Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 14, 2016 17:16:35 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. Well, that goes some way to explaining my level of attachment, then. I wouldn't want any enclaves or exclaves. I do like things to be tidier than that. (It's worth noting that some Spanish provinces and regions still have them... then again, that's not exactly the best country to look to as a model of administrative efficiency.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 17:39:28 GMT
I would abolish all current districts and replace them with county councils based on the current ceremonial counties in metropolitan areas with some minor amendments (i.e. retaining Greater Manchester, West Midlands etc.) In the rural areas I would like to see a return to the traditional county boundaries, so would restore the old boundaries between Yorkshire and Lancashire/Durham for example. Then I would create small districts of about 30,000 in population across the country which would be responsible for the most local services. Also I would abolish parish councils and transfer their functions to the districts. Unitary authorities would be abolished and brought back under county control.
This would basically be a return to the pre-1974 system except the districts would have much less powers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Oct 18, 2016 2:07:38 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 don't really see the point in having regions in Wales. The overall population is only twice the size of Kent, which functions well with a single county council. All those county-level functions you mention would be much better run by the Assembly. The problem as I see it with the failure to move county-level functions to the Assembly is that the Principal Areas are mainly too large to be effective districts. Only Merthyr Tydfil, Blaenau Gwent, and Anglesey are of the right scale. So here's a first go at fifty or so districts for Wales, trying to get them in the range of about 30-75k in population. It came out as fifty-six: Interesting, but i think you have not asked the first question, which is what should local government do.... The Assembly is not a glorified county council abd should not adopt this role. Some services should clearly be regional, eg Social Services, Some services could be at a district level, but if you take schooling, you are almost at 1 comprehensive school per district which is clearly too small. I think some sort of two tier structure is neccesary, but avoiding the proliferation of CEOs and politicians that are likely to follow. I would suggest around 50 directly elected councillors per district, with 5 or 6 per district to be co-opted into regional councils to provide oversight to Regional Commissioners - who would be directly elected |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,846
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 18, 2016 2:48:37 GMT
I would abolish all current districts and replace them with county councils based on the current ceremonial counties in metropolitan areas with some minor amendments (i.e. retaining Greater Manchester, West Midlands etc.) With 175 years of independence (broken only by the 1974-1986 interregnum) you'll be pulling the City of Sheffield's existance out of it's cold dead hands. |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Oct 18, 2016 10:22:12 GMT
Regarding Powys and Ystradgynlais, the problem here is that the Ystradgynlais area including Abercraf etc should be in NOT not Powys ..
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 19, 2016 4:33:57 GMT
That's effectively saying that the Assembly are too arrogant to do things they think are beneath themselves, even when they are the appropriate level to do it at. We don't need one layer at 3 million people and another at various figures up to 1.5 million. There isn't some sacred line between devolved and local government: it is already crossed in Greater London. I agree that there are some ways that the Assembly should be more like a parliament -- for instance it should be bicameral -- but there are also ways in which it should be more like a county council and we should not be afraid to say so. I think an all-Wales approach is better on such things. A clearer example that more people will have experience of is health, where Powys THB duplicates services at Ystradgynlais that could be more effectively done at Morriston, were it not for silly regional carve-ups. Each of these regional quangos also has a CEO, a finance director, an HR director...Good grief! I don't think I've ever seen anyone seriously suggest that. What would this Welsh upper house look like? The Manx or Tasmanian Legislative Council? The Texan or (now defunct) Bavarian Senate? Bicameralism below the level of the sovereign state is quite rare, and with good reason. I don't think quangos being over-staffed with administrators that take the budget away from frontline services is a local government boundaries issue. |
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Oct 19, 2016 12:54:01 GMT
Northern Ireland used to have a (not very functional) Senate, and more recently they set up the Civic Forum which is supposedly being resurrected (though not powerful enough to be a second house). |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 19, 2016 19:40:51 GMT
This is a bit of a tangent to what should be a nice thread about boundaries, but I'll be brief. Bicameralism is very common in the U.S. at state level, in order to hinder the passage of bad primary legislation. As the Welsh Assembly has powers to pass primary legislation, it should be bicameral in order to limit its abilities for legislative idiocy. I'm less concerned about the precise electoral system for each house*, although I would like to see the head of the executive directly elected, as the Mayor of London and the Governors of U.S. states are, and to ban Assembly members from holding ministerial office (they should just confirm the appointments). Finally, I would like to see a Governor appointed, as there used to be in Northern Ireland, in order to exercise the Queen's reserve powers. [...] * If you really want to draw me on what I actually favour, here it is, even though it is extremely favourable to Labour: 1) a House of Representatives, elected to two-year terms by AV (or FPTP) from single-member constituencies 2) a Senate, elected by thirds to six-year terms from a single STV constituency covering all of Wales And in case that's not controversial enough, I'd move the legislature to Aberystwyth. First of all, my apologies. You did only mention it in passing. This is supposed to be about boundaries and local government, so I'll try to keep it brief too: The United States is not the centre of the universe, and its political structures are anomalous among mature democracies for very good reasons. You seem to despise parliamentary democracy, apart from that sop to the Westminster system at the very end of your main paragraph, and the Senate electoral system sounding similar to NSW/South Australia rather than an American State Senate. I think the London Mayor was a step in the wrong direction. Basically, I profoundly and fundamentally – but respectfully – disagree with your suggestions and arguments. The last suggestion isn't nearly as insane as the rest, but now the Assembly is well embedded in Cardiff, I still wouldn't support such a costly upheaval. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,846
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 1, 2016 20:58:06 GMT
Five unitaries for Tees-side, with some sort of combined co-ordinating body. Middlesbrough has always been too small, Eaton should have been annexed to it instead of to Redcar. Abolishing Clevelenad County Council resulted in a Redcar&Cleveland that is way too big and schizophrenic in character. The current Stockton-on-Tees gobbles up too much countryside, but this area needs a combined co-ordinating body, so Stockton and Darlington need to abut each other to have a contiguous area.  Darlington should be trimmed in the west, a lot of the area west of the A1(M) is not Darlington. Plus, I got utterly lost and confused trying to leave Newton Aycliffe a couple of years ago. I drove what I thought was West as passed a sign saying "Welcome to Darlington". Bugger, I must be driving south. Turn around, go back past the sign back into County Durham and turn left. Pass another sign saying "Welcome to Darlington". WTF??? Bugger, I must have been driving east originally, and now I'm driving south. Turn around again, and go back into Co.D, turn left again back onto the road I'd come off. Drive back into Newton Aycliffe. Start again. I'm on the A168 (old A1) so I *KNOW* turning left will take me west. Pass ANOTHER sign welcoming me to Darlington. WTF?!?!?!??! I'd done something like this. |
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Nov 1, 2017 12:03:05 GMT
 New UAs in the Scottish Central Belt 1. Glasgow 2. Stirlingshire (Not entirely sure about this one, it's mostly based on the old Central Scotland Region but that's a terrible name) 3. West Lothian 4. East Lothian 5. Ayrshire 6. Edinburgh 7. Lanarkshire 8. Renfrewshire 9. Dunbartonshire |
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
|
Post by Eastwood on Nov 3, 2017 12:13:52 GMT
New UAs in the Scottish Central Belt 1. Glasgow 2. Stirlingshire (Not entirely sure about this one, it's mostly based on the old Central Scotland Region but that's a terrible name) 3. West Lothian 4. East Lothian 5. Ayrshire 6. Edinburgh 7. Lanarkshire 8. Renfrewshire 9. Dunbartonshire So for the positives: I think one Ayrshire is a good idea though your conservative colleagues in South Ayrshire would absolutely hate it. Clackmannanshire merging into Stirling is probably a good idea. Is it too big with Falkirk as well? Maybe. Have you asked West Lothian if they want Bo'ness back? Not sure there would be much desire from either side of the border for that land swap. And for the negatives: Renfrewshire is absolute pitchfork bait. What do Gourock and Giffnock possibly have in common? If you're determined to abolish East Renfrewshire it would be better merged into Glasgow or forming a new South Glasgow authority with Shawlands, Cathcart and Nitshill. Dunbartonshire is really ugly as well. Helensburgh and Dumbarton in the same Authority I like but trying to stretch it as far as Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld is a right mess. You'd be better having a new Kelvin Valley authority or even a Falkirk / Cumbernauld merger. |
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Nov 3, 2017 14:28:21 GMT
So for the positives: I think one Ayrshire is a good idea though your conservative colleagues in South Ayrshire would absolutely hate it. Clackmannanshire merging into Stirling is probably a good idea. Is it too big with Falkirk as well? Maybe. Have you asked West Lothian if they want Bo'ness back? Not sure there would be much desire from either side of the border for that land swap. And for the negatives: Renfrewshire is absolute pitchfork bait. What do Gourock and Giffnock possibly have in common? If you're determined to abolish East Renfrewshire it would be better merged into Glasgow or forming a new South Glasgow authority with Shawlands, Cathcart and Nitshill. Dunbartonshire is really ugly as well. Helensburgh and Dumbarton in the same Authority I like but trying to stretch it as far as Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld is a right mess. You'd be better having a new Kelvin Valley authority or even a Falkirk / Cumbernauld merger. Clacks, Stirling and Falkirk are smaller than Ayrshire population wise, so I don't see that being an issue. Based the West Lothian authority on the old county boundary at the river Avon, trying to keep areas within ceremonial counties and corresponding local authorities as much as possible (a la Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and Dunbartonshire, although I accept Dunbartonshire does look pig ugly). Gourock and Griffnock both have being in the county of Renfrewshire in common. |
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
|
Post by Eastwood on Nov 3, 2017 16:47:59 GMT
So for the positives: I think one Ayrshire is a good idea though your conservative colleagues in South Ayrshire would absolutely hate it. Clackmannanshire merging into Stirling is probably a good idea. Is it too big with Falkirk as well? Maybe. Have you asked West Lothian if they want Bo'ness back? Not sure there would be much desire from either side of the border for that land swap. And for the negatives: Renfrewshire is absolute pitchfork bait. What do Gourock and Giffnock possibly have in common? If you're determined to abolish East Renfrewshire it would be better merged into Glasgow or forming a new South Glasgow authority with Shawlands, Cathcart and Nitshill. Dunbartonshire is really ugly as well. Helensburgh and Dumbarton in the same Authority I like but trying to stretch it as far as Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld is a right mess. You'd be better having a new Kelvin Valley authority or even a Falkirk / Cumbernauld merger. Clacks, Stirling and Falkirk are smaller than Ayrshire population wise, so I don't see that being an issue. Based the West Lothian authority on the old county boundary at the river Avon, trying to keep areas within ceremonial counties and corresponding local authorities as much as possible (a la Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and Dunbartonshire, although I accept Dunbartonshire does look pig ugly). Gourock and Griffnock both have being in the county of Renfrewshire in common. You're neither fish nor fowl though. As well as Bo'ness West Lothian historically didn't contain the Calders but did contain South Queensferry so you're essentially ripping up one part of the 1974 changes but not the other two. Eastwood has absolutely zero ongoing Renfrewshire identity. Any suggestion for it to be controlled from Paisley would lead to the architect of such a plan burned at the stake. Glasgow based mergers for Eastwod would be extremely unpopular as well but possibly doable in the right circumstances. Barrhead has a little bit more in common with Paisley but I can't see it being keen on a merger with Renfrewshire either. Inverclyde and Renfrewshire merger is more doable. If you were going down the Clacks, Stirling and Falkirk route then Forth Valley would be a better name. I think it could work though might be a little unwieldy. Again I can see the logic of Cumbernauld, Kilsyth, Kirkintilloch and Bishopbriggs being in a single authority, but there is no sense in lumping them in with Helensburgh. Either Falkirk or perhaps parts of NE Glasgow like Robroyston or Easterhouse would be a better fit. Even taking out Cumbernauld your combined Lanarkshire is going to be unwieldy with a population of 600,000 or so. For me I'd take out East Kilbride, Cambuslang and Rutherglen as well to form a new authority with Castlemilk, Toryglen and Kings Park on the south west of Glasgow. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,060
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 7, 2017 13:21:33 GMT
Logistically the historic County of Renfrewshire makes no sense... If East Renfrewshire is to be joined up with any council area it will most likely be Glasgow: that being said if there is a merger I would hope for East Renfrewshire/Eastwood to persist as a district council beneath a wider Greater Glasgow area. The main problem with merging up Greater Glasgow is execution: do you merge the Greater Glasgow urban area (which is in essence East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Paisley, Clydebank, Rutherglen and Glasgow), or do you go beyond that and join up the extended Clyde Valley to cover Lanarkshire, Inverclyde and outer parts of Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire. The problem with merging up Greater Glasgow by itself is what do you do with the remaining bits outside of Lanarkshire? (Inverclyde, west Renfrewshire and the Vale of Leven?) The main problem with merging up the Clyde Valley is where do you stop (do you include Helensburgh and Clydesdale?), and how can you ensure that such a diverse area can be properly governed from Glasgow? My preference at this time would be three separate authorities in the Glasgow and Clyde area of Greater Glasgow (covering areas physically part of the Glasgow conurbation), Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire (covering the bits of Inverclyde and Renfrewshire outside of the Glasgow conurbation), with the Vale of Leven joining Argyll and Bute as part of an enlarged Highland council area. My preference would be 16 regional councils across Scotland with approximately 64 district councils. I do find the nostalgia for two tier rather endearing on this site which almost exclusively comes from those who have either never experienced living under it or who look at it through intensely rose tinted spectacles with it having been 20 years since living under that woefully inadequate local government structure. NB That is not to say that the pattern of unitaries is necessarily good everywhere, whole county unitaries (bar Rutland for obvious reasons) plus abominations like the two 'later' Cheshire unitaries are particularly terrible and retain all the worst aspects of two tier governance. Because of remoteness some Scottish and Welsh unitaries leave a lot to be desired too but then two tier or one tier that would be the case there anyway due to viability. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 7, 2017 14:53:47 GMT
One authority which I think has outlived its purpose is Knowsley. Surely the people of the six (?) towns would be better off under the neighbouring LAs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 7, 2017 15:20:45 GMT
Just a reminder that Knowsley was a late addition to the local government reorganisation of the 1970s - was originally part of St Helens I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 7, 2017 15:33:30 GMT
One authority which I think has outlived its purpose is Knowsley. Surely the people of the six (?) towns would be better off under the neighbouring LAs? I agree with Whiston and Prescott going into St Helens but I'd put Kirkby in with Liverpool along with actually most of Sefton (certainly Bootle and Crosby and Aintree, not Formby and Southport - Maghull could go either way I think) |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 7, 2017 15:51:57 GMT
I'm in favour of the survival of UAs auch as Sefton, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Solihull where there's a major focal town or towns; in Sefton's case, Bootle & Crosby. (And Southport, although there's an argument for transferring the latter to Lancashire.) By contrast, I think backwaters like Huyton and Halewood would be better off as part of Liverpool.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 7, 2017 16:10:44 GMT
In Cheshire, if I could, I'd go back to having councils for the rural districts, the towns, and the county. But failing that, hopefully one day the stupid councils that were imposed on us in 2009 will be split in two:
Macclesfield 155,000
Crewe 205,000
Chester 205,000
Vale Royal 240,000
Warrington 195,000
Edit: There could be a plebiscite in Widnes to see whether the people there would prefer to be in Vale Royal, St Helens, Warrington or Knowsley!
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 7, 2017 16:54:10 GMT
I'm in favour of the survival of UAs auch as Sefton, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Solihull where there's a major focal town or towns; in Sefton's case, Bootle & Crosby. (And Southport, although there's an argument for transferring the latter to Lancashire.) By contrast, I think backwaters like Huyton and Halewood would be better off as part of Liverpool. Newcastle-Under-Lyme isn't a unitary. It's also questionable how "focal" its major town is ... |
|
