Of course there'd be some savings. There'd only be one website for starters.
The cost of a website ? Seriously ?
Surrey County Council has a budget of £1.7 billion. I would guess the District and Borough Councils combined come up to maybe £750 million so that's a £2.5 billion business or series of businesses.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be any savings but as usual people forget the costs of merging services or changing how they are delivered and from where.
There's some potential on the property site. Once you've abolished the hundreds of Conservative District Councillors in Surrey you won't need meeting places for them so there are 11 District and Borough HQ buildings to be sold or leased.
Websites (& the related IT support contracts), HQ buildings.. it soon starts to add up. The merger costs are one off too whereas the savings, ongoing. Look after the thousands and the millions take care of themselves.
Isn't the folk wisdom of the stocks and shares world that takeovers and mergers of big companies rarely produce the anticipated savings?
Should I bother voting today? Have voted at every GE since I was able. Normally vote Tory but I am very disillusioned with TMay. I know these are local elections but I don't want my vote (with the total of course) to be seen as a vote of confidence in her? I ddon't want to vote Labour whilst Corbyn is leader either......
Councils need widespread reform and re-boundarying to reflect today’s function city-regions. Innovations like the Greater Manchester mayor are a step in the right direction but more needs to be done!
Yep, they thought that making 5,000 cars a week was no more difficult than making a few hundred. They’ll get there in the end, apparently Musk and a pile of managers are doing critical path analysis on the factory floor instead of on their computers, because the models bear little resemblance to the reality! It turns out that troubleshooting a factory full of new technology is, well, rocket science.
Hidden in the article is the contrast between software -- where the rapid prototyping and ship-the-beta practices come from -- and traditional manufacturing where the smallest change might need retooling costing millions and taking months.
It parallels the arguments used by Richard Stallman against software patents.
Indeed so, software testing is increasingly done in production, with little QA done by any of the big firms any more, we all get used to quickly rolling updates and things getting broken and fixed. Musk is trying to run a factory the same way, which is always going to be a nightmare at the start but could make it easier for them to get up to speed and to innovate - at the expense of having a few of the early models returned as they’re going to be crap.
Yes, that seems to be how some companies work. TSB is live testing out its replacement computer systems on its customers.
Seems to be working, in the sense that customers are finding the problems that were not picked up in system testing. A few more weeks of chaos and the systems will be robust. Job done.
Job done indeed. And the consultants and directors will add to their CVs and Linkedin profiles that they managed an elebenty squillion pound upgrade project. Bonuses all round.
Reward for failure seems common.
The former CEO of Lloyds Bank. Eric Daniels, made the decision to acquire HBOS without carrying out proper due diligence, with the result the acquired bad loans and misselling brought Lloyds to its knees. He recently won a court case to be paid his bonus for that year.
I think that after some theatrics the CU issue will be resolved along these lines:
1. Two year full alignment, in effect temporary CU membership whilst technology solution implemented. 2. Joint sign-off of technology solution with independent arbitration. 3. Temporary solution to continue till solution is agreed to be working.
You realise a technological solution does not just involve the border but the implementation of a nationwide bureaucracy?
Should I bother voting today? Have voted at every GE since I was able. Normally vote Tory but I am very disillusioned with TMay. I know these are local elections but I don't want my vote (with the total of course) to be seen as a vote of confidence in her? I ddon't want to vote Labour whilst Corbyn is leader either......
Why not vote on your local candidate and local issues?
Should I bother voting today? Have voted at every GE since I was able. Normally vote Tory but I am very disillusioned with TMay. I know these are local elections but I don't want my vote (with the total of course) to be seen as a vote of confidence in her? I ddon't want to vote Labour whilst Corbyn is leader either......
Why not vote on your local candidate and local issues?
Should I bother voting today? Have voted at every GE since I was able. Normally vote Tory but I am very disillusioned with TMay. I know these are local elections but I don't want my vote (with the total of course) to be seen as a vote of confidence in her? I ddon't want to vote Labour whilst Corbyn is leader either......
My wife is in a similar quandary and is thinking of spoiling her ballot for the very first time in over 40 years!
Should I bother voting today? Have voted at every GE since I was able. Normally vote Tory but I am very disillusioned with TMay. I know these are local elections but I don't want my vote (with the total of course) to be seen as a vote of confidence in her? I ddon't want to vote Labour whilst Corbyn is leader either......
I applaud anyone who decides not to vote Conservative.
Should I bother voting today? Have voted at every GE since I was able. Normally vote Tory but I am very disillusioned with TMay. I know these are local elections but I don't want my vote (with the total of course) to be seen as a vote of confidence in her? I ddon't want to vote Labour whilst Corbyn is leader either......
Why not vote on your local candidate and local issues?
crazy.
Which party has stuffed the most stuff through your letterbox ?
Of course there'd be some savings. There'd only be one website for starters.
The cost of a website ? Seriously ?
Surrey County Council has a budget of £1.7 billion. I would guess the District and Borough Councils combined come up to maybe £750 million so that's a £2.5 billion business or series of businesses.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be any savings but as usual people forget the costs of merging services or changing how they are delivered and from where.
There's some potential on the property site. Once you've abolished the hundreds of Conservative District Councillors in Surrey you won't need meeting places for them so there are 11 District and Borough HQ buildings to be sold or leased.
Websites (& the related IT support contracts), HQ buildings.. it soon starts to add up. The merger costs are one off too whereas the savings, ongoing. Look after the thousands and the millions take care of themselves.
Isn't the folk wisdom of the stocks and shares world that takeovers and mergers of big companies rarely produce the anticipated savings?
In the majority of cases the share prices of the acquiring companies do not benefit from making the acquisition whilst the share prices of the acquired companies do benefit.
Yep, they thought that making 5,000 cars a week was no more difficult than making a few hundred. They’ll get there in the end, apparently Musk and a pile of managers are doing critical path analysis on the factory floor instead of on their computers, because the models bear little resemblance to the reality! It turns out that troubleshooting a factory full of new technology is, well, rocket science.
Hidden in the article is the contrast between software -- where the rapid prototyping and ship-the-beta practices come from -- and traditional manufacturing where the smallest change might need retooling costing millions and taking months.
It parallels the arguments used by Richard Stallman against software patents.
Indeed so, software testing is increasingly done in production, with little QA done by any of the big firms any more, we all get used to quickly rolling updates and things getting broken and fixed. Musk is trying to run a factory the same way, which is always going to be a nightmare at the start but could make it easier for them to get up to speed and to innovate - at the expense of having a few of the early models returned as they’re going to be crap.
Job done indeed. And the consultants and directors will add to their CVs and Linkedin profiles that they managed an elebenty squillion pound upgrade project. Bonuses all round.
Reward for failure seems common.
The former CEO of Lloyds Bank. Eric Daniels, made the decision to acquire HBOS without carrying out proper due diligence, with the result the acquired bad loans and misselling brought Lloyds to its knees. He recently won a court case to be paid his bonus for that year.
Makes you wonder about the desirability of a angry mob, a rope and a lampost!
Councils need widespread reform and re-boundarying to reflect today’s function city-regions. Innovations like the Greater Manchester mayor are a step in the right direction but more needs to be done!
Fine in theory, but a good way to upset people. Make bits of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire fall under the umbrella of Sheffield? Never!
It is 44 years since it was 'officially' moved into Lancashire, but a Yorkshire flag still flies in the centre of Barnoldswick.
Should I bother voting today? Have voted at every GE since I was able. Normally vote Tory but I am very disillusioned with TMay. I know these are local elections but I don't want my vote (with the total of course) to be seen as a vote of confidence in her? I ddon't want to vote Labour whilst Corbyn is leader either......
Why not vote on your local candidate and local issues?
crazy.
Which party has stuffed the most stuff through your letterbox ?
Should I bother voting today? Have voted at every GE since I was able. Normally vote Tory but I am very disillusioned with TMay. I know these are local elections but I don't want my vote (with the total of course) to be seen as a vote of confidence in her? I ddon't want to vote Labour whilst Corbyn is leader either......
Why not vote on your local candidate and local issues?
crazy.
Which party has stuffed the most stuff through your letterbox ?
Should I bother voting today? Have voted at every GE since I was able. Normally vote Tory but I am very disillusioned with TMay. I know these are local elections but I don't want my vote (with the total of course) to be seen as a vote of confidence in her? I ddon't want to vote Labour whilst Corbyn is leader either......
Why not vote on your local candidate and local issues?
crazy.
Which party has stuffed the most stuff through your letterbox ?
Of course there'd be some savings. There'd only be one website for starters.
The cost of a website ? Seriously ?
Surrey County Council has a budget of £1.7 billion. I would guess the District and Borough Councils combined come up to maybe £750 million so that's a £2.5 billion business or series of businesses.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be any savings but as usual people forget the costs of merging services or changing how they are delivered and from where.
There's some potential on the property site. Once you've abolished the hundreds of Conservative District Councillors in Surrey you won't need meeting places for them so there are 11 District and Borough HQ buildings to be sold or leased.
You don't get the biggest economies of scale by merging local councils.
Greater scale is achieved by local councils outsourcing services to national organisations who have bigger operations.
Of course there will still be some extra saving by being the best council at outsourcing but the biggest may not be the best.
I think that after some theatrics the CU issue will be resolved along these lines:
1. Two year full alignment, in effect temporary CU membership whilst technology solution implemented. 2. Joint sign-off of technology solution with independent arbitration. 3. Temporary solution to continue till solution is agreed to be working.
Councils need widespread reform and re-boundarying to reflect today’s function city-regions. Innovations like the Greater Manchester mayor are a step in the right direction but more needs to be done!
Fine in theory, but a good way to upset people. Make bits of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire fall under the umbrella of Sheffield? Never!
It is 44 years since it was 'officially' moved into Lancashire, but a Yorkshire flag still flies in the centre of Barnoldswick.
Bassetlaw district council/John Mann seems to have signed up to and/or then thrown its toys out the pram at
The big swing to the left in Metropolitan cities, university cities, and centres of government, isn't matched in large towns and smaller cities, where right wing parties tend to remain very competitive.
Should I bother voting today? Have voted at every GE since I was able. Normally vote Tory but I am very disillusioned with TMay. I know these are local elections but I don't want my vote (with the total of course) to be seen as a vote of confidence in her? I ddon't want to vote Labour whilst Corbyn is leader either......
Why not vote on your local candidate and local issues?
crazy.
Which party has stuffed the most stuff through your letterbox ?
Polish Pride.....
Vote for them then, they've bothered to deliver bumpf to your doorstep and might get a handle on the local dogmess etc.
Greenwich -- it was suggested that the number of posh flats (some with dodgy cladding) that have gone up in the last couple of years might favour the Conservatives -- though it is not one of the councils we can bet on so I've not given it too much thought.
Hmm. The Greenwich and Eltham seats both had above average swings to Lab last year. The cross-border Erith and Thamesmead seat had a below average swing.
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the relationships between a County and its Districts are complex and often down to personalities within ruling groups of the same party. The "twin hats" as they are known (County and District Councillors) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu of a mutually agreed arrangement, you'd have to have an imposed solution which would naturally cause all sorts of issues. As we've seen elsewhere, there's no "one size fits all" solution (contrast Cornwall and Cheshire). There are those who still publicly blame Ted Heath for the 1974 re-organisation. Would a future Conservative leader like the same opprobrium ? I imagine not.
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the relationships between a County and its Districts are complex and often down to personalities within ruling groups of the same party. The "twin hats" as they are known (County and District Councillors) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu of a mutually agreed arrangement, you'd have to have an imposed solution which would naturally cause all sorts of issues. As we've seen elsewhere, there's no "one size fits all" solution (contrast Cornwall and Cheshire). There are those who still publicly blame Ted Heath for the 1974 re-organisation. Would a future Conservative leader like the same opprobrium ? I imagine not.
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
Every local government change has been piecemeal, which is why you finish up with so many authorities.
Yes, that was destructively cretinous. I think she was desperate to portray herself as Madam Brexit and get the approval of The Daily Mail, Farage etc. But these were always going to be fair-weather friends. She should have been straight with the public: told them that, whilst Brexit would happen, it would take years of hard work to get it right. She opted instead for cheap gimmickry.
The problem was after months of bruising debate which had effectively divided and polarised the country the last thing anyone wanted was another national debate.
We see this attitude in the polls - "we've voted to LEAVE. Let the Government sort it out" - and it's essentially one of the two pillars holding up Conservative support (the other being the fear of Jeremy Corbyn). It therefore wasn't in May's interests to open the debate and she didn't.
Her instinct (rightly or wrongly) was to come out with "I can unite the country. We all need to come together. Trust me" and that was the message from July 2016 until June 2017 when it all unravelled as it turned out she couldn't, we wouldn't and we didn't.
It would have been easier to delay A50 while Cameron (and he should have stayed) opened the second stage of debate which was really the critical question of our national identity and role post-EU. We've still not really worked that one out and you have "global Britain" (whatever than means) on one side and those advocating some form of continuing Customs Union with the EU (we want to be a part OF Europe, not apart FROM Europe so to speak).
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the relationships between a County and its Districts are complex and often down to personalities within ruling groups of the same party. The "twin hats" as they are known (County and District Councillors) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu of a mutually agreed arrangement, you'd have to have an imposed solution which would naturally cause all sorts of issues. As we've seen elsewhere, there's no "one size fits all" solution (contrast Cornwall and Cheshire). There are those who still publicly blame Ted Heath for the 1974 re-organisation. Would a future Conservative leader like the same opprobrium ? I imagine not.
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
Or make the District Councils the unitary authority.
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the relationships between a County and its Districts are complex and often down to personalities within ruling groups of the same party. The "twin hats" as they are known (County and District Councillors) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu of a mutually agreed arrangement, you'd have to have an imposed solution which would naturally cause all sorts of issues. As we've seen elsewhere, there's no "one size fits all" solution (contrast Cornwall and Cheshire). There are those who still publicly blame Ted Heath for the 1974 re-organisation. Would a future Conservative leader like the same opprobrium ? I imagine not.
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
Should I bother voting today? Have voted at every GE since I was able. Normally vote Tory but I am very disillusioned with TMay. I know these are local elections but I don't want my vote (with the total of course) to be seen as a vote of confidence in her? I ddon't want to vote Labour whilst Corbyn is leader either......
Why not vote on your local candidate and local issues?
crazy.
Which party has stuffed the most stuff through your letterbox ?
Polish Pride.....
Vote for them then, they've bothered to deliver bumpf to your doorstep and might get a handle on the local dogmess etc.
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the relationships between a County and its Districts are complex and often down to personalities within ruling groups of the same party. The "twin hats" as they are known (County and District Councillors) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu of a mutually agreed arrangement, you'd have to have an imposed solution which would naturally cause all sorts of issues. As we've seen elsewhere, there's no "one size fits all" solution (contrast Cornwall and Cheshire). There are those who still publicly blame Ted Heath for the 1974 re-organisation. Would a future Conservative leader like the same opprobrium ? I imagine not.
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
But would that be in the same region as Essex?
Yep. I’d create a Greater Capital Region encompassing London, Herts, Surrey and Essex.
Of course there'd be some savings. There'd only be one website for starters.
The cost of a website ? Seriously ?
Surrey County Council has a budget of £1.7 billion. I would guess the District and Borough Councils combined come up to maybe £750 million so that's a £2.5 billion business or series of businesses.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be any savings but as usual people forget the costs of merging services or changing how they are delivered and from where.
There's some potential on the property site. Once you've abolished the hundreds of Conservative District Councillors in Surrey you won't need meeting places for them so there are 11 District and Borough HQ buildings to be sold or leased.
You don't get the biggest economies of scale by merging local councils.
Greater scale is achieved by local councils outsourcing services to national organisations who have bigger operations.
Of course there will still be some extra saving by being the best council at outsourcing but the biggest may not be the best.
Have you got shares in Crapita? (Although to be fair my NHS pension arrives regularly)
Of course there'd be some savings. There'd only be one website for starters.
The cost of a website ? Seriously ?
Surrey County Council has a budget of £1.7 billion. I would guess the District and Borough Councils combined come up to maybe £750 million so that's a £2.5 billion business or series of businesses.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be any savings but as usual people forget the costs of merging services or changing how they are delivered and from where....
That is really the point. Would the cost and disruption of reorganisation be justified by the potential savings ? The current system might be far from ideal, but the history of local government reorganisations is not a glorious one.
And it's not as though there aren't other claims on the government's attention....
Of course there'd be some savings. There'd only be one website for starters.
The cost of a website ? Seriously ?
Surrey County Council has a budget of £1.7 billion. I would guess the District and Borough Councils combined come up to maybe £750 million so that's a £2.5 billion business or series of businesses.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be any savings but as usual people forget the costs of merging services or changing how they are delivered and from where.
There's some potential on the property site. Once you've abolished the hundreds of Conservative District Councillors in Surrey you won't need meeting places for them so there are 11 District and Borough HQ buildings to be sold or leased.
You don't get the biggest economies of scale by merging local councils.
Greater scale is achieved by local councils outsourcing services to national organisations who have bigger operations.
Of course there will still be some extra saving by being the best council at outsourcing but the biggest may not be the best.
Have you got shares in Crapita? (Although to be fair my NHS pension arrives regularly)
Not sure about Evershed, but I just voted FOR the rights issue.
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the relationships between a County and its Districts are complex and often down to personalities within ruling groups of the same party. The "twin hats" as they are known (County and District Councillors) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu of a mutually agreed arrangement, you'd have to have an imposed solution which would naturally cause all sorts of issues. As we've seen elsewhere, there's no "one size fits all" solution (contrast Cornwall and Cheshire). There are those who still publicly blame Ted Heath for the 1974 re-organisation. Would a future Conservative leader like the same opprobrium ? I imagine not.
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
But would that be in the same region as Essex?
Yep. I’d create a Greater Capital Region encompassing London, Herts, Surrey and Essex.
Bad enough having London trying to annex our cricket team without this!
Of course there'd be some savings. There'd only be one website for starters.
The cost of a website ? Seriously ?
Surrey County Council has a budget of £1.7 billion. I would guess the District and Borough Councils combined come up to maybe £750 million so that's a £2.5 billion business or series of businesses.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be any savings but as usual people forget the costs of merging services or changing how they are delivered and from where....
That is really the point. Would the cost and disruption of reorganisation be justified by the potential savings ? The current system might be far from ideal, but the history of local government reorganisations is not a glorious one.
And it's not as though there aren't other claims on the government's attention....
It doesn't need the Gov't to get involved: County of County Durham County Council has done it, so can everyone else.
Of course there'd be some savings. There'd only be one website for starters.
The cost of a website ? Seriously ?
Surrey County Council has a budget of £1.7 billion. I would guess the District and Borough Councils combined come up to maybe £750 million so that's a £2.5 billion business or series of businesses.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be any savings but as usual people forget the costs of merging services or changing how they are delivered and from where.
There's some potential on the property site. Once you've abolished the hundreds of Conservative District Councillors in Surrey you won't need meeting places for them so there are 11 District and Borough HQ buildings to be sold or leased.
You don't get the biggest economies of scale by merging local councils.
Greater scale is achieved by local councils outsourcing services to national organisations who have bigger operations.
Of course there will still be some extra saving by being the best council at outsourcing but the biggest may not be the best.
Have you got shares in Crapita? (Although to be fair my NHS pension arrives regularly)
Not sure about Evershed, but I just voted FOR the rights issue.
I worked for Crapita for 3 years thanks to Barnet outsourcing. Their customer service is appalling though they have adequately managed the planning and regulatory services.
That's quite a wide range. But, if you're doing the Pilgrims Way, the Grasshopper on the Green, in Westerham, on the Surrey/Kent border is highly regarded.
That's quite a wide range. But, if you're doing the Pilgrims Way, the Grasshopper on the Green, in Westerham, on the Surrey/Kent border is highly regarded.
Of course there'd be some savings. There'd only be one website for starters.
The cost of a website ? Seriously ?
Surrey County Council has a budget of £1.7 billion. I would guess the District and Borough Councils combined come up to maybe £750 million so that's a £2.5 billion business or series of businesses.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be any savings but as usual people forget the costs of merging services or changing how they are delivered and from where.
There's some potential on the property site. Once you've abolished the hundreds of Conservative District Councillors in Surrey you won't need meeting places for them so there are 11 District and Borough HQ buildings to be sold or leased.
You don't get the biggest economies of scale by merging local councils.
Greater scale is achieved by local councils outsourcing services to national organisations who have bigger operations.
Of course there will still be some extra saving by being the best council at outsourcing but the biggest may not be the best.
Have you got shares in Crapita? (Although to be fair my NHS pension arrives regularly)
Not sure about Evershed, but I just voted FOR the rights issue.
I worked for Crapita for 3 years thanks to Barnet outsourcing. Their customer service is appalling though they have adequately managed the planning and regulatory services.
I briefly temped for them on the TFL stuff (In Coventry !) about a decade ago. The main thing I learnt there was the NATO phonetic alphabet.
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the ) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu of a mutually agreed arrangement, you'd have to have an imposed solution which would naturally cause all sorts of issues. As we've seen elsewhere, there's no "one size fits all" solution (contrast Cornwall and Cheshire). There are those who still publicly blame Ted Heath for the 1974 re-organisation. Would a future Conservative leader like the same opprobrium ? I imagine not.
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
But would that be in the same region as Essex?
Yep. I’d create a Greater Capital Region encompassing London, Herts, Surrey and Essex.
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the relationships between a County and its Districts are complex and often down to personalities within ruling groups of the same party. The "twin hats" as they are known (County and District Councillors) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu of a mutually agreed arrangement, you'd have to have an imposed solution which would naturally cause all sorts of issues. As we've seen elsewhere, there's no "one size fits all" solution (contrast Cornwall and Cheshire). There are those who still publicly blame Ted Heath for the 1974 re-organisation. Would a future Conservative leader like the same opprobrium ? I imagine not.
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
The big swing to the left in Metropolitan cities, university cities, and centres of government, isn't matched in large towns and smaller cities, where right wing parties tend to remain very competitive.
Homeowners, car owners and small business owners with a much less transient population.
Versus flatowners/renters, public transport users, and those who work for big charity/media/businesses with a far larger/more diverse/transient population
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the relationships between a County and its Districts are complex and often down to personalities within ruling groups of the same party. The "twin hats" as they are known (County and District Councillors) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu of a mutually agreed arrangement, you'd have to have an imposed solution which would naturally cause all sorts of issues. As we've seen elsewhere, there's no "one size fits all" solution (contrast Cornwall and Cheshire). There are those who still publicly blame Ted Heath for the 1974 re-organisation. Would a future Conservative leader like the same opprobrium ? I imagine not.
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
Or make the District Councils the unitary authority.
Of course there'd be some savings. There'd only be one website for starters.
The cost of a website ? Seriously ?
Surrey County Council has a budget of £1.7 billion. I would guess the District and Borough Councils combined come up to maybe £750 million so that's a £2.5 billion business or series of businesses.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be any savings but as usual people forget the costs of merging services or changing how they are delivered and from where....
That is really the point. Would the cost and disruption of reorganisation be justified by the potential savings ? The current system might be far from ideal, but the history of local government reorganisations is not a glorious one.
And it's not as though there aren't other claims on the government's attention....
It doesn't need the Gov't to get involved: County of County Durham County Council has done it, so can everyone else.
The Secretary of State has to approve any local council reorganisation into unitary.
Interestingly the new Sec of State is called BROKENSHIRE.
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the ) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu of a mutually agreed arrangement, you'd have to have an imposed solution which would naturally cause all sorts of issues. As we've seen elsewhere, there's no "one size fits all" solution (contrast Cornwall and Cheshire). There are those who still publicly blame Ted Heath for the 1974 re-organisation. Would a future Conservative leader like the same opprobrium ? I imagine not.
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
But would that be in the same region as Essex?
Yep. I’d create a Greater Capital Region encompassing London, Herts, Surrey and Essex.
No thank you. Hertford is our county town.
Hertford, then. I actually thought St Albans *was* the county town.
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the relationships between a County and its Districts are complex and often down to personalities within ruling groups of the same party. The "twin hats" as they are known (County and District Councillors) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu of a mutually agreed arrangement, you'd have to have an imposed solution which would naturally cause all sorts of issues. As we've seen elsewhere, there's no "one size fits all" solution (contrast Cornwall and Cheshire). There are those who still publicly blame Ted Heath for the 1974 re-organisation. Would a future Conservative leader like the same opprobrium ? I imagine not.
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
Given how divisive and party political the vote was, it was probably impractical, but in an ideal world I'd have preferred a cross-party convention on post-Brexit Britain.
That'd have been about powers and the constitutional balance, not what each party would do with them in office, which I'd fully expect to be different.
Of course there'd be some savings. There'd only be one website for starters.
The cost of a website ? Seriously ?
Surrey County Council has a budget of £1.7 billion. I would guess the District and Borough Councils combined come up to maybe £750 million so that's a £2.5 billion business or series of businesses.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be any savings but as usual people forget the costs of merging services or changing how they are delivered and from where....
That is really the point. Would the cost and disruption of reorganisation be justified by the potential savings ? The current system might be far from ideal, but the history of local government reorganisations is not a glorious one.
And it's not as though there aren't other claims on the government's attention....
It doesn't need the Gov't to get involved: County of County Durham County Council has done it, so can everyone else.
The Secretary of State has to approve any local council reorganisation into unitary.
Interestingly the new Sec of State is called BROKENSHIRE.
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the relationships between a County and its Districts are complex and often down to personalities within ruling groups of the same party. The "twin hats" as they are known (County and District Councillors) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu o .
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
That would be about as popular as syphilis.
Which bit.
Regional government, and merging some of the home counties with London.
People strongly identify with their towns, cities and counties, and don't like it when they are messed with.
Of course there'd be some savings. There'd only be one website for starters.
The cost of a website ? Seriously ?
Surrey County Council has a budget of £1.7 billion. I would guess the District and Borough Councils combined come up to maybe £750 million so that's a £2.5 billion business or series of businesses.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be any savings but as usual people forget the costs of merging services or changing how they are delivered and from where.
There's some potential on the property site. Once you've abolished the hundreds of Conservative District Councillors in Surrey you won't need meeting places for them so there are 11 District and Borough HQ buildings to be sold or leased.
You don't get the biggest economies of scale by merging local councils.
Greater scale is achieved by local councils outsourcing services to national organisations who have bigger operations.
Of course there will still be some extra saving by being the best council at outsourcing but the biggest may not be the best.
Have you got shares in Crapita? (Although to be fair my NHS pension arrives regularly)
I had to show ID this morning. It meant there was one extra person at the polling station. I’m not sure what they’re doing for postal votes. My guess is very little.
No ID for me.
I didn't even have a voting card (lost it) name and address and on my way.
Given how divisive and party political the vote was, it was probably impractical, but in an ideal world I'd have preferred a cross-party convention on post-Brexit Britain.
That'd have been about powers and the constitutional balance, not what each party would do with them in office, which I'd fully expect to be different.
I'd have had no objection to a cross-party convention starting with (not quite) a blank sheet of paper but with the ability to think the unthinkable (as someone might have once said).
There's plenty of radical thinking out there but it gets stifled by party political convention.
Unfortunately, for her own reasons, May kept it all within the Government and the Conservative Party.
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the relationships between a County and its Districts are complex and often down to personalities within ruling groups of the same party. The "twin hats" as they are known (County and District Councillors) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu o .
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
That would be about as popular as syphilis.
Which bit.
Regional government, and merging some of the home counties with London.
People strongly identify with their towns, cities and counties, and don't like it when they are messed with.
Regional government? You are Lord Prescott and I claim my £5!
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the relationships between a County and its Districts are complex and often down to personalities within ruling groups of the same party. The "twin hats" as they are known (County and District Councillors) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu o .
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
That would be about as popular as syphilis.
Which bit.
Regional government, and merging some of the home counties with London.
People strongly identify with their towns, cities and counties, and don't like it when they are messed with.
I don’t want to merge the Home Counties. Just give the electors a chance to vote on commuter rail provision (for example).
My main interface is Hackney. Yours would still be Hertfordshire.
Given how divisive and party political the vote was, it was probably impractical, but in an ideal world I'd have preferred a cross-party convention on post-Brexit Britain.
That'd have been about powers and the constitutional balance, not what each party would do with them in office, which I'd fully expect to be different.
I'd have had no objection to a cross-party convention starting with (not quite) a blank sheet of paper but with the ability to think the unthinkable (as someone might have once said).
There's plenty of radical thinking out there but it gets stifled by party political convention.
Unfortunately, for her own reasons, May kept it all within the Government and the Conservative Party.
On a practical rather than theoretical basis how would May have done it any differently?
People talk about wanting cross-party conventions regularly but I can't think of any done by a government in my lifetime that encompasses the parties of government and opposition and isn't subsumed by party politics.
Should I bother voting today? Have voted at every GE since I was able. Normally vote Tory but I am very disillusioned with TMay. I know these are local elections but I don't want my vote (with the total of course) to be seen as a vote of confidence in her? I ddon't want to vote Labour whilst Corbyn is leader either......
At least spoil your ballot paper. Not voting isn't seen by politicians as disillusionment, but disinterest. If they think you don't like them they will try and win you back, if they think you don't care they'll ignore you.
At least spoil your ballot paper. Not voting isn't seen by politicians as disillusionment, but disinterest. If they think you don't like them they will try and win you back, if they think you don't care they'll ignore you.
Absolutely correct. In our local campaign we've given a bit more attention to trying to win the votes of those that we know turn out than those that we know don't. Not voting doesn't send the same message to the parties as that which the non-voters think it does.
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the relationships between a County and its Districts are complex and often down to personalities within ruling groups of the same party. The "twin hats" as they are known (County and District Councillors) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County Council you'd have 81 Councillors running an authority serving a population the size of Birmingham. You could split the single authority into two - an East Surrey based on Reigate and a West Surrey based on Guildford. The other problem is you have Districts like Spelthorne who want to be Unitaries on their own.
In lieu o .
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
That would be about as popular as syphilis.
Which bit.
Regional government, and merging some of the home counties with London.
People strongly identify with their towns, cities and counties, and don't like it when they are messed with.
I agree, but the other half of the plan works, I think. Nobody thinks of themselves as "north-west Bedfordshiran" or whatever
No I'm not opposed to all local government, but the amount of councils (And associated costs) that exist in rural Britain is ridiculous. We'd be better off on a wholly unitary system, probably keeping the existing county councillors and ditching certainly the district level which would achieve some economies of scale.
It's an interesting issue and one I often hear discussed in my line of work. I'd make two observations - the ) make like difficult for everyone in all honesty.
I would bar anyone representing the same area on more than one authority. There IS a conflict of interest there whether they like it or not.
As for the structures themselves, let's take a case in point. Surrey has about 1.2 million people and has a County Council plus eleven District and Borough Councils and any number of Parish Councils (the precept also covers the Police Authority which is another layer to consider).
If you had a single County In lieu of a mutually agreed arrangement, you'd have to have an imposed solution which would naturally cause all sorts of issues. As we've seen elsewhere, there's no "one size fits all" solution (contrast Cornwall and Cheshire). There are those who still publicly blame Ted Heath for the 1974 re-organisation. Would a future Conservative leader like the same opprobrium ? I imagine not.
I am not sure how the U.K. got itself into this pickle. It’s all very confusing and therefore not very democratic.
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
But would that be in the same region as Essex?
Yep. I’d create a Greater Capital Region encompassing London, Herts, Surrey and Essex.
No thank you. Hertford is our county town.
Hertford, then. I actually thought St Albans *was* the county town.
If the county town was the largest place, I guess it would be Watford.
This is on the BBC website re London boroughs: “London boroughs are more similar to districts. They organise social services, bin collections and local parks, while the Greater London Authority (GLA), headed up by the Mayor of London, is responsible for policing, fire, and transport services. The responsibility for housing and road maintenance is shared by the boroughs and the GLA.”
I don’t think the comparison with district councils is accurate. London borough are responsible for education and social services like unitary councils and county councils. Ok the GLA is responsible for policing and has a strategic planning function but housing is predominately a borough function supported by funding from the GLA as London’s version of Homes England.
Comments
Councils need widespread reform and re-boundarying to reflect today’s function city-regions. Innovations like the Greater Manchester mayor are a step in the right direction but more needs to be done!
Reward for failure seems common.
The former CEO of Lloyds Bank. Eric Daniels, made the decision to acquire HBOS without carrying out proper due diligence, with the result the acquired bad loans and misselling brought Lloyds to its knees. He recently won a court case to be paid his bonus for that year.
Mr. One, can always vote independent, or just spoil your ballot.
In the majority of cases the share prices of the acquiring companies do not benefit from making the acquisition whilst the share prices of the acquired companies do benefit.
It is 44 years since it was 'officially' moved into Lancashire, but a Yorkshire flag still flies in the centre of Barnoldswick.
Greater scale is achieved by local councils outsourcing services to national organisations who have bigger operations.
Of course there will still be some extra saving by being the best council at outsourcing but the biggest may not be the best.
a) Being part of Sheffield City region http://www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/news-and-events/news-archive/may-jun-2017/council-to-withdraw-bid-for-scr-constituent-membership.aspx
b) Being part of the 'Northern Midlands' area https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35226998 - See Mann's comments.
c) Nottinghamshire going unitary. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35310042 (See Simon Greaves comment)
Keep it simple.
Abolish district councils.
Each county or larger urban area to have a single unitary council, with an associated NHS, social care, and policing body. PR system for councillors, and a single mayor elected by first-past-the-post.
Above that, a regional level of government centred on the larger 8 or 9 metros, responsible for transport and economic planning.
In my beautiful reorganisation of U.K. local government, Hertfordshire would be a single unitary, centred of course on St Albans, and part of a Greater Capital Region.
Every local government change has been piecemeal, which is why you finish up with so many authorities.
We see this attitude in the polls - "we've voted to LEAVE. Let the Government sort it out" - and it's essentially one of the two pillars holding up Conservative support (the other being the fear of Jeremy Corbyn). It therefore wasn't in May's interests to open the debate and she didn't.
Her instinct (rightly or wrongly) was to come out with "I can unite the country. We all need to come together. Trust me" and that was the message from July 2016 until June 2017 when it all unravelled as it turned out she couldn't, we wouldn't and we didn't.
It would have been easier to delay A50 while Cameron (and he should have stayed) opened the second stage of debate which was really the critical question of our national identity and role post-EU. We've still not really worked that one out and you have "global Britain" (whatever than means) on one side and those advocating some form of continuing Customs Union with the EU (we want to be a part OF Europe, not apart FROM Europe so to speak).
But maybe I am a closet Tory and Brexiteer!!
Or make the District Councils the unitary authority.
The current system might be far from ideal, but the history of local government reorganisations is not a glorious one.
And it's not as though there aren't other claims on the government's attention....
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/991641477343215617
Hertford is our county town.
Versus flatowners/renters, public transport users, and those who work for big charity/media/businesses with a far larger/more diverse/transient population
Interestingly the new Sec of State is called BROKENSHIRE.
Given how divisive and party political the vote was, it was probably impractical, but in an ideal world I'd have preferred a cross-party convention on post-Brexit Britain.
That'd have been about powers and the constitutional balance, not what each party would do with them in office, which I'd fully expect to be different.
People strongly identify with their towns, cities and counties, and don't like it when they are messed with.
I didn't even have a voting card (lost it) name and address and on my way.
There's plenty of radical thinking out there but it gets stifled by party political convention.
Unfortunately, for her own reasons, May kept it all within the Government and the Conservative Party.
So they like their locale - but not know much about the council(s) providing the services.
Just give the electors a chance to vote on commuter rail provision (for example).
My main interface is Hackney. Yours would still be Hertfordshire.
People talk about wanting cross-party conventions regularly but I can't think of any done by a government in my lifetime that encompasses the parties of government and opposition and isn't subsumed by party politics.
“London boroughs are more similar to districts. They organise social services, bin collections and local parks, while the Greater London Authority (GLA), headed up by the Mayor of London, is responsible for policing, fire, and transport services. The responsibility for housing and road maintenance is shared by the boroughs and the GLA.”
I don’t think the comparison with district councils is accurate. London borough are responsible for education and social services like unitary councils and county councils. Ok the GLA is responsible for policing and has a strategic planning function but housing is predominately a borough function supported by funding from the GLA as London’s version of Homes England.