The Government is poised to take over the running of the city of Liverpool this week after a string of corruption allegations, The Telegraph can disclose.
The expected decision by the Local Government secretary Robert Jenrick to intervene in the running of one of the UK's biggest cities is unprecedented in modern times.
Commissioners could be sent in to run the day-to-day operations of the council for several years, something which has only happened three times in the past 25 years.
Commissioners were sent in by the Government to take over the running of councils in Northampton in 2018, Rotherham in 2015 and Towers Hamlets in 2014. None of them was the scale of a city like Liverpool, however.
Max Caller, a respected local government inspector who was the commissioner in Tower Hamlets, was appointed by Mr Jenrick to lead the investigation into Liverpool last December.
Mr Caller focused his investigation on property management, regeneration, highways, contracts and planning at the council over the past five years.
The Telegraph understands that Mr Jenrick has now received the final report and recommendations from Mr Caller.
He will make a final decision on what action to take this week before the formal purdah period begins ahead of the local government elections. It is likely that Mr Jenrick will order commissioners into Liverpool.
Mr Caller has already briefed local MPs in the area about the findings which will be published this week. His report is understood to contain a “damning indictment of the council”.
Councillors will still be elected in Liverpool but could cede executive powers to the commissioners for as long as they are appointed.
The city's accounts have not been signed off by auditors for the past five years because of the continuing police inquiry into "financial irregularities".
Husband tells me that failure to get accounts signed off is a very serious matter. If the auditors have failed to do it for five years straight then I'm somewhat surprised that measures haven't been taken in Liverpool before now.
Manchester City Council will be feeling pretty smug right about now.
Maybe the Liberal (not Liberal Democrats) Party can build on their strength in Liverpool from this
Nah, Liverpool Labour is indestructible. Besides anything else, once the Evil Tories send their stooges in to take over the show, the Labour councillors can act as an opposition and blame the central Government for everything that happens in the city.
The Government is poised to take over the running of the city of Liverpool this week after a string of corruption allegations, The Telegraph can disclose.
The expected decision by the Local Government secretary Robert Jenrick to intervene in the running of one of the UK's biggest cities is unprecedented in modern times.
Commissioners could be sent in to run the day-to-day operations of the council for several years, something which has only happened three times in the past 25 years.
Commissioners were sent in by the Government to take over the running of councils in Northampton in 2018, Rotherham in 2015 and Towers Hamlets in 2014. None of them was the scale of a city like Liverpool, however.
Max Caller, a respected local government inspector who was the commissioner in Tower Hamlets, was appointed by Mr Jenrick to lead the investigation into Liverpool last December.
Mr Caller focused his investigation on property management, regeneration, highways, contracts and planning at the council over the past five years.
The Telegraph understands that Mr Jenrick has now received the final report and recommendations from Mr Caller.
He will make a final decision on what action to take this week before the formal purdah period begins ahead of the local government elections. It is likely that Mr Jenrick will order commissioners into Liverpool.
Mr Caller has already briefed local MPs in the area about the findings which will be published this week. His report is understood to contain a “damning indictment of the council”.
Councillors will still be elected in Liverpool but could cede executive powers to the commissioners for as long as they are appointed.
The city's accounts have not been signed off by auditors for the past five years because of the continuing police inquiry into "financial irregularities".
Husband tells me that failure to get accounts signed off is a very serious matter. If the auditors have failed to do it for five years straight then I'm somewhat surprised that measures haven't been taken in Liverpool before now.
Manchester City Council will be feeling pretty smug right about now.
Maybe the Liberal (not Liberal Democrats) Party can build on their strength in Liverpool from this
Nah, Liverpool Labour is indestructible. Besides anything else, once the Evil Tories send their stooges in to take over the show, the Labour councillors can act as an opposition and blame the central Government for everything that happens in the city.
Liverpool was run by Liberals in 1970s.
And the Tories in the late 1960s.
Currently Liverpool has 72 Labour councillors, 10 LD councillors, 4 Green councillors , 3 Liberal councillors and 0 Tory councillors
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
Blair removed almost all of them, while also introducing devolved Assemblies and a Parliament in Wales, NI and Scotland without any such equivalent in England when he was trashing our constitution without full thought.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
Strangely, I agree.
I see the fact they hold a large stake in the country and their families part of the Lords hundreds of years as reasons to keep, and not expunge, them. I value that anchored continuity and stability.
He's not aristocracy but I'd far rather have a member of Charles's family in there, say, than Evgeny Lebedev or a has-been retread elected on a low turnout. I'd be happy with, say, 30-40 Lords Terra from our oldest families as well as the 26 Lords Spiritual.
You can faddishise democracy to an ideological extent, which is how we ended up with elected PCCs.
The Government is poised to take over the running of the city of Liverpool this week after a string of corruption allegations, The Telegraph can disclose.
The expected decision by the Local Government secretary Robert Jenrick to intervene in the running of one of the UK's biggest cities is unprecedented in modern times.
Commissioners could be sent in to run the day-to-day operations of the council for several years, something which has only happened three times in the past 25 years.
Commissioners were sent in by the Government to take over the running of councils in Northampton in 2018, Rotherham in 2015 and Towers Hamlets in 2014. None of them was the scale of a city like Liverpool, however.
Max Caller, a respected local government inspector who was the commissioner in Tower Hamlets, was appointed by Mr Jenrick to lead the investigation into Liverpool last December.
Mr Caller focused his investigation on property management, regeneration, highways, contracts and planning at the council over the past five years.
The Telegraph understands that Mr Jenrick has now received the final report and recommendations from Mr Caller.
He will make a final decision on what action to take this week before the formal purdah period begins ahead of the local government elections. It is likely that Mr Jenrick will order commissioners into Liverpool.
Mr Caller has already briefed local MPs in the area about the findings which will be published this week. His report is understood to contain a “damning indictment of the council”.
Councillors will still be elected in Liverpool but could cede executive powers to the commissioners for as long as they are appointed.
The city's accounts have not been signed off by auditors for the past five years because of the continuing police inquiry into "financial irregularities".
Husband tells me that failure to get accounts signed off is a very serious matter. If the auditors have failed to do it for five years straight then I'm somewhat surprised that measures haven't been taken in Liverpool before now.
Manchester City Council will be feeling pretty smug right about now.
Maybe the Liberal (not Liberal Democrats) Party can build on their strength in Liverpool from this
Nah, Liverpool Labour is indestructible. Besides anything else, once the Evil Tories send their stooges in to take over the show, the Labour councillors can act as an opposition and blame the central Government for everything that happens in the city.
The Government is poised to take over the running of the city of Liverpool this week after a string of corruption allegations, The Telegraph can disclose.
The expected decision by the Local Government secretary Robert Jenrick to intervene in the running of one of the UK's biggest cities is unprecedented in modern times.
Commissioners could be sent in to run the day-to-day operations of the council for several years, something which has only happened three times in the past 25 years.
Commissioners were sent in by the Government to take over the running of councils in Northampton in 2018, Rotherham in 2015 and Towers Hamlets in 2014. None of them was the scale of a city like Liverpool, however.
Max Caller, a respected local government inspector who was the commissioner in Tower Hamlets, was appointed by Mr Jenrick to lead the investigation into Liverpool last December.
Mr Caller focused his investigation on property management, regeneration, highways, contracts and planning at the council over the past five years.
The Telegraph understands that Mr Jenrick has now received the final report and recommendations from Mr Caller.
He will make a final decision on what action to take this week before the formal purdah period begins ahead of the local government elections. It is likely that Mr Jenrick will order commissioners into Liverpool.
Mr Caller has already briefed local MPs in the area about the findings which will be published this week. His report is understood to contain a “damning indictment of the council”.
Councillors will still be elected in Liverpool but could cede executive powers to the commissioners for as long as they are appointed.
The city's accounts have not been signed off by auditors for the past five years because of the continuing police inquiry into "financial irregularities".
Husband tells me that failure to get accounts signed off is a very serious matter. If the auditors have failed to do it for five years straight then I'm somewhat surprised that measures haven't been taken in Liverpool before now.
Manchester City Council will be feeling pretty smug right about now.
Maybe the Liberal (not Liberal Democrats) Party can build on their strength in Liverpool from this
Nah, Liverpool Labour is indestructible. Besides anything else, once the Evil Tories send their stooges in to take over the show, the Labour councillors can act as an opposition and blame the central Government for everything that happens in the city.
Liverpool was run by Liberals in 1970s.
Ancient history.
Liverpool was run by the Lib Dems this century.
Recent history.
And Newcastle from 2004 - 2011. Clegg really f*cked it.
The Government is poised to take over the running of the city of Liverpool this week after a string of corruption allegations, The Telegraph can disclose.
The expected decision by the Local Government secretary Robert Jenrick to intervene in the running of one of the UK's biggest cities is unprecedented in modern times.
Commissioners could be sent in to run the day-to-day operations of the council for several years, something which has only happened three times in the past 25 years.
Commissioners were sent in by the Government to take over the running of councils in Northampton in 2018, Rotherham in 2015 and Towers Hamlets in 2014. None of them was the scale of a city like Liverpool, however.
Max Caller, a respected local government inspector who was the commissioner in Tower Hamlets, was appointed by Mr Jenrick to lead the investigation into Liverpool last December.
Mr Caller focused his investigation on property management, regeneration, highways, contracts and planning at the council over the past five years.
The Telegraph understands that Mr Jenrick has now received the final report and recommendations from Mr Caller.
He will make a final decision on what action to take this week before the formal purdah period begins ahead of the local government elections. It is likely that Mr Jenrick will order commissioners into Liverpool.
Mr Caller has already briefed local MPs in the area about the findings which will be published this week. His report is understood to contain a “damning indictment of the council”.
Councillors will still be elected in Liverpool but could cede executive powers to the commissioners for as long as they are appointed.
The city's accounts have not been signed off by auditors for the past five years because of the continuing police inquiry into "financial irregularities".
Husband tells me that failure to get accounts signed off is a very serious matter. If the auditors have failed to do it for five years straight then I'm somewhat surprised that measures haven't been taken in Liverpool before now.
Manchester City Council will be feeling pretty smug right about now.
Maybe the Liberal (not Liberal Democrats) Party can build on their strength in Liverpool from this
Nah, Liverpool Labour is indestructible. Besides anything else, once the Evil Tories send their stooges in to take over the show, the Labour councillors can act as an opposition and blame the central Government for everything that happens in the city.
Liverpool was run by Liberals in 1970s.
Ancient history.
Liverpool was run by the Lib Dems this century.
Recent history.
And Newcastle from 2004 - 2011. Clegg really f*cked it.
There are two tragedies in life, one not getting what you want, the other is getting what you want.
The Lib Dems being in government are the epitome of that.
Actually the Tories controlled Liverpool 1895 - 1955 , 1962 - 1963 - and again 1967 - 1971. Thus, it has been in Tory hands more often than Labour - albeit not recently!
Oh I see, so they're properly "Merged" for this election?
They function as sister parties. CSU only stands candidates in Bavaria, CDU throughout Germany except in Bavaria. I don't know why there's a formal split. AIUI, however, CSU is slightly more conservative.
Yes, I know all that, but that graph is the first time I've seen them NOT referred to as "CDU/CSU".
Ah right, OK. Sorry, I have seen the term used before. Again, AIUI "Union" is common shorthand for the alliance between the two.
They have separate party structures but nominate a single candidate for chancellor in federal elections and operate as a unified bloc in the federal parliament.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
Everyone thinks their local council is incompetent, unless someone suggests abolishing it to make a new unitary, at which point they complain vociferously.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
The fact is, councillors are by and large not elected based on their ability to manage or administer but by how good they are at sucking up to the party machine.
And what we get is a result of that.
Why would anyone who's actually good at these things get involved in local politics?
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
The fact is, councillors are by and large not elected based on their ability to manage or administer but by how good they are at sucking up to the party machine.
And what we get is a result of that.
Why would anyone who's actually good at these things get involved in local politics?
I think that's a disservice to many councillors up and down the country. They aren't just party stooges.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
The fact is, councillors are by and large not elected based on their ability to manage or administer but by how good they are at sucking up to the party machine.
And what we get is a result of that.
Why would anyone who's actually good at these things get involved in local politics?
I think that's a disservice to many councillors up and down the country. They aren't just party stooges.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
The fact is, councillors are by and large not elected based on their ability to manage or administer but by how good they are at sucking up to the party machine.
And what we get is a result of that.
Why would anyone who's actually good at these things get involved in local politics?
I think that's a disservice to many councillors up and down the country. They aren't just party stooges.
Good one
Good what? Your claim that all councillors are just puppets of the party and all councils are incompetent isn't that convincing.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
The fact is, councillors are by and large not elected based on their ability to manage or administer but by how good they are at sucking up to the party machine.
And what we get is a result of that.
Why would anyone who's actually good at these things get involved in local politics?
I think that's a disservice to many councillors up and down the country. They aren't just party stooges.
Good one
Good what? Your claim that all councillors are just puppets of the party and all councils are incompetent isn't that convincing.
I mean, I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone.
Actually the Tories controlled Liverpool 1895 - 1955 , 1962 - 1963 - and again 1967 - 1971.
1971 was 21 years before I was born and I'm nearly 30.
Until 1964 most Liverpool MPs were Tory. The idea that the city has always been a Labour stronghold is simply wrong! Much the same is true of Birmingham which was dominated by the Chamberlains for decades.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
The fact is, councillors are by and large not elected based on their ability to manage or administer but by how good they are at sucking up to the party machine.
And what we get is a result of that.
Why would anyone who's actually good at these things get involved in local politics?
I think that's a disservice to many councillors up and down the country. They aren't just party stooges.
Good one
Good what? Your claim that all councillors are just puppets of the party and all councils are incompetent isn't that convincing.
I mean, I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
The fact is, councillors are by and large not elected based on their ability to manage or administer but by how good they are at sucking up to the party machine.
And what we get is a result of that.
Why would anyone who's actually good at these things get involved in local politics?
You'd be surprised - depending on the area people seem to sneak through the party machine surprisingly easily, especially if the local parties (based on parliamentary seats) do not seem to coordinate or get along veyr well. And I'm often surprised both how little parties sometimes tell candidates about the role and how incurious people who agree to be candidates can be, with the result that mavericks can get in even within parties, and given low turnout and small wards, could disrupt a seat next time if kicked out for being awkward.
Especially this year you'd think there'd be no trouble finding candidates as you only need 2 signatures, but you'll see a lot of paper candidates, and if those ones win they might well not be easy to control either.
As for being good at administering, well councillor don't really administer anyway, but even so, how to incentivise parties to select 'good' candidates? How to get such people to even want to do it? I don't think anyone can really answer that - there are excellent councillors, but you need the right mindset and temperament to manage it.
Actually the Tories controlled Liverpool 1895 - 1955 , 1962 - 1963 - and again 1967 - 1971.
1971 was 21 years before I was born and I'm nearly 30.
Until 1964 most Liverpool MPs were Tory. The idea that the city has always been a Labour stronghold is simply wrong! Much the same is true of Birmingham which was dominated by the Chamberlains for decades.
Although most of that was about keeping the Left footers in their place.
The Government is poised to take over the running of the city of Liverpool this week after a string of corruption allegations, The Telegraph can disclose.
The expected decision by the Local Government secretary Robert Jenrick to intervene in the running of one of the UK's biggest cities is unprecedented in modern times.
Commissioners could be sent in to run the day-to-day operations of the council for several years, something which has only happened three times in the past 25 years.
Commissioners were sent in by the Government to take over the running of councils in Northampton in 2018, Rotherham in 2015 and Towers Hamlets in 2014. None of them was the scale of a city like Liverpool, however.
Max Caller, a respected local government inspector who was the commissioner in Tower Hamlets, was appointed by Mr Jenrick to lead the investigation into Liverpool last December.
Mr Caller focused his investigation on property management, regeneration, highways, contracts and planning at the council over the past five years.
The Telegraph understands that Mr Jenrick has now received the final report and recommendations from Mr Caller.
He will make a final decision on what action to take this week before the formal purdah period begins ahead of the local government elections. It is likely that Mr Jenrick will order commissioners into Liverpool.
Mr Caller has already briefed local MPs in the area about the findings which will be published this week. His report is understood to contain a “damning indictment of the council”.
Councillors will still be elected in Liverpool but could cede executive powers to the commissioners for as long as they are appointed.
The city's accounts have not been signed off by auditors for the past five years because of the continuing police inquiry into "financial irregularities".
Husband tells me that failure to get accounts signed off is a very serious matter. If the auditors have failed to do it for five years straight then I'm somewhat surprised that measures haven't been taken in Liverpool before now.
Manchester City Council will be feeling pretty smug right about now.
Maybe the Liberal (not Liberal Democrats) Party can build on their strength in Liverpool from this
Nah, Liverpool Labour is indestructible. Besides anything else, once the Evil Tories send their stooges in to take over the show, the Labour councillors can act as an opposition and blame the central Government for everything that happens in the city.
Liverpool was run by Liberals in 1970s.
Ancient history.
Liverpool was run by the Lib Dems this century.
Recent history.
It's a fair Kop
I guess what I was originally trying to get at (in my own cack-handed kind of a way) is that there's no sign whatsoever of a challenger party coming up on the rails, regardless of how much of a mess Labour creates. The Lib Dems collaborated with the Evil Tories - the chances of a comeback for them look somewhat less than substantial.
Or, to put it another way, if the Labour party were ever to die out, it would probably make its last stand in Liverpool.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
Everyone thinks their local council is incompetent, unless someone suggests abolishing it to make a new unitary, at which point they complain vociferously.
How can unitarys not be more efficient ? Two tier is the most ridiculous system in the world
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
The fact is, councillors are by and large not elected based on their ability to manage or administer but by how good they are at sucking up to the party machine.
And what we get is a result of that.
Why would anyone who's actually good at these things get involved in local politics?
I think that's a disservice to many councillors up and down the country. They aren't just party stooges.
Good one
It's totally true. Plenty of stooges around, but what do you even mean by party stooge? Certainly not to the national party, as locally you might need to be seen to oppose a government measure or rail against lack of funding etc. In one party states they usually break into factions. In dominant controlled councils they could ignore opposition but often do not. And if they cannot manage their local group properly Leaders will get replaced, so they cannot expect subservience.
Most will follow a general party line, but that's why they are in a party in the first place, because it appeals to them. But if the leadership propose a road through their patch or take them for granted, they don't sit on their hands.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
Everyone thinks their local council is incompetent, unless someone suggests abolishing it to make a new unitary, at which point they complain vociferously.
How can unitarys not be more efficient ? Two tier is the most ridiculous system in the world
You obviously haven't seen the French. Many,.Many tier.
Someone has leaked that to hurt Cameron. Cui bono?
I don't see how anybody benefits from hurting Cameron. Unless he's planning a political comeback, Salmond style, and Boris is giving him the Sturgeon treatment.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
Everyone thinks their local council is incompetent, unless someone suggests abolishing it to make a new unitary, at which point they complain vociferously.
How can unitarys not be more efficient ? Two tier is the most ridiculous system in the world
Once done I don't think people care, as despite attachment to counties still being around I don't think people have connection to administrative boundaries which, in many cases, have not really been around as long as people may think. But it's part defence of status quo and part reaction about being run from 'too far away' a lot of the time.
But there's no set number of electors per councillor in England at least, so it varies massively, nor a set size of ward, so how far is too far away for an overall council is subjective at best and likely not as big a problem as people think.
In fairness some counties are easy - Swindon is massively different to the rest of Wiltshire and conveniently located to exclude along with a hinterland, but others may be more difficult to divide up.
Cameron has a reputation to shred? News to all but TSE...
How is it a “system in disrepute”? The “system” appears to have told him to jog on.
I think the issue is he had a bunch of share options which would have made him very rich if he had delivered with the lobbying. But a large number of share options suggest that those giving them to him knew it was a very, very hard sell to Government that only a former PM had a chance to even get heard.
The newspaper said £70m but that’s probably a very aggressive valuation of the firm
But Cameron is smart enough to know that for that amount of money there is something dodgy going on. And he was prepared to do that deal. Disappointing.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
The fact is, councillors are by and large not elected based on their ability to manage or administer but by how good they are at sucking up to the party machine.
And what we get is a result of that.
Why would anyone who's actually good at these things get involved in local politics?
I think that's a disservice to many councillors up and down the country. They aren't just party stooges.
Good one
It's totally true. Plenty of stooges around, but what do you even mean by party stooge? Certainly not to the national party, as locally you might need to be seen to oppose a government measure or rail against lack of funding etc. In one party states they usually break into factions. In dominant controlled councils they could ignore opposition but often do not. And if they cannot manage their local group properly Leaders will get replaced, so they cannot expect subservience.
Most will follow a general party line, but that's why they are in a party in the first place, because it appeals to them. But if the leadership propose a road through their patch or take them for granted, they don't sit on their hands.
Looks like Activision didn't get the brexit memo, all regional offices in Europe to close, UK office to absorb all of their functions and some of the staff. Think it's about +300 jobs for the UK, another 400-600 additional support industry function roles and about -1200 across Europe.
This is going to be the first of many in gaming and media, the whining about travel cuts both ways and firms are deciding that being in the UK is a better long term bet than being across various EU countries.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
The fact is, councillors are by and large not elected based on their ability to manage or administer but by how good they are at sucking up to the party machine.
And what we get is a result of that.
Why would anyone who's actually good at these things get involved in local politics?
I think that's a disservice to many councillors up and down the country. They aren't just party stooges.
Good one
It's totally true. Plenty of stooges around, but what do you even mean by party stooge? Certainly not to the national party, as locally you might need to be seen to oppose a government measure or rail against lack of funding etc. In one party states they usually break into factions. In dominant controlled councils they could ignore opposition but often do not. And if they cannot manage their local group properly Leaders will get replaced, so they cannot expect subservience.
Most will follow a general party line, but that's why they are in a party in the first place, because it appeals to them. But if the leadership propose a road through their patch or take them for granted, they don't sit on their hands.
I didn't use the term "party stooge".
It was a reasonable inference of your position given your response to the claim they were not stooges.
Good timing for TSE's upcoming piece, with a BBC piece on 'The Forgotten Referendum', though I think the opening is a bit dodgy even though the great Curtice suggests it.
The prime minister is Jeremy Corbyn. The UK is a member of the European Union. Two fanciful propositions, you might think.
And yet there was a moment, a decade ago, where that course could have been set, even if every vote since then had been cast exactly the same way.
Looks like Activision didn't get the brexit memo, all regional offices in Europe to close, UK office to absorb all of their functions and some of the staff. Think it's about +300 jobs for the UK, another 400-600 additional support industry function roles and about -1200 across Europe.
This is going to be the first of many in gaming and media, the whining about travel cuts both ways and firms are deciding that being in the UK is a better long term bet than being across various EU countries.
Now just need to get Ubisoft to move everyone across, that'd be a biggy!
Looks like Activision didn't get the brexit memo, all regional offices in Europe to close, UK office to absorb all of their functions and some of the staff. Think it's about +300 jobs for the UK, another 400-600 additional support industry function roles and about -1200 across Europe.
This is going to be the first of many in gaming and media, the whining about travel cuts both ways and firms are deciding that being in the UK is a better long term bet than being across various EU countries.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
Everyone thinks their local council is incompetent, unless someone suggests abolishing it to make a new unitary, at which point they complain vociferously.
How can unitarys not be more efficient ? Two tier is the most ridiculous system in the world
"More efficient"? But from whose point of view?
Two tiers is far more efficient from the point of view of the inhabitants, since they can have more influence over smaller bodies.
Having just one tier, on the other hand, would be more efficient from the point of view of big corporations, central government, a dictatorship or corrupt foreigners. And it is also much easier to fix elections.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
Everyone thinks their local council is incompetent, unless someone suggests abolishing it to make a new unitary, at which point they complain vociferously.
How can unitarys not be more efficient ? Two tier is the most ridiculous system in the world
You'll always have the tension between local authorities that are closer to people and economies of scale/strategic oversight. That seems, to me, to be behind what's happened with a lot of these city region mayors. In a number of these cases, old metropolitan counties have been abolished and replaced by unitary boroughs - then, further down the line, Government has decided that having an authority in charge of transport, the local police authority and various other bits and pieces for the wider area is a good idea after all.
Thus, for example, the Liverpool City Region is more-or-less Merseyside, reborn with a different governance structure. London has the boroughs, but with a mayor and lightweight assembly as successor to the old GLC. The two-tier system disappears, then later comes back in a different form.
It's by no means happened everywhere - yet. But these combined authorities and mayors are probably going to creep further across the map in time. There are also valid questions to be asked about some of the unitaries, especially the smaller ones: is it necessarily a good idea to invest all of the powers and responsibilities of local government in an authority like Rutland, which encompasses fewer people than many medium-sized towns? It'll probably find itself part of a Leicestershire and Rutland Combined Authority at some point down the line, just as its near neighbour Peterborough now finds itself back in association with Cambridgeshire again.
The councils that really do mess up spectacularly are the ones where they are effectively one party states.
Of course there are going to be authorities spanning the competence/incompetence spectrum. I don't think they are all firmly at one end.
You don't have to be corrupt to be incompetent.
Of course, but I don't think they are all incompetent. Otherwise basic services wouldn't be working anywhere.
Everyone thinks their local council is incompetent, unless someone suggests abolishing it to make a new unitary, at which point they complain vociferously.
How can unitarys not be more efficient ? Two tier is the most ridiculous system in the world
"More efficient"? But from whose point of view?
Two tiers is far more efficient from the point of view of the inhabitants, since they can have more influence over smaller bodies.
Having just one tier, on the other hand, would be more efficient from the point of view of big corporations, central government, a dictatorship or corrupt foreigners. And it is also much easier to fix elections.
Do you think we have a major problem with fixed elections in single tier areas? Nowhere is perfect so there's presumably some foul play, but it seems a disproportionate fear.
As for more efficient for residents, ask them if they want 10 tiers then, since that would apparently be the most influential for them.
Re: London mayor race (and extended to elections in general). Is there any rule against a candidate changing their name to “None Oftheabove” and chancing their luck?
If they did they would need a surname that ensured them the bottom slot.
Still, if the EU states attempt anything that silly then the one thing that the UK absolutely must not do is retaliate in a tit-for-tat fashion. It wouldn't get us what we wanted any quicker, and would rob the UK Government of the moral and legal high ground. You can't outmanoeuvre an opponent that forces businesses to violate their contractual obligations by doing likewise.
Under such circumstances the aim should be (a) to sue through the courts and (b) to encourage chunks of the European pharma industry to relocate to a more stable environment, i.e. here - if necessary, sweetened by generous grants to help build up the domestic capacity to manufacture medicines.
Still, if the EU states attempt anything that silly then the one thing that the UK absolutely must not do is retaliate in a tit-for-tat fashion. It wouldn't get us what we wanted any quicker, and would rob the UK Government of the moral and legal high ground. You can't outmanoeuvre an opponent that forces businesses to violate their contractual obligations by doing likewise.
Under such circumstances the aim should be (a) to sue through the courts and (b) to encourage chunks of the European pharma industry to relocate to a more stable environment, i.e. here - if necessary, sweetened by generous grants to help build up the domestic capacity to manufacture medicines.
The telegraph is saying the latter is already underway with Kwasi in talks with major international pharma about relocation to safe, law abiding, low tax Britain. Anecdotally fro m my uni friends they say their firms are absolutely horrified by the words and actions of the EU and European politicians over AZ. One of them works for AZ's major rival GSK and he was saying that Sanofi and GSK both have a vaccine that completey failed to launch and they're supposed to have delivered a huge number by now to the EU but because the vaccine was such a failure neither is taking any heat over it while poor old AZ has foregone any profits from it and is doing, in his opinion, a great job of scaling production from zero to hundreds of millions per month in less than a year and getting their vaccine and reputation trashed. He's on the scientific rather than business side of things but says the business side of GSK is equally unimpressed and its leading to a scaling back of investment ambition within the EU already.
The fact is, councillors are by and large not elected based on their ability to manage or administer but by how good they are at sucking up to the party machine.
And what we get is a result of that.
Why would anyone who's actually good at these things get involved in local politics?
That's by and large not correct, in my experience. I've known four councils fairly well - Broxtowe (tends to be NOC), Notts (swings), Nottingham (very Labour) and Waverley (usually Tory but not at the moment). Councillors are selected by their local branches with very little control from the centre. On the whole, they're quite keen to do a good job (talking of all parties here), and the ones who are just coasting tend to go with the flow of those who do care.
The party element is less prominent than in Westminster, because if we're honest there isn't a clear party line on a lot of local government (what is the Labour policy on new roundabouts, or the Tory policy on parking spaces?). There are plenty of councillors who are only really interested in their ward or maybe their town, and who see the party interest as a relatively minor consideration to worry about at election time.
Clearly it sometimes goes badly wrong, and those are the cases that hit the headlines. But it's the exception rather than the rule. I'm more party political than most of my colleagues on both sides, but I respect their genuine dedication. And the rank and file councillors are paid peanuts for it - typically a few thousand a year - and at town/parish level they aren't paid at all.
Still, if the EU states attempt anything that silly then the one thing that the UK absolutely must not do is retaliate in a tit-for-tat fashion. It wouldn't get us what we wanted any quicker, and would rob the UK Government of the moral and legal high ground. You can't outmanoeuvre an opponent that forces businesses to violate their contractual obligations by doing likewise.
Under such circumstances the aim should be (a) to sue through the courts and (b) to encourage chunks of the European pharma industry to relocate to a more stable environment, i.e. here - if necessary, sweetened by generous grants to help build up the domestic capacity to manufacture medicines.
The telegraph is saying the latter is already underway with Kwasi in talks with major international pharma about relocation to safe, law abiding, low tax Britain. Anecdotally fro m my uni friends they say their firms are absolutely horrified by the words and actions of the EU and European politicians over AZ. One of them works for AZ's major rival GSK and he was saying that Sanofi and GSK both have a vaccine that completey failed to launch and they're supposed to have delivered a huge number by now to the EU but because the vaccine was such a failure neither is taking any heat over it while poor old AZ has foregone any profits from it and is doing, in his opinion, a great job of scaling production from zero to hundreds of millions per month in less than a year and getting their vaccine and reputation trashed. He's on the scientific rather than business side of things but says the business side of GSK is equally unimpressed and its leading to a scaling back of investment ambition within the EU already.
Everyone Brit in my family and friends I talk to who was Remainer is horrified by what the EU is doing, and some are now agreeing we were right to leave. None would countenance rejoining now (although that can change with news cycles). But it is a measure of how much of a continuing own goal the EU is scoring (notwithstanding Robert's objections that much of this is European governments, not the EU: it is all seen as EU)
More significantly perhaps. The Union could end up in opposition.
On that poll Greens, SPD and Linke still only come to 47%, the FDP will not join a Green led government due to major ideological differences and the Greens will not touch the AfD, so a CDU/CSU and Green government on 49% combined still looks the likeliest outcome
It's pretty marginal, though I think the CDU may well recover some ground. On those figures there would be a 47-47 left-right split (with 6% of votes not counting as their parties fall below the 5% threshold).
German party loyalty is rock solid - you can govern for years on a majority of 1. I agree that a CDU-Green coalition is very possible, but it'd be a big risk for the Greens, whose voter base is still mostly left of centre. If a Green/SPD/Left coalition has the numbers, it's a much better bet for the Greens, who would be the leading party of the three with no threat to their left.
More significantly perhaps. The Union could end up in opposition.
On that poll Greens, SPD and Linke still only come to 47%, the FDP will not join a Green led government due to major ideological differences and the Greens will not touch the AfD, so a CDU/CSU and Green government on 49% combined still looks the likeliest outcome
It's pretty marginal, though I think the CDU may well recover some ground. On those figures there would be a 47-47 left-right split (with 6% of votes not counting as their parties fall below the 5% threshold).
German party loyalty is rock solid - you can govern for years on a majority of 1. I agree that a CDU-Green coalition is very possible, but it'd be a big risk for the Greens, whose voter base is still mostly left of centre. If a Green/SPD/Left coalition has the numbers, it's a much better bet for the Greens, who would be the leading party of the three with no threat to their left.
They have to get there first and I suspect Soder will replace Laschet as the Union chancellor candidate before it leaks any more votes
Still, if the EU states attempt anything that silly then the one thing that the UK absolutely must not do is retaliate in a tit-for-tat fashion. It wouldn't get us what we wanted any quicker, and would rob the UK Government of the moral and legal high ground. You can't outmanoeuvre an opponent that forces businesses to violate their contractual obligations by doing likewise.
Under such circumstances the aim should be (a) to sue through the courts and (b) to encourage chunks of the European pharma industry to relocate to a more stable environment, i.e. here - if necessary, sweetened by generous grants to help build up the domestic capacity to manufacture medicines.
The telegraph is saying the latter is already underway with Kwasi in talks with major international pharma about relocation to safe, law abiding, low tax Britain. Anecdotally fro m my uni friends they say their firms are absolutely horrified by the words and actions of the EU and European politicians over AZ. One of them works for AZ's major rival GSK and he was saying that Sanofi and GSK both have a vaccine that completey failed to launch and they're supposed to have delivered a huge number by now to the EU but because the vaccine was such a failure neither is taking any heat over it while poor old AZ has foregone any profits from it and is doing, in his opinion, a great job of scaling production from zero to hundreds of millions per month in less than a year and getting their vaccine and reputation trashed. He's on the scientific rather than business side of things but says the business side of GSK is equally unimpressed and its leading to a scaling back of investment ambition within the EU already.
Everyone Brit in my family and friends I talk to who was Remainer is horrified by what the EU is doing, and some are now agreeing we were right to leave. None would countenance rejoining now (although that can change with news cycles). But it is a measure of how much of a continuing own goal the EU is scoring (notwithstanding Robert's objections that much of this is European governments, not the EU: it is all seen as EU)
Well indeed, it's a combination of the two.
If the production chain described by the Mail is correct then it would also help to explain what I have previously read about these problems. Germany and France are, apparently, particularly keen on backing the hardline stance of the Commission. Belgium and the Netherlands, not so much. Guess where the plants that make the Pfizer and AZ vaccines that are exported to the UK are located?
The key troublemaker in all of this could turn out to be Italy, where (again, if the Mail have got their facts right,) the Belgian and Dutch AZ vaccines are bottled. They have, of course, already blocked export of an AZ shipment to Australia, so having done it once there's no particular reason to suppose that they wouldn't do it again. But at least most of our AZ is already made domestically.
The more important thing, from the point of view of the UK vaccine drive, is that the Belgian Pfizer supply doesn't get cut off - hence the fact that Boris Johnson was recently on the phone to the Belgian PM. AFAIK the Pfizer vaccine doesn't have to pass through processes in the more militant EU states before it's shipped to Britain, which gives one some cause for cautious optimism in this regard.
More significantly perhaps. The Union could end up in opposition.
On that poll Greens, SPD and Linke still only come to 47%, the FDP will not join a Green led government due to major ideological differences and the Greens will not touch the AfD, so a CDU/CSU and Green government on 49% combined still looks the likeliest outcome
It's pretty marginal, though I think the CDU may well recover some ground. On those figures there would be a 47-47 left-right split (with 6% of votes not counting as their parties fall below the 5% threshold).
German party loyalty is rock solid - you can govern for years on a majority of 1. I agree that a CDU-Green coalition is very possible, but it'd be a big risk for the Greens, whose voter base is still mostly left of centre. If a Green/SPD/Left coalition has the numbers, it's a much better bet for the Greens, who would be the leading party of the three with no threat to their left.
They have to get there first and I suspect Soder will replace Laschet as the Union chancellor candidate before it leaks any more votes
It is certainly very interesting. Those figures suggest it will be on a knife edge. I would not rule out a Green SPD FDP coalition so readily. One thing is for sure. The Union is not the same force without Merkel.
Still, if the EU states attempt anything that silly then the one thing that the UK absolutely must not do is retaliate in a tit-for-tat fashion. It wouldn't get us what we wanted any quicker, and would rob the UK Government of the moral and legal high ground. You can't outmanoeuvre an opponent that forces businesses to violate their contractual obligations by doing likewise.
Under such circumstances the aim should be (a) to sue through the courts and (b) to encourage chunks of the European pharma industry to relocate to a more stable environment, i.e. here - if necessary, sweetened by generous grants to help build up the domestic capacity to manufacture medicines.
The telegraph is saying the latter is already underway with Kwasi in talks with major international pharma about relocation to safe, law abiding, low tax Britain. Anecdotally fro m my uni friends they say their firms are absolutely horrified by the words and actions of the EU and European politicians over AZ. One of them works for AZ's major rival GSK and he was saying that Sanofi and GSK both have a vaccine that completey failed to launch and they're supposed to have delivered a huge number by now to the EU but because the vaccine was such a failure neither is taking any heat over it while poor old AZ has foregone any profits from it and is doing, in his opinion, a great job of scaling production from zero to hundreds of millions per month in less than a year and getting their vaccine and reputation trashed. He's on the scientific rather than business side of things but says the business side of GSK is equally unimpressed and its leading to a scaling back of investment ambition within the EU already.
Everyone Brit in my family and friends I talk to who was Remainer is horrified by what the EU is doing, and some are now agreeing we were right to leave. None would countenance rejoining now (although that can change with news cycles). But it is a measure of how much of a continuing own goal the EU is scoring (notwithstanding Robert's objections that much of this is European governments, not the EU: it is all seen as EU)
Well indeed, it's a combination of the two.
If the production chain described by the Mail is correct then it would also help to explain what I have previously read about these problems. Germany and France are, apparently, particularly keen on backing the hardline stance of the Commission. Belgium and the Netherlands, not so much. Guess where the plants that make the Pfizer and AZ vaccines that are exported to the UK are located?
The key troublemaker in all of this could turn out to be Italy, where (again, if the Mail have got their facts right,) the Belgian and Dutch AZ vaccines are bottled. They have, of course, already blocked export of an AZ shipment to Australia, so having done it once there's no particular reason to suppose that they wouldn't do it again. But at least most of our AZ is already made domestically.
The more important thing, from the point of view of the UK vaccine drive, is that the Belgian Pfizer supply doesn't get cut off - hence the fact that Boris Johnson was recently on the phone to the Belgian PM. AFAIK the Pfizer vaccine doesn't have to pass through processes in the more militant EU states before it's shipped to Britain, which gives one some cause for cautious optimism in this regard.
I am not sure even the UK AZN imports from the EU go through Italy, but I think the active ingredients are shipped from Belgium to the Welsh factory for finishing. I may be wrong about that though ...
More significantly perhaps. The Union could end up in opposition.
On that poll Greens, SPD and Linke still only come to 47%, the FDP will not join a Green led government due to major ideological differences and the Greens will not touch the AfD, so a CDU/CSU and Green government on 49% combined still looks the likeliest outcome
It's pretty marginal, though I think the CDU may well recover some ground. On those figures there would be a 47-47 left-right split (with 6% of votes not counting as their parties fall below the 5% threshold).
German party loyalty is rock solid - you can govern for years on a majority of 1. I agree that a CDU-Green coalition is very possible, but it'd be a big risk for the Greens, whose voter base is still mostly left of centre. If a Green/SPD/Left coalition has the numbers, it's a much better bet for the Greens, who would be the leading party of the three with no threat to their left.
They have to get there first and I suspect Soder will replace Laschet as the Union chancellor candidate before it leaks any more votes
It is certainly very interesting. Those figures suggest it will be on a knife edge. I would not rule out a Green SPD FDP coalition so readily. One thing is for sure. The Union is not the same force without Merkel.
The FDP are economically right of the CDU, they would not work with the Greens.
The CDU made a poor choice picking Laschet as their leader, 42% of Germans would prefer CSU Leader Soder as Union Chancellor candidate to just 12% who want Laschet.
Soder is likely to be the first CSU chancellor candidate since Stoiber in 2002 who was Merkel's predecessor as Union Chancellor candidate
Still, if the EU states attempt anything that silly then the one thing that the UK absolutely must not do is retaliate in a tit-for-tat fashion. It wouldn't get us what we wanted any quicker, and would rob the UK Government of the moral and legal high ground. You can't outmanoeuvre an opponent that forces businesses to violate their contractual obligations by doing likewise.
Under such circumstances the aim should be (a) to sue through the courts and (b) to encourage chunks of the European pharma industry to relocate to a more stable environment, i.e. here - if necessary, sweetened by generous grants to help build up the domestic capacity to manufacture medicines.
The telegraph is saying the latter is already underway with Kwasi in talks with major international pharma about relocation to safe, law abiding, low tax Britain. Anecdotally fro m my uni friends they say their firms are absolutely horrified by the words and actions of the EU and European politicians over AZ. One of them works for AZ's major rival GSK and he was saying that Sanofi and GSK both have a vaccine that completey failed to launch and they're supposed to have delivered a huge number by now to the EU but because the vaccine was such a failure neither is taking any heat over it while poor old AZ has foregone any profits from it and is doing, in his opinion, a great job of scaling production from zero to hundreds of millions per month in less than a year and getting their vaccine and reputation trashed. He's on the scientific rather than business side of things but says the business side of GSK is equally unimpressed and its leading to a scaling back of investment ambition within the EU already.
Everyone Brit in my family and friends I talk to who was Remainer is horrified by what the EU is doing, and some are now agreeing we were right to leave. None would countenance rejoining now (although that can change with news cycles). But it is a measure of how much of a continuing own goal the EU is scoring (notwithstanding Robert's objections that much of this is European governments, not the EU: it is all seen as EU)
Well indeed, it's a combination of the two.
If the production chain described by the Mail is correct then it would also help to explain what I have previously read about these problems. Germany and France are, apparently, particularly keen on backing the hardline stance of the Commission. Belgium and the Netherlands, not so much. Guess where the plants that make the Pfizer and AZ vaccines that are exported to the UK are located?
The key troublemaker in all of this could turn out to be Italy, where (again, if the Mail have got their facts right,) the Belgian and Dutch AZ vaccines are bottled. They have, of course, already blocked export of an AZ shipment to Australia, so having done it once there's no particular reason to suppose that they wouldn't do it again. But at least most of our AZ is already made domestically.
The more important thing, from the point of view of the UK vaccine drive, is that the Belgian Pfizer supply doesn't get cut off - hence the fact that Boris Johnson was recently on the phone to the Belgian PM. AFAIK the Pfizer vaccine doesn't have to pass through processes in the more militant EU states before it's shipped to Britain, which gives one some cause for cautious optimism in this regard.
I am not sure even the UK AZN imports from the EU go through Italy, but I think the active ingredients are shipped from Belgium to the Welsh factory for finishing. I may be wrong about that though ...
What about the Dutch Halix site? We definitely invested time and money in it and it hasn't yet been approved to supply the EU.
Are we getting a supply from there on the quiet or are they just having production problems?
FWIW I know a decent few (~6) Scottish-based 16-24 year olds pretty well. The general message I'm getting is that the SNP are full of shifty transphobes, but are the most realistic route towards Indy. That being said, a large majority are no longer voting SNP for regionals - almost all Greens.
FTTP looks to start rollout from early 2022 then under Project Gigabit. I am thinking late 2022 to early 2023 for progress into the counties/lots in phase 1b. Late 2023 and early 2024 for the other counties.
We won't reach 100% FTTP coverage by 2024 but 80-90% seems feasible.
There's a non-zero chance Project Gigabit delivers FTTP before much of London, which would be somewhat ironic.
More significantly perhaps. The Union could end up in opposition.
On that poll Greens, SPD and Linke still only come to 47%, the FDP will not join a Green led government due to major ideological differences and the Greens will not touch the AfD, so a CDU/CSU and Green government on 49% combined still looks the likeliest outcome
It's pretty marginal, though I think the CDU may well recover some ground. On those figures there would be a 47-47 left-right split (with 6% of votes not counting as their parties fall below the 5% threshold).
German party loyalty is rock solid - you can govern for years on a majority of 1. I agree that a CDU-Green coalition is very possible, but it'd be a big risk for the Greens, whose voter base is still mostly left of centre. If a Green/SPD/Left coalition has the numbers, it's a much better bet for the Greens, who would be the leading party of the three with no threat to their left.
They have to get there first and I suspect Soder will replace Laschet as the Union chancellor candidate before it leaks any more votes
It is certainly very interesting. Those figures suggest it will be on a knife edge. I would not rule out a Green SPD FDP coalition so readily. One thing is for sure. The Union is not the same force without Merkel.
The FDP are economically right of the CDU, they would not work with the Greens.
The CDU made a poor choice picking Laschet as their leader, 42% of Germans would prefer CSU Leader Soder as Union Chancellor candidate to just 12% who want Laschet.
Soder is likely to be the first CSU chancellor candidate since Stoiber in 2002 who was Merkel's predecessor as Union Chancellor candidate
Which is all true. However, the FDP are also socially left of the Union. And the Greens are economically right of the SPD. So why not? A Union Green coalition looks favourite. But Soder makes that a little less likely.
Comments
Edit: Actually turns out now there is 58 Lab and 1 other on Newham. But they won 60 out of 60 in the last election and two before it.
Recent history.
Sine die.
The Lib Dems being in government are the epitome of that.
They have separate party structures but nominate a single candidate for chancellor in federal elections and operate as a unified bloc in the federal parliament.
And what we get is a result of that.
Why would anyone who's actually good at these things get involved in local politics?
Richard RICH Tea Biscuits
Mr Hob the Nob?
Dark Chief O’Colate Di Gestive
I'm just expressing my opinion.
Especially this year you'd think there'd be no trouble finding candidates as you only need 2 signatures, but you'll see a lot of paper candidates, and if those ones win they might well not be easy to control either.
As for being good at administering, well councillor don't really administer anyway, but even so, how to incentivise parties to select 'good' candidates? How to get such people to even want to do it? I don't think anyone can really answer that - there are excellent councillors, but you need the right mindset and temperament to manage it.
I guess what I was originally trying to get at (in my own cack-handed kind of a way) is that there's no sign whatsoever of a challenger party coming up on the rails, regardless of how much of a mess Labour creates. The Lib Dems collaborated with the Evil Tories - the chances of a comeback for them look somewhat less than substantial.
Or, to put it another way, if the Labour party were ever to die out, it would probably make its last stand in Liverpool.
Most will follow a general party line, but that's why they are in a party in the first place, because it appeals to them. But if the leadership propose a road through their patch or take them for granted, they don't sit on their hands.
But there's no set number of electors per councillor in England at least, so it varies massively, nor a set size of ward, so how far is too far away for an overall council is subjective at best and likely not as big a problem as people think.
In fairness some counties are easy - Swindon is massively different to the rest of Wiltshire and conveniently located to exclude along with a hinterland, but others may be more difficult to divide up.
But Cameron is smart enough to know that for that amount of money there is something dodgy going on. And he was prepared to do that deal. Disappointing.
This is going to be the first of many in gaming and media, the whining about travel cuts both ways and firms are deciding that being in the UK is a better long term bet than being across various EU countries.
The prime minister is Jeremy Corbyn. The UK is a member of the European Union. Two fanciful propositions, you might think.
And yet there was a moment, a decade ago, where that course could have been set, even if every vote since then had been cast exactly the same way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56435341
Unbelievable - Rejoin anyone?
Two tiers is far more efficient from the point of view of the inhabitants, since they can have more influence over smaller bodies.
Having just one tier, on the other hand, would be more efficient from the point of view of big corporations, central government, a dictatorship or corrupt foreigners. And it is also much easier to fix elections.
Thus, for example, the Liverpool City Region is more-or-less Merseyside, reborn with a different governance structure. London has the boroughs, but with a mayor and lightweight assembly as successor to the old GLC. The two-tier system disappears, then later comes back in a different form.
It's by no means happened everywhere - yet. But these combined authorities and mayors are probably going to creep further across the map in time. There are also valid questions to be asked about some of the unitaries, especially the smaller ones: is it necessarily a good idea to invest all of the powers and responsibilities of local government in an authority like Rutland, which encompasses fewer people than many medium-sized towns? It'll probably find itself part of a Leicestershire and Rutland Combined Authority at some point down the line, just as its near neighbour Peterborough now finds itself back in association with Cambridgeshire again.
As for more efficient for residents, ask them if they want 10 tiers then, since that would apparently be the most influential for them.
Still, if the EU states attempt anything that silly then the one thing that the UK absolutely must not do is retaliate in a tit-for-tat fashion. It wouldn't get us what we wanted any quicker, and would rob the UK Government of the moral and legal high ground. You can't outmanoeuvre an opponent that forces businesses to violate their contractual obligations by doing likewise.
Under such circumstances the aim should be (a) to sue through the courts and (b) to encourage chunks of the European pharma industry to relocate to a more stable environment, i.e. here - if necessary, sweetened by generous grants to help build up the domestic capacity to manufacture medicines.
The party element is less prominent than in Westminster, because if we're honest there isn't a clear party line on a lot of local government (what is the Labour policy on new roundabouts, or the Tory policy on parking spaces?). There are plenty of councillors who are only really interested in their ward or maybe their town, and who see the party interest as a relatively minor consideration to worry about at election time.
Clearly it sometimes goes badly wrong, and those are the cases that hit the headlines. But it's the exception rather than the rule. I'm more party political than most of my colleagues on both sides, but I respect their genuine dedication. And the rank and file councillors are paid peanuts for it - typically a few thousand a year - and at town/parish level they aren't paid at all.
German party loyalty is rock solid - you can govern for years on a majority of 1. I agree that a CDU-Green coalition is very possible, but it'd be a big risk for the Greens, whose voter base is still mostly left of centre. If a Green/SPD/Left coalition has the numbers, it's a much better bet for the Greens, who would be the leading party of the three with no threat to their left.
If the production chain described by the Mail is correct then it would also help to explain what I have previously read about these problems. Germany and France are, apparently, particularly keen on backing the hardline stance of the Commission. Belgium and the Netherlands, not so much. Guess where the plants that make the Pfizer and AZ vaccines that are exported to the UK are located?
The key troublemaker in all of this could turn out to be Italy, where (again, if the Mail have got their facts right,) the Belgian and Dutch AZ vaccines are bottled. They have, of course, already blocked export of an AZ shipment to Australia, so having done it once there's no particular reason to suppose that they wouldn't do it again. But at least most of our AZ is already made domestically.
The more important thing, from the point of view of the UK vaccine drive, is that the Belgian Pfizer supply doesn't get cut off - hence the fact that Boris Johnson was recently on the phone to the Belgian PM. AFAIK the Pfizer vaccine doesn't have to pass through processes in the more militant EU states before it's shipped to Britain, which gives one some cause for cautious optimism in this regard.
Given the EU's stance on the big threat (China) I'd be hard pressed to describe them as much of a closer ally than Russia at the moment.
Those figures suggest it will be on a knife edge.
I would not rule out a Green SPD FDP coalition so readily.
One thing is for sure. The Union is not the same force without Merkel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.B.H._(TV_series)
The CDU made a poor choice picking Laschet as their leader, 42% of Germans would prefer CSU Leader Soder as Union Chancellor candidate to just 12% who want Laschet.
Soder is likely to be the first CSU chancellor candidate since Stoiber in 2002 who was Merkel's predecessor as Union Chancellor candidate
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/majority-of-germans-would-prefer-soder-over-laschet-as-chancellor/
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1373429149549924352?s=20
That doesn't seem right.
When you factor the relatively low turnout amongst younger voters those big shifts can be seen to have much smaller changes overall.
Are we getting a supply from there on the quiet or are they just having production problems?
https://twitter.com/SundayTimesSco/status/1373431374762377226
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.180699589
We won't reach 100% FTTP coverage by 2024 but 80-90% seems feasible.
There's a non-zero chance Project Gigabit delivers FTTP before much of London, which would be somewhat ironic.
So why not?
A Union Green coalition looks favourite. But Soder makes that a little less likely.