If you could change one thing

[peterl]

Feb 1, 2017 19:40:11 GMT Richard Allen said:

Feb 1, 2017 19:06:36 GMT peterl said:

Not too hard to work out from my numerous posts on the subject, but mine would be the end of creeping regionalism - that is to say the repeal of the Cities and Devolution Act, an end to combined authorities and an end to geographically large unitary councils. If I had a second thing, it would be the end of the Cabinet system in local government.

Not that I completely disagree with you on regionalism but what kind of structure would you advocate for co-operation between local authorities on matters such as transport and strategic planning. I appreciate that in parts of the country this isn't of huge importance but in large conurbations there are some things that simply can't be handled at the level of the local authority.

County councils have historically served this purpose well.

[greenhert]

Change the electoral system in all cases to STV.

[No Offence Alan]

Feb 1, 2017 20:08:37 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Feb 1, 2017 19:51:54 GMT J.G.Harston said:

How was local government funded in the past before we got to tay's council tax being a pathetic 15% of council income? Eg, 50+ or more years ago? Did Chamberlain's Birmingham raise all its money locally, or did it get some from central government, and in what proportion?

There have been government grants to local government institutions since forever, but locally raised taxation used to be a much higher proportion. Of course that wasn't Council Tax, but Rates. Which of course covered both domestic and business premises.

I recall that pre- the Poll Tax debacle, when the introduction of the Council Tax had to be sweetened by a big increase in central grants, some district councils were heading towards zero support from central government.

[Richard Allen]

I do find it very sad that when asked what one thing they would change about "elections, Parliament, local government or other constitutional issues" several people in this thread responded by saying that they would tinker about with voting system for local government. Seriously is the best that you can do? STV for local elections would not result in any fundamental changes to the way that Britain is governed. If making such a change is the height of your ambition then you really aren't that serious about politics.

[Penddu]

I would issue all tax bills (local and central) with a clear statement of where money is spent.

So if your tax bill is say 10,000 then say that 1,000 spent on defence, 250 on overseas aid, etc.

Need to improve visibility for accountability.

[Foggy]

Feb 2, 2017 0:24:34 GMT ArmchairCritic said:

Feb 2, 2017 0:21:31 GMT Richard Allen said:

I do find it very sad that when asked what one thing they would change about "elections, Parliament, local government or other constitutional issues" several people in this thread responded by saying that they would tinker about with voting system for local government. Seriously is the best that you can do? STV for local elections would not result in any fundamental changes to the way that Britain is governed. If making such a change is the height of your ambition then you really aren't that serious about politics.

Unfortunately, local politics is basically dustbins and dog shit, argued over by people who are often supplementing their pensions. It could and should be so much more.

This.

I'll admit that in my case the first thing that comes to mind when asked such a question is also to tinker with electoral systems, but over and above changing the voting system and geographical structure of local government, I'd prioritise a return of genuine power and fiscal accountability to local authorities, whatever form they may take. Their role could be covered by better by the press and in the education system, although neither of those is really a constitutional issue (and the former is widely considered not a matter for the state at all).

[johnloony]

If this question had been asked at any stage in the last 20 years, up to about 2 years ago, I would say introduce STV for all public elections. Now I'm not so sure. Perhaps something to do with having an absolute Monarchy...

[The Bishop]

Not a big change, but one thing I would do is move GE's to a month other than May (possibly June as in the 1980s, perhaps the autumn)

I dislike having a major set of local elections on the same day - the results there are invariably distorted from what they would otherwise have been.

[thirdchill]

I would agree with Richard Allen on this and go for proper accountability of local government through increased powers and the raising of money locally to pay for this, so that local government raises the majority or all of the money it needs to finance the running of the local authority.

It would be difficult to do practically but accountability is all important. Too many labour councils during conservative governments (and vice versa) seem to be able to get away with anything by saying that anything bad they have to do is automatically the government's fault, and refuse to take responsibility.

Parties who run local councils well would benefit. Those who have a long line of excuses (e.g. Salford) would have nowhere to hide.

[Adam in Stroud]

Feb 2, 2017 12:54:22 GMT thirdchill said:

I would agree with Richard Allen on this and go for proper accountability of local government through increased powers and the raising of money locally to pay for this, so that local government raises the majority or all of the money it needs to finance the running of the local authority.

It would be difficult to do practically but accountability is all important. Too many labour councils during conservative governments (and vice versa) seem to be able to get away with anything by saying that anything bad they have to do is automatically the government's fault, and refuse to take responsibility.

Parties who run local councils well would benefit. Those who have a long line of excuses (e.g. Salford) would have nowhere to hide.

I like a lot of what you say there, but I'd raise another side of this issue.

Currently quite a lot of local authority spending is paid for from central government funds, and quite a lot of LA activity is required by statute.  In other words, to a significant extent Parliament is responsible for setting the duties and for the levels of resources.  But there is very little accountability in Parliament for this.

Every budget that I can remember where the Chancellor needed to make cuts - which is most of them, even if only to fund shiny new projects elsewhere - has included a substantial cut to local authorities.  This is usually rather skipped over in the press coverage - a cut to defence or health shows up pretty clearly with immediate discussion of what might be cut.  A cut to local authorities can't really be assessed until the councils has looked at where it can make adjustments to non-statutory expenditure, use of reserves, etc and in any case different councils will make different choices.  Whereas the SoS for Defence has to stand up in the Commons and justify scrapping an aircraft carrier, or waiting lists in hospitals or whatever, there is virtually no ministerial responsibility for the state of, say, old people's services.  If there is a row it is dead easy to say "we gave adequate funding, it is down to the council in question."  And anyway it will probably appear at slightly different times in different parts of the country as opposed to a single big story (as you would get if, say, meals for wheel were abolished nationally next year.) Many of the councils are run by different parties to the government, so half the flak will hit opposition parties anyway. It's the soft option for the government and they always seem to take it. Meanwhile the council blames the government, (or the previous government if that's politically convenient); and the public is left fed up and confused.

This is where, whatever the details of how to do it, Richard Allen's proposal of more local taxation and greater accountability is fundamentally correct and I think now quite an acute need.  Essentially this would need a major transfer of tax raising powers out of the Chancellor's hands. I feel that in social services, education and health we may be reaching a tipping point where the money just isn't going to add up, but its hard to tell because people in these fields always say "we are on the brink of a crisis".

[gwynthegriff]

Setting aside the big issues (STV, funding):

Reform nomination/ deposit/ freepost arrangements.

Have a higher requirement for nominations (with a %age 'spare' e.g. 30 signatories, 25 of which must be valid), a variable deposit (e.g. full return if over5%, zero back if you poll zero), deposit and freepost at locals.

[greatkingrat]

Feb 2, 2017 11:22:19 GMT The Bishop said:

Not a big change, but one thing I would do is move GE's to a month other than May (possibly June as in the 1980s, perhaps the autumn)

I dislike having a major set of local elections on the same day - the results there are invariably distorted from what they would otherwise have been.

Having local elections in May in the middle of a campaign for a June general election would be even worse though.

[mondialito]

Feb 2, 2017 0:21:31 GMT Richard Allen said:

I do find it very sad that when asked what one thing they would change about "elections, Parliament, local government or other constitutional issues" several people in this thread responded by saying that they would tinker about with voting system for local government. Seriously is the best that you can do? STV for local elections would not result in any fundamental changes to the way that Britain is governed. If making such a change is the height of your ambition then you really aren't that serious about politics.

Well, in my defence, the thread asked for ONE thing to be changed. I went for this instead of say, Devolution to England or Lords Reform because this is one area of reform which is massively overlooked. Far too many local authorities are effectively one-party states where opposition is non-existent. This breeds complacency which inevitably leads to some sort of scandal ranging from excessive empire-building to complicity in child abuse. Even in areas dominated by one party, having a weak opposition is better than none at all.

Also, all-out multi-member FPTP is the work of the devil.

[mondialito]

Feb 2, 2017 11:22:19 GMT The Bishop said:

Not a big change, but one thing I would do is move GE's to a month other than May (possibly June as in the 1980s, perhaps the autumn)

I dislike having a major set of local elections on the same day - the results there are invariably distorted from what they would otherwise have been.

I disagree, I think it's good that multiple elections are held on the same day. It encourages turnout and prevents voter fatigue.

[thirdchill]

Feb 2, 2017 13:45:46 GMT mondialito said:

Feb 2, 2017 0:21:31 GMT Richard Allen said:

I do find it very sad that when asked what one thing they would change about "elections, Parliament, local government or other constitutional issues" several people in this thread responded by saying that they would tinker about with voting system for local government. Seriously is the best that you can do? STV for local elections would not result in any fundamental changes to the way that Britain is governed. If making such a change is the height of your ambition then you really aren't that serious about politics.

Well, in my defence, the thread asked for ONE thing to be changed. I went for this instead of say, Devolution to England or Lords Reform because this is one area of reform which is massively overlooked. Far too many local authorities are effectively one-party states where opposition is non-existent. This breeds complacency which inevitably leads to some sort of scandal ranging from excessive empire-building to complicity in child abuse. Even in areas dominated by one party, having a weak opposition is better than none at all.

Also, all-out multi-member FPTP is the work of the devil.

Have some sympathy with this argument. If there is to be electoral reform at all, then local government electoral reform should come before parliamentary electoral reform. Local parties get massive majorities of councillors (over 75% in a njumber of cases) on a plurality of the vote.

This encourages the empire building you mentioned above and the extent to which this is prevented is solely in the hands of the councillors of the ruling group. It also encourages opposition in the area to become more moribund, as they know they have little influence.

[Crimson King]

possibly not top of my list, but amending the fixed term parliament act so we get a GE every 4 years, and then have assembly elections and whatever we get in England on another year in the cycle and locals split across the other 2 years

[Foggy]

Feb 2, 2017 13:45:46 GMT mondialito said:

Feb 2, 2017 0:21:31 GMT Richard Allen said:

Also, all-out multi-member FPTP is the work of the devil.

I agree, although I do prefer all-out elections for councils. Election by thirds or halves would be more suitable for a reformed upper house.

[Lord Twaddleford]

Feb 1, 2017 16:07:56 GMT @strinity said:

Compulsory reporting of polling district results for all elections and referendums.

I'd be satisfied if they at least reported results by primary authority wards/divisions.

The one issue I see with reporting by polling districts is when you're dealing with particularly small districts, to report the results of those places specifically could potentially violate the secret ballot; perhaps in those cases their results could be reported as part of a combination of multiple small districts, or combined with a neighbouring larger district?

[Deleted]

Feb 2, 2017 22:35:24 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

Feb 1, 2017 16:07:56 GMT @strinity said:

Compulsory reporting of polling district results for all elections and referendums.

I'd be satisfied if they at least reported results by primary authority wards/divisions.

The one issue I see with reporting by polling districts is when you're dealing with particularly small districts, to report the results of those places specifically could potentially violate the secret ballot; perhaps in those cases their results could be reported as part of a combination of multiple small districts, or combined with a neighbouring larger district?

Yes, this occurred to me. There is occasionally a similar issue with census data, where some LSOAs have tiny populations and there are privacy issues over disclosing the data. But you could get around it as you describe, perhaps by setting a minimum vote threshold for disclosure and grouping together when a PD falls below that.

[Sibboleth]

Other countries seem to deal with it. I have access to significantly better information about election results in Berlin than I do for Birmingham, and though I have an immense amount of affection for the former city I do live a lot closer to the latter...