referenda. No more elected mayors unless following a referendum requested on petition. Having experienced the move from a well-run two-tier Cheshire to the shambles which is Cheshire East ... I agree with pretty well all of the above. Why did Cheshire switch to being a bunch of unitaries? From looking at the place it seems to me that this would be one of the places where the county-district system would be ideal. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 10, 2016 11:31:02 GMT
Having experienced the move from a well-run two-tier Cheshire to the shambles which is Cheshire East ... I agree with pretty well all of the above. Why did Cheshire switch to being a bunch of unitaries? From looking at the place it seems to me that this would be one of the places where the county-district system would be ideal. Because Hazel Blears said so. It certainly wasn't a popular idea in Cheshire. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 10, 2016 17:25:09 GMT
We always begin by discussing the boundaries, which in practice is the last thing you want to sort. You need to decide what you want local government to do and that determines the size of the local government units. Do you want it to have responsibility for social care? If that's the case, you need bigger units than at present. Economic planning? City-regions are the way to go. Strip its responsibilities down to emptying the bins? You could go smaller than districts if you wanted.
Personally, I see no particular advantage to two-tier local government and the considerable difficulty that the electorate still don't understand it even after decades of its existence. I'd like reasonably large unitaries based on TTWAs or combinations thereof and some degree of regional government, not necessarily directly elected. However, to assuage local feeling I'd favour putting area committees on a statutory footing and assigning them some subsidiary powers. Potentially these could be fairly small, covering more or less the same areas as old UDCs and RDCs.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Er/ihn/ihm
Posts: 4,927 
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 11, 2016 1:09:24 GMT
I am not a fan of the unitary authority model. It makes a lot of sense to run strategic services like highways at a county level while maintaining local control on things like planning decisions more locally. I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean maintaining district councils, you could establish directly elected planning boards, but the two-tier model does provide a convenient way of keeping local services local while still allowing strategic decision making for a larger area in some areas. My suggested reforms? No unitary authorities except for large cities and islands. Especially no whole county or geographically large unitaries. No combined authorities. Cap of no more than two thirds of the seats on any council being held by any one party - one party states are always badly run. Local citizen[-]initiated referenda. No more elected mayors unless following a referendum requested on petition. Having experienced the move from a well-run two-tier Cheshire to the shambles which is Cheshire East ... I agree with pretty well all of the above. I very nearly agree completely too. I would've given peterl's post a very emphatic 'like' were it not for his penultimate sentence. |
|
Penddu
Ein Gwlad
Yma o hyd
Posts: 1,058
|
Post by Penddu on Oct 11, 2016 5:55:33 GMT
Well my own views are well known, basically I'd go for a two tier structure in Wales, 3 regions based on Swansea, Cardiff and Newport, and two rural ones based on mid and west Wales, one for North Wales. Below them I'd have around 25 - 30 district councils and below them maybe 300 or so community councils. The regions would also take over the health authorities, fire, police and ambulance, run social services, education, waste disposal, transport, structural planning, and economic development. District councils to look after housing, licensing, leisure, culture, town and country planning (within the regional structural plans) consumer protection and other functions unless carried out by community councils. Community councils will run allotments, cemeteries, war memorials, public conveniences, maintain public footpaths, open spaces, parks and such community facilities that are appropriate to their communities plus grant aid local organisations. All would be elected by STV in multi member divisions. Coupled with reorganisation of boundaries we need a reorganisation of finances. I'd hand the first 5p in the pound of both income tax and VAT, split 70% region, 25% district and 5% community. Plus revenue from licenses, commercial ventures, rent and a property tax. Also a replacement for business rates based on turn over and split the same way as income tax and VAT. In addition equalisation payment from the Welsh government based on need. England should adopt it own local government structure, but it needs regional government, on the pattern of the 1998 Government of Wales Act. Id use the European regions as a starting point but split the South Eastern one, and of course recognise the unique position of Cornwall - which would get its own much more powerful regional assembly modeled on the current Scotland Act. I broadly agree - but with 4 city/urban - regions - additionally including Wrexham (with Flintshire) - and two rural regions covering remainder of North Wales and Mid and West Wales (with Llanelli part of Swansea region). But much more clarity needed on finances. .With clear accountability for budgets at each level linked to relevant taxes. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 11, 2016 9:46:35 GMT
We always begin by discussing the boundaries, which in practice is the last thing you want to sort. You need to decide what you want local government to do and that determines the size of the local government units. Do you want it to have responsibility for social care? If that's the case, you need bigger units than at present. Economic planning? City-regions are the way to go. Strip its responsibilities down to emptying the bins? You could go smaller than districts if you wanted. Personally, I see no particular advantage to two-tier local government and the considerable difficulty that the electorate still don't understand it even after decades of its existence. I'd like reasonably large unitaries based on TTWAs or combinations thereof and some degree of regional government, not necessarily directly elected. However, to assuage local feeling I'd favour putting area committees on a statutory footing and assigning them some subsidiary powers. Potentially these could be fairly small, covering more or less the same areas as old UDCs and RDCs. I agree with most of that including the central point. I put this on the boundaries forum because my particular interest here was in discussing boundaries, though the thread title left it a bit ambiguous (I've now amended it) and I was not under any illusions that discussion on the thread would stay within confines set by me. My proposals put forward for Hertfordshire are based on the premise that the discussion you're talking about has already taken place and a decision been made to go for Unitary authorities in that area. There has already been further discussion specific to that area about the size of the Unitaries (whether to have 2 or 4 etc) and I don't ask anyone else to accept the premise which my own proposals are based on. Some might want to draw up proposals for smaller two-tier authorities in areas which are currently covered by Unitaries or indeed some might want to return to even smaller authorities on a similar basis to the old UDCs and RDCs. But I would say that the primary purpose of this thread from my point of view (and on the basis of the forum in which it is located) is to discuss boundaries rather than the structural issues of local government reorganisation |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Oct 11, 2016 10:28:11 GMT
I very nearly agree completely too. I would've given peterl's post a very emphatic 'like' were it not for his penultimate sentence: Local citizen[-]initiated referenda. Why not? As long as you have a decent signature threshold in place (say, 10% of voters have to sign a referendum petition to actually achieve a referendum on something). |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 11, 2016 10:50:38 GMT
I think that the best system for Local Government in England would be as follows,
For Urban Areas;
Urban Councils should cover all of a conterminous Urban Area, regardless of County Boundaries, the smaller ones should be Unitary while the larger ones should be two-tier with district councils.
For Rural Areas
Two-Tier with all councils centred on one Key town, with the County Councils not covering Counties, but rather large areas with shared interest, generally that interest being ties with a particular large city
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 11, 2016 21:40:01 GMT
Urban Councils should cover all of a conterminous Urban Area, regardless of County Boundaries, I think you mean contiguous |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 11, 2016 22:01:01 GMT
Urban Councils should cover all of a conterminous Urban Area, regardless of County Boundaries, I think you mean contiguous Yep, I ment contiguous |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Er/ihn/ihm
Posts: 4,927
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 11, 2016 23:59:52 GMT
I very nearly agree completely too. I would've given peterl's post a very emphatic 'like' were it not for his penultimate sentence: Local citizen[-]initiated referenda. Why not? As long as you have a decent signature threshold in place (say, 10% of voters have to sign a referendum petition to actually achieve a referendum on something). Because we are trying to establish organs of local representative rather than direct democracy. This isn't bloody Switzerland! There must be no blocking referendum mechanism to aid NIMBYs, no referendum if local rates go up (or indeed, down) by a certain amount, and no initiatives that allow for tokenistic spending gestures or collective vanity projects. It must be so easy to sound all nice and utilitarian from the other side of the world, but I believe one of the keys to making people care about local government again (alongside a fairer voting system for councils, authorities raising and keeping more of their own money and having actual powers rather than just statutory requirements) is to make it match up with people's sense of identity. That means traditional counties as a starting point wherever possible. Pete, who started the thread, has rightly pointed out a reminder that this is the boundaries sub-forum and should primarily deal with that topic, so I shall respectfully refrain from advancing any of the three arguments in brackets in the preceding paragraph. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Oct 12, 2016 8:43:17 GMT
Why not? As long as you have a decent signature threshold in place (say, 10% of voters have to sign a referendum petition to actually achieve a referendum on something). Because we are trying to establish organs of local representative rather than direct democracy. This isn't bloody Switzerland! There must be no blocking referendum mechanism to aid NIMBYs, no referendum if local rates go up (or indeed, down) by a certain amount, and no initiatives that allow for tokenistic spending gestures or collective vanity projects. Who is 'we'? I for one am very much for direct democracy - as I said, all you need is a signature threshold high enough to avoid pointless votes on proposals that don't stand a chance anyway. The village the Swiss missus hails from has 1100 inhabitants (children and foreigners included), and 120 registered voters (Swiss citizens aged 18 or older) can demand a binding vote on anything. Works pretty well over there; I can't see why it should be any different in the UK? |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Er/ihn/ihm
Posts: 4,927
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 12, 2016 19:05:42 GMT
Who is 'we'? I for one am very much for direct democracy - as I said, all you need is a signature threshold high enough to avoid pointless votes on proposals that don't stand a chance anyway. The village the Swiss missus hails from has 1100 inhabitants (children and foreigners included), and 120 registered voters (Swiss citizens aged 18 or older) can demand a binding vote on anything. Works pretty well over there; I can't see why it should be any different in the UK? My condolences. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 13, 2016 18:50:01 GMT
Because we are trying to establish organs of local representative rather than direct democracy. This isn't bloody Switzerland! There must be no blocking referendum mechanism to aid NIMBYs, no referendum if local rates go up (or indeed, down) by a certain amount, and no initiatives that allow for tokenistic spending gestures or collective vanity projects. It must be so easy to sound all nice and utilitarian from the other side of the world, but I believe one of the keys to making people care about local government again (alongside a fairer voting system for councils, authorities raising and keeping more of their own money and having actual powers rather than just statutory requirements) is to make it match up with people's sense of identity. That means traditional counties as a starting point wherever possible. Pete, who started the thread, has rightly pointed out a reminder that this is the boundaries sub-forum and should primarily deal with that topic, so I shall respectfully refrain from advancing any of the three arguments in brackets in the preceding paragraph. Note the associated text crazed traditional county fanatic. Quite.
The idea that people associate with "traditional counties" is a strange conservative fantasy. Local government needs to reflect current settlement patterns, and this makes it more relevant because decisions taken locally actually mean something.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Oct 13, 2016 20:44:26 GMT
The idea that people associate with "traditional counties" is a strange conservative fantasy. Local government needs to reflect current settlement patterns, and this makes it more relevant because decisions taken locally actually mean something.
I suppose it depends on the region, really. People from Cornwall, Devon and Somerset very much associate with their traditional counties. Things will be different in metropolitan regions crossing traditional county borders, and creating new, regional identities. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 13, 2016 21:47:12 GMT
Hampshire
Split Test Valley into three. Leave Hart, Rushmoor, New Forest and East Hampshire alone.
The bottom third of TV (i.e. Romsey) joins an expanded Southampton, except for Valley Park which joins Eastleigh.
Coastal Eastleigh, Fareham, the outlying Winchester bits like Whiteley, and Gosport form a new Solent Littoral authority.
Portsmouth and Havant merge.
The central part of Test Valley, i.e. Stockbridge and area, join Winchester.
Andover and Basingstoke & Deane form a new Basingstoke & Andover authority.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 13, 2016 21:54:17 GMT
HampshireSplit Test Valley into three. Leave Hart, Rushmoor, New Forest and East Hampshire alone. The bottom third of TV (i.e. Romsey) joins an expanded Southampton, except for Valley Park which joins Eastleigh. Coastal Eastleigh, Fareham, the outlying Winchester bits like Whiteley, and Gosport form a new Solent Littoral authority. Portsmouth and Havant merge. The central part of Test Valley, i.e. Stockbridge and area, join Winchester. Andover and Basingstoke & Deane form a new Basingstoke & Andover authority. I'm struggling to comprehend an expanded Southanpton which includes Romsey but not Eastleigh |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 13, 2016 21:58:31 GMT
HampshireSplit Test Valley into three. Leave Hart, Rushmoor, New Forest and East Hampshire alone. The bottom third of TV (i.e. Romsey) joins an expanded Southampton, except for Valley Park which joins Eastleigh. Coastal Eastleigh, Fareham, the outlying Winchester bits like Whiteley, and Gosport form a new Solent Littoral authority. Portsmouth and Havant merge. The central part of Test Valley, i.e. Stockbridge and area, join Winchester. Andover and Basingstoke & Deane form a new Basingstoke & Andover authority. I'm struggling to comprehend an expanded Southanpton which includes Romsey but not Eastleigh I'd not be averse to that idea, but I wondered if it might become too unwieldy. I can also think of a case for adding Romsey and surrounds to an expanded Eastleigh. |
|
