Burner phones and ‘safe’ charging cables. Nothing to see here.
Starmer, and the British Establishment generally, still believe in international order and free trade as taught in GCSE economics and PPE 101. We got ripped off by the Americans and we will get ripped off by the Chinese. Heck, we even got ripped off by the French. They think China will play by the rules because they think everyone plays by the rules.
And in doing so they'll piss off the Americans because they want to piss off Trump but have not thought about what happens after Trump pisses off when his term ends in three years or less. They've forgotten about not burning your bridges on the way out.
Prediction: Trump won’t piss off when his term ends; if it ends.
The way things are going, he'll be in one of the new assylums he himself is opening, by then
Inspired typo…
It's like a donkey sanctuary, but for ex-Presidents...
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
I'll buy as much as you can find at his sale price of $275 an ounce.
As it's over $5,000 today....
About $60bn additional value since then...
While you probably couldn't offload that much without crashing the price, I very much doubt the $3.5bn realised was reinvested quite so wisely.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
I'll buy as much as you can find at his sale price of $275 an ounce.
As it's over $5,000 today....
I blame successive chancellors for failing to invest a few billion in bitcoin. If the coalition government had done that we could have a few years tax free!
In answer to the header's question about the superiority of the "Thatcher approach", there are a couple of points which might be made.
First, it's arguable (and I would so argue) that her "reforms" are a large part of why local government is in so dismal a condition. It's extraordinary that someone who banged on about "freedom" quite so much made us one if the most centralised states in Europe.
Second, a primary reason this reorganisation is a more drawn out process than Mrs T's, is the introduction of statutory consultation for local government reorganisation, introduced by the Local Government Act 1992, and further consolidated by The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
The '92 Act probably owes its genesis to Thatcher's disastrous attempt to fix local government funding by bringing in a poll tax a couple of years earlier...
Hence Major replaced it with the council tax
That still doesn't redress the difference to the rates. It went from funding councils by a property tax, to a per person tax then to a per person tax with a crude factoring for property value and a much larger contribution from central govt. That was for the ideological purpose of abolishing property tax, a tax cut for the wealthy and particularly the very wealthy.
In my area there are multi-millionaire pound properties that are (probably avoiding/evading) paying the same council tax as a 3/4 bed family house and that is the only annual tax levied on that property. The cost of council services has been shifted down the wealth ladder and to general taxation.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
I'll buy as much as you can find at his sale price of $275 an ounce.
As it's over $5,000 today....
Fairy nuff, Mark, but it is hindsighting. We can all do that.
It was widely criticised at the time, TBF. (Though no one forecast the current price.)
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
I'll buy as much as you can find at his sale price of $275 an ounce.
As it's over $5,000 today....
Fairy nuff, Mark, but it is hindsighting. We can all do that.
It was widely criticised at the time, TBF. (Though no one forecast the current price.)
Please list the changes made by a Labour chancellor that are not widely criticised by the Tory press at the time. Shouldn't take long.
A good contribution, although a little bit partisan which risks obscuring the real debate.
Local government seems to me in England to be entirely performative, which is why I've never stood as a councillor.
Voting is effectively cosmetic because they have no real power to change anything other than trying to square the impossible.
All of which can be true, but at the same time absolutely no excuse for cancelling elections.
Local government would IMHO be improved by letting councils raise more of their own money, relying less on central grants to fulfil central obligations.
It would be nice to turn back the clock, but it will be a slow process.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
I'll buy as much as you can find at his sale price of $275 an ounce.
As it's over $5,000 today....
Fairy nuff, Mark, but it is hindsighting. We can all do that.
It was widely criticised at the time, TBF. (Though no one forecast the current price.)
What about all the pokemon cards? This is the perfect self-perpetuating myth, by tanking the economy and encouraging the flight to gold you can massively increase the amount that Brown cost the UK in hindsight.
A good contribution, although a little bit partisan which risks obscuring the real debate.
Local government seems to me in England to be entirely performative, which is why I've never stood as a councillor.
Voting is effectively cosmetic because they have no real power to change anything other than trying to square the impossible.
You have influence, but no real power nowadays. But then you could say the same about the job of the backbench MP. Indeed, in terms of decision-making, the average council cabinet member or committee chair probably has more individual influence on the world than does the average backbench MP.
I really wouldn't want to be a local councillor, beyond trying to get your local roads repaired (overriding the desires of your neighbouring councillor) the only thing you may get to do is decide on some planning applications.
Meanwhile things will continue to fall apart and workers get made redundant as social care costs continue to eat all the none social care budgets..
Though even the planning thing is questionable- in a well-run setup, councillors are just checking whether an application complies with policy. Their actual discretion is pretty limited (they can refuse, but if it's because they don't like something it will be overturned on appeal. They can nichten lichten, but they have to go along with it.
On top of which, the move to Leader + Cabinet (Blair's idea?) renders most backbench councillors pretty decorative.
The problem with our broken planning system is that yes the oligopoly of large developers can get things through on appeal, because they can operate within the rules of the system they understand and have lawyers that understand it . . . but would-be small developers can't.
So if someone wants to build a home, that can get rejected and good look getting that through on appeal. Someone wants to build an estate of 100 homes, then rejections just delay but don't prevent that, for which everyone loses (opponents don't see it defeated, those who need the homes just see them delayed).
Sensible zonal planning reform and removing the role of Councillors entirely from individual decisions, would enable small competitors to compete with the oligopoly.
100 homes is not an estate: it's half a small road.
If you speak to regional or national developers, ~100 dwellings (ie houses) is approximately the minimum sized development which they will view as a viable development supporting their sales office, marketing infra etc, in a normal sort of area of the country. There are margins down to maybe 70-80. Those quantity numbers do not really change, as they are largely based on market dynamics and sociology.
That will be 3-4 hectares or a little under 10 acres as a minimum in a suburban or edge of town area.
It will be an approx £20-75m GDV (Gross Development Value) project, depending on area of the country.
Certain councils near each other can have differing results, Rotherham for instance has lower like for like tax compared to Bassetlaw/Nottinghamshire and their pothole management is much better.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
I'll buy as much as you can find at his sale price of $275 an ounce.
As it's over $5,000 today....
I blame successive chancellors for failing to invest a few billion in bitcoin. If the coalition government had done that we could have a few years tax free!
If only Woking had had the financial foresight and acumen to put the money in bitcoin rather than property development!! Or trap 6.
Thanks @MoonRabbit - interesting piece on an over looked area, local government.
A point I would add though is that as far as I know no one is being asked - directly - about these local government re-orgs.
My area certainly is not having any kind of referendum, which is what I would expect. We are to lose our well functioning district council. No one I speak to is in favour of this.
It’s fine. Top Tories and Leadership runners Robert Jenrick and Michael Gove were key drivers, as well as many Conservative councils architects of the plan. Conservative approach is so very much stability, and caution in change, in fact opposed to sweeping or radical change, a conservative approach is practical, applying fixes to problems incrementally. In fact Conservatives are instinctively skeptical of need for change, believing unwarranted reforms often create more problems than they solve. Conservatives would never cancel elections, as we have done for this council reform, unless the Prudently Fiscal overrides the pointless performative of the election.
what the hell is Reform thinking? They are supposed to be the party of DOGE, and stop the waste? Reform are revealing they are actually in favour of waste - provided that wasteful spending can bolster an already splendid news day for them, one day next May! That’s what Populist thinking always is - one rule if it’s on this foot, another rule if boots on the other foot. Just look at Trump - would he not keep the elections, rules and laws that do help him, cancel the ones that won’t help him? Farage is Trump, Trump is Farage.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
I'll buy as much as you can find at his sale price of $275 an ounce.
As it's over $5,000 today....
I blame successive chancellors for failing to invest a few billion in bitcoin. If the coalition government had done that we could have a few years tax free!
That would have been very difficult in practice.
Total BTC market cap today is only $1.7trn, at an $80,000 valuation.
At an $800 valuation, as long ago as 2017, there would only have been $17bn of Bitcoin in existence.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
I'll buy as much as you can find at his sale price of $275 an ounce.
As it's over $5,000 today....
Fairy nuff, Mark, but it is hindsighting. We can all do that.
It was widely criticised at the time, TBF. (Though no one forecast the current price.)
What about all the pokemon cards? This is the perfect self-perpetuating myth, by tanking the economy and encouraging the flight to gold you can massively increase the amount that Brown cost the UK in hindsight.
I wonder what odds you could have got on the Greens selecting a plumber, Reform selecting a southern academic and Labour selecting anyone but Andy Burnham in a vital Manchester by-election contest.
If I have it right, the maximum sentence for the waste dumping is 5 years, with a potential extra 14 years for assessed proceeds of crime, which can be reduced by paying it back.
I'm reminded that prison really scares white collar criminals, and given that one is 73 and the other 54, a 10 or 12 year sentence should encourager les autres.
So? Rape is serious, but is often complex. Its rarely a stranger in an alley with a knife, its often someone people are in a relationship with, or were, and sometimes its contested (he said/she said). Doesn't make it right, but there is nuance.
In this case the scale of the offence is huge, and there is also the role of deterrence as this is NOT an isolated example.
Thanks @MoonRabbit - interesting piece on an over looked area, local government.
A point I would add though is that as far as I know no one is being asked - directly - about these local government re-orgs.
My area certainly is not having any kind of referendum, which is what I would expect. We are to lose our well functioning district council. No one I speak to is in favour of this.
It’s fine. Top Tories and Leadership runners Robert Jenrick and Michael Gove were key drivers, as well as many Conservative councils architects of the plan. Conservative approach is so very much stability, and caution in change, in fact opposed to sweeping or radical change, a conservative approach is practical, applying fixes to problems incrementally. In fact Conservatives are instinctively skeptical of need for change, believing unwarranted reforms often create more problems than they solve. Conservatives would never cancel elections, as we have done for this council reform, unless the Prudently Fiscal overrides the pointless performative of the election.
what the hell is Reform thinking? They are supposed to be the party of DOGE, and stop the waste? Reform are revealing they are actually in favour of waste - provided that wasteful spending can bolster an already splendid news day for them, one day next May! That’s what Populist thinking always is - one rule if it’s on this foot, another rule if boots on the other foot. Just look at Trump - would he not keep the elections, rules and laws that do help him, cancel the ones that won’t help him? Farage is Trump, Trump is Farage.
I think lack of serious expertise and suspicion of professionals is a big factor.
In Nottinghamshire a lot of it is former long-term independents, who have to an extent run things at District level - but County is a differnet ballgame with budgets of hundreds of millions or low billions, not 10s of millions.
It's like taking a SME company and giving them a mid-cap.
And good luck to all those standing for public office in May, no matter for which political grouping
In today's hostile climate you all have my admiration including paper candidates who may get the surprise of their lives !!!!
My parent, who had a brief and deeply regretted career in politics, was struggling for candidates so put themselves down as a paper candidate for some rural rotten borough that had been represented by the same "Independent" landowner for 36 years. The fury when they were elected unopposed raged for several days, turned out that the incumbent had always had a gentle reminder from the election officer to submit their papers but as my parent had got theirs in in good time there was no need.
So, if you are coerced into being a paper candidate make sure your papers go in at the last possible minute.
I'm actually not familiar with Jenrick & co having been involved in this; I need to read some 2010 to 2023 history, perhaps.
IMO the stuff about "hiking Council tax" (which I lost count of how many times Rabbit mentioned it) is very strange and highly political, because according to my numbers Band D Council tax (the basic number from which others are defined) has risen between 2005 and 2025 by 95%, whilst CPI inflation has risen by 91%, which is as near as dammit identical.
To take the numbers on a UK wide average per household (rather than Band D) the increase is still marginal. England is flat over 20 years, Wales is up, Scotland is down. Source ONS via Dan Neidle.
Councils have not "hiked" Council Tax; that is an urban myth.
We need to compare that to changes in centralised support and service responsibilities to get a proper handle on that. I suggest that poor services is related to level of responsibilities being increased or reduced left that resources from the centre have been cut. That is a function of Central Government not giving a damn.
I stand by “hiking”. All the media are using it. Political Parties using it against each other. Because the bottom line is, from point of where Households are right now today. Your household budgeting is at breaking point, or under, the council tax bill last year now hiked all they way up to this new one.
That's an enormous vote for a local selection. Means they should have plenty of firepower on the ground to win it - I'd make them favourites ahead of Reform tbh.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
I'll buy as much as you can find at his sale price of $275 an ounce.
As it's over $5,000 today....
Fairy nuff, Mark, but it is hindsighting. We can all do that.
It was widely criticised at the time, TBF. (Though no one forecast the current price.)
Please list the changes made by a Labour chancellor that are not widely criticised by the Tory press at the time. Shouldn't take long.
That misses the point.
The essential criticism - and it's the same one equally fairly levelled at the Thatcher governments (many of whose policies Blair/Brown adopted) - is that asset sales were used to finance current spending rather than investment.
In answer to the header's question about the superiority of the "Thatcher approach", there are a couple of points which might be made.
First, it's arguable (and I would so argue) that her "reforms" are a large part of why local government is in so dismal a condition. It's extraordinary that someone who banged on about "freedom" quite so much made us one if the most centralised states in Europe.
Second, a primary reason this reorganisation is a more drawn out process than Mrs T's, is the introduction of statutory consultation for local government reorganisation, introduced by the Local Government Act 1992, and further consolidated by The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
The '92 Act probably owes its genesis to Thatcher's disastrous attempt to fix local government funding by bringing in a poll tax a couple of years earlier...
Hence Major replaced it with the council tax
That still doesn't redress the difference to the rates. It went from funding councils by a property tax, to a per person tax then to a per person tax with a crude factoring for property value and a much larger contribution from central govt. That was for the ideological purpose of abolishing property tax, a tax cut for the wealthy and particularly the very wealthy.
In my area there are multi-millionaire pound properties that are (probably avoiding/evading) paying the same council tax as a 3/4 bed family house and that is the only annual tax levied on that property. The cost of council services has been shifted down the wealth ladder and to general taxation.
You now have the Reeves mansion tax on properties over £2 million
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
I think the key point in this excellent header is that the public don't understand why they are being asked to pay more and more for less and less. So, why is that?
I don't think that there is any doubt that local authorities are top heavy in terms of management and have bureaucratic structures that generate endless paperwork and pointless meetings. Most large organisations are the same. My niece applied for a lowered pavement outside her house so that she could park in her driveway. Initially, she was told that this did not require a building warrant, then that it did, then that a neighbour had objected for some obscure reason, then someone had to come and see it.... More than a year after this very simple application was made she is still waiting on a final decision. Hours have been spent on....what? It's pathetic and, writ large, a major source of delay in development in the UK.
But, having said all of that, the reality is that local authorities are not in control of their finances. What services they can provide are very dependent upon their block grants and it is an easy thing for Westminster (or Holyrood) politicans to cut because they don't get the blame for it. In addition their local tax raising powers have been severely restricted to keep inflation down and to win votes.
For me, local authorities need more power within their areas of responsibility. The regulatory systems they have to work within in care, children's services and education are all hopelessly complicated and prevent a more sensible prioritisation or even a political choice. Westminster (and Holyrood) need to back off in a large way. Yeah, right.
That's an enormous vote for a local selection. Means they should have plenty of firepower on the ground to win it - I'd make them favourites ahead of Reform tbh.
Apparently all Green members in Manchester and Tameside were allowed to vote in this selection, not just in the Gorton and Denton constituency.
Manchester and Tameside has a combined population of about 800,000.
That's an enormous vote for a local selection. Means they should have plenty of firepower on the ground to win it - I'd make them favourites ahead of Reform tbh.
Apparently all Green members in Manchester and Tameside were allowed to vote in this selection, not just in the Gorton and Denton constituency.
Manchester and Tameside has a combined population of about 800,000.
That's an enormous vote for a local selection. Means they should have plenty of firepower on the ground to win it - I'd make them favourites ahead of Reform tbh.
Apparently all Green members in Manchester and Tameside were allowed to vote in this selection, not just in the Gorton and Denton constituency.
Manchester and Tameside has a combined population of about 800,000.
Thanks for the info. Still a decent amount of local participation for the Greens.
I wonder what odds you could have got on the Greens selecting a plumber, Reform selecting a southern academic and Labour selecting anyone but Andy Burnham in a vital Manchester by-election contest.
And good luck to all those standing for public office in May, no matter for which political grouping
In today's hostile climate you all have my admiration including paper candidates who may get the surprise of their lives !!!!
My parent, who had a brief and deeply regretted career in politics, was struggling for candidates so put themselves down as a paper candidate for some rural rotten borough that had been represented by the same "Independent" landowner for 36 years. The fury when they were elected unopposed raged for several days, turned out that the incumbent had always had a gentle reminder from the election officer to submit their papers but as my parent had got theirs in in good time there was no need.
So, if you are coerced into being a paper candidate make sure your papers go in at the last possible minute.
We should have no shortage of candidates. Three per party from five parties. Maybe some independents (definitely in other wards). The ballot papers will be as long as a Christmas shop till receipt.
I always wonder how they manage the count when electing more than one at a time - you can't just put the ballots into piles for each individual candidate. Presumably more faff, so takes longer.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
Bloody Tories...
That would be the gold now worth $5000 an ounce? That gold?
And good luck to all those standing for public office in May, no matter for which political grouping
In today's hostile climate you all have my admiration including paper candidates who may get the surprise of their lives !!!!
My parent, who had a brief and deeply regretted career in politics, was struggling for candidates so put themselves down as a paper candidate for some rural rotten borough that had been represented by the same "Independent" landowner for 36 years. The fury when they were elected unopposed raged for several days, turned out that the incumbent had always had a gentle reminder from the election officer to submit their papers but as my parent had got theirs in in good time there was no need.
So, if you are coerced into being a paper candidate make sure your papers go in at the last possible minute.
We should have no shortage of candidates. Three per party from five parties. Maybe some independents (definitely in other wards). The ballot papers will be as long as a Christmas shop till receipt.
I always wonder how they manage the count when electing more than one at a time - you can't just put the ballots into piles for each individual candidate. Presumably more faff, so takes longer.
Here in Brum the number of nominations that you need from electors in the ward has dropped from 10 last time to 2 this time. So we're expecting that there will be lots of independents taking advantage of the lowered barrier to entry.
Certain councils near each other can have differing results, Rotherham for instance has lower like for like tax compared to Bassetlaw/Nottinghamshire and their pothole management is much better.
They may get a better financial settlement from central govt, have lower social care costs or they may be better managed. As someone in a well-run authority (libraries still operating, leisure centres replaced, potholes as best they can manage under the onslaught from HGVs), the fear is the increasing popularity of the party that runs the neighbouring authority, which is badly run in comparison, (can't afford to replace the leisure centre they demolished, money wasted on cycle lanes so poor they are avoided, pothole filling poorer, the ones filled last week on my route are now loose chippings in the gutter). I live in one and currently work in the other so compare weekly, but the majority probably won't realize until they inflict the incompetence on the rest of us.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
Bloody Tories...
That would be the gold now worth $5000 an ounce? That gold?
'You will have to pry Gordon sold the gold from my cold, dead hands'
I wonder what odds you could have got on the Greens selecting a plumber, Reform selecting a southern academic and Labour selecting anyone but Andy Burnham in a vital Manchester by-election contest.
We've got a local by-election shortly and then in May we can, apparently expect County Council elections. I must say I haven't really seen any proposals for re-organisation in Essex which make much sense; a council for SE Essex based on Southend will simply mean that the outlying areas are forgotten about and similarly on for North and North East Essex based on Colchester will be to the disadvantage of what has been, up until now a somewhat rural area to the West of the city. Although some idiot has proposed and apparently work is starting on 6000 houses in the presently green area to the North of Witham. As far as the by-election, mentioned earlier, so far we have a Labour candidate and an Independent who will, if elected, be part of the Green & Independent Group. There's no sign, that I've seen anyway, of either a Conservative or Reform candidate.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
I'll buy as much as you can find at his sale price of $275 an ounce.
As it's over $5,000 today....
Fairy nuff, Mark, but it is hindsighting. We can all do that.
It was widely criticised at the time, TBF. (Though no one forecast the current price.)
Please list the changes made by a Labour chancellor that are not widely criticised by the Tory press at the time. Shouldn't take long.
That misses the point.
The essential criticism - and it's the same one equally fairly levelled at the Thatcher governments (many of whose policies Blair/Brown adopted) - is that asset sales were used to finance current spending rather than investment.
It seems there are at least two criticisms:
The one you are making. The one others are making that the price of gold has subsequently rocketed.
In answer to the header's question about the superiority of the "Thatcher approach", there are a couple of points which might be made.
First, it's arguable (and I would so argue) that her "reforms" are a large part of why local government is in so dismal a condition. It's extraordinary that someone who banged on about "freedom" quite so much made us one if the most centralised states in Europe.
Second, a primary reason this reorganisation is a more drawn out process than Mrs T's, is the introduction of statutory consultation for local government reorganisation, introduced by the Local Government Act 1992, and further consolidated by The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
The '92 Act probably owes its genesis to Thatcher's disastrous attempt to fix local government funding by bringing in a poll tax a couple of years earlier...
Yes, the 2007 act is what the Conservative Party used to bring in these reforms and abolish 5000 councillors.
I am all for Localism. And it’s the reason I wholly oppose the rubbish Police Reforms the rubbish Home Secretary announced last week - just a power grab to the centre at expense of Localism.
It seems to me that the local government election/funding problem illustrates a fairly diagnosable democracy problem along with a concept problem as well.
Firstly in any notionally democratic hierarchy a general rule applies, arising out of human nature: the higher level of the democratic hierarchy will always want to maximise its power and minimise its responsibility.
The conceptual problem in local democracy is that it is rational to want two incompatible things: local decision and accountability but also an absence of 'postcode lottery' about any local service we happen to want at any particular moment.
In respect of Westminster v local government this is fairly obvious. But because total state managed expenditure is a vast proportion of all activity from building nuclear submarines to park benches and playground swings it goes right down to the level of the village primary school and beyond.
Result: blame transference is one of the great creative industries of the democratic world. It is a social blight. Result: good well intentioned school governors (volunteers) and management etc spend long winter evenings exercising responsibility without power, while a thousand miles away well paid politicians exercise power without responsibility.
Underneath is the problem that local government has no constitutional basis and hence no security.
In most other democracies, the fundamentals of its local governance are set out in its constitution. For sure, constitutions can change - but that's normally an extended process with a series of hurdles to jump, and not something governments do lightly.
The absence of any formalised constitution in the UK means that local government exists and operates entirely at the whim of national government - it can be re-organised, abolished, have its election dates changed, have its funding cut or capped, all according to the political decisions of a majority party at Westminster, elected on 35-40% of the vote, and has next to no reliable funding sources of its own (other than, perhaps, parking charges - which in itself explains a lot).
There's perhaps a very gradual movement in the opposite direction with the introduction of regional mayors ?
And it ought to be acknowledged that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is causing the controversy discussed in the header, does significantly increase powers devolved to the higher tier of local government.
I am just wondering if the increase in 'powers' is actually an increase in responsibilities and liabilities but without all the powers necessary to do them effectively.
The effective bankruptcy of local government is the result of a massive increase in statutory duties without any kind of corresponding increase in revenue raising powers. Trying to fund child protection from car park fees doesn't work, and when large scale capital projects fall apart- looking a the Tory disaster in Woking- the road to ruin usual takes less than five years. The forced merger of local government units dating back to the Saxons in England and the Middle Ages in Scotland has left local powers a shadow of what they were before the reorganisation in 1974/5. Neither do units such as West Cheshire or East Ayrshire command much local loyalty. This is yet another way the Conservatives smashed things up and failed to build anything viable to replace them. Reform talk the same talk but are even less aware of the problem, which is why they have been so shocked by how hard it is to change things, even if you can move flags around.
Local government reform is an increasingly urgent problem, but it is also a real hot potato and few outside the political nerdery are even aware of the scale of the problem. Spoiler alert: it is already in the hundreds of billions.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
Bloody Tories...
That would be the gold now worth $5000 an ounce? That gold?
'You will have to pry Gordon sold the gold from my cold, dead hands'
It's a fair criticism, benefiting from the merit of being true.
In answer to the header's question about the superiority of the "Thatcher approach", there are a couple of points which might be made.
First, it's arguable (and I would so argue) that her "reforms" are a large part of why local government is in so dismal a condition. It's extraordinary that someone who banged on about "freedom" quite so much made us one if the most centralised states in Europe.
Second, a primary reason this reorganisation is a more drawn out process than Mrs T's, is the introduction of statutory consultation for local government reorganisation, introduced by the Local Government Act 1992, and further consolidated by The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
The '92 Act probably owes its genesis to Thatcher's disastrous attempt to fix local government funding by bringing in a poll tax a couple of years earlier...
Hence Major replaced it with the council tax
That still doesn't redress the difference to the rates. It went from funding councils by a property tax, to a per person tax then to a per person tax with a crude factoring for property value and a much larger contribution from central govt. That was for the ideological purpose of abolishing property tax, a tax cut for the wealthy and particularly the very wealthy.
In my area there are multi-millionaire pound properties that are (probably avoiding/evading) paying the same council tax as a 3/4 bed family house and that is the only annual tax levied on that property. The cost of council services has been shifted down the wealth ladder and to general taxation.
You now have the Reeves mansion tax on properties over £2 million
This is an uncomfortable, but important, interview - especially on a largely male forum. Pas devant.
Alistair Campbell talking to an charity the International Justice Mission tackling online, streamed, child abuse. It's in the second half of a video in The Rest is Politics: https://youtu.be/QYcAFanHwf8?t=1665
There are two different factors at work here - why these local elections have been postponed as against the policy of unitary authorities (it's called unitarisation but that's a horrible word).
The reason the process is taking so long is because of the timescale of statutory consultation and then the time for the Government to decide which of the options for local Government re-organisation presented is the one they prefer (why it has to be down to the Government I don't know, a local referendum would be better).
Surrey had its consultation last summer (ended in August I believe) but that was on two clear options - one for two Councils (West and East) and one for three (likely West, North and East). The Government then took three months to reach a definitive conclusion - this was mainly due to the complete clear out of the DCLOG Ministerial team in the wake of the departure of Angela Rayner.
Even with a final decision, there remains an Order which has to be laid before Parliament before the process can officially begin and that includes the elections for Shadow Authorities in May this year and the eventual dissolution of the existing County and Borough/District Councils in March 2027 by which time some of the County Councillors elected in 2021 will have served nearly six years of a four year term.
The process in other councils (Norfolk, Suffolk and East & West Sussex) has been incredibly slow with consultations still going on - it beggars belief it has taken so long and that's what we should be getting annoyed about. A second postponement of elections means Shadow elections in May 2027 and the dissolution of existing authorities in March 2028 meaning Councillors elected in 2021 will serve nearly seven years of a four year term.
With hindsight, the 2025 County elections in those authorities could and should have taken place and that is the problem.
There'sa wider debate about the role and scope of local councils and local Government but that's not why the elections this year have been cancelled - it's the process and for once you can blame Labour for that (though there were, as I recall, similar delays during the Conservative administrations). It's different when you look at places like Cornwall where the County simply swallowed up the Districts and Boroughs - the current model is creating new Councils and that creates legal and HR challenges.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
Bloody Tories...
That would be the gold now worth $5000 an ounce? That gold?
'You will have to pry Gordon sold the gold from my cold, dead hands'
It's a fair criticism, benefiting from the merit of being true.
Tone reason that the gold sale was such a problem, was that the Gold unit at the Bank of England has been abolished. A small department, they had consistently made a small profit for many, many years, maintaining the level of gold reserves the government required.
They would have eased the gold onto the market over a period of month (they had done similar before). But they had been deemed too old fashioned....
Abolished by one G. Brown as it happens.
Actual* experts, eh?
*As opposed to the experts who have no expertise. See many, many large consultancies, senior management, senior government officials etc etc.
It seems to me that the local government election/funding problem illustrates a fairly diagnosable democracy problem along with a concept problem as well.
Firstly in any notionally democratic hierarchy a general rule applies, arising out of human nature: the higher level of the democratic hierarchy will always want to maximise its power and minimise its responsibility.
The conceptual problem in local democracy is that it is rational to want two incompatible things: local decision and accountability but also an absence of 'postcode lottery' about any local service we happen to want at any particular moment.
In respect of Westminster v local government this is fairly obvious. But because total state managed expenditure is a vast proportion of all activity from building nuclear submarines to park benches and playground swings it goes right down to the level of the village primary school and beyond.
Result: blame transference is one of the great creative industries of the democratic world. It is a social blight. Result: good well intentioned school governors (volunteers) and management etc spend long winter evenings exercising responsibility without power, while a thousand miles away well paid politicians exercise power without responsibility.
Underneath is the problem that local government has no constitutional basis and hence no security.
In most other democracies, the fundamentals of its local governance are set out in its constitution. For sure, constitutions can change - but that's normally an extended process with a series of hurdles to jump, and not something governments do lightly.
The absence of any formalised constitution in the UK means that local government exists and operates entirely at the whim of national government - it can be re-organised, abolished, have its election dates changed, have its funding cut or capped, all according to the political decisions of a majority party at Westminster, elected on 35-40% of the vote, and has next to no reliable funding sources of its own (other than, perhaps, parking charges - which in itself explains a lot).
There's perhaps a very gradual movement in the opposite direction with the introduction of regional mayors ?
And it ought to be acknowledged that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is causing the controversy discussed in the header, does significantly increase powers devolved to the higher tier of local government.
I am just wondering if the increase in 'powers' is actually an increase in responsibilities and liabilities but without all the powers necessary to do them effectively.
The effective bankruptcy of local government is the result of a massive increase in statutory duties without any kind of corresponding increase in revenue raising powers. Trying to fund child protection from car park fees doesn't work, and when large scale capital projects fall apart- looking a the Tory disaster in Woking- the road to ruin usual takes less than five years. The forced merger of local government units dating back to the Saxons in England and the Middle Ages in Scotland has left local powers a shadow of what they were before the reorganisation in 1974/5. Neither do units such as West Cheshire or East Ayrshire command much local loyalty. This is yet another way the Conservatives smashed things up and failed to build anything viable to replace them. Reform talk the same talk but are even less aware of the problem, which is why they have been so shocked by how hard it is to change things, even if you can move flags around.
Local government reform is an increasingly urgent problem, but it is also a real hot potato and few outside the political nerdery are even aware of the scale of the problem. Spoiler alert: it is already in the hundreds of billions.
All these reforms of local councils seem to be designed to do one thing only which is to centralise more power and take accountability even fuirther away from the electorate. That goies for all the psat reforms under both parties as well. This is not a party political issue, it is a politician issue. The centre wants more power (whatever the party in power) and they will get it in the (often false) name of efficiency
Burner phones and ‘safe’ charging cables. Nothing to see here.
Starmer, and the British Establishment generally, still believe in international order and free trade as taught in GCSE economics and PPE 101. We got ripped off by the Americans and we will get ripped off by the Chinese. Heck, we even got ripped off by the French. They think China will play by the rules because they think everyone plays by the rules.
And in doing so they'll piss off the Americans because they want to piss off Trump but have not thought about what happens after Trump pisses off when his term ends in three years or less. They've forgotten about not burning your bridges on the way out.
Prediction: Trump won’t piss off when his term ends; if it ends.
I'm of the opinion Trump won't survive his term, but if he gets to November 2028, he'll be re-elected to critical acclaim with 99% of the vote.
This is an uncomfortable, but important, interview - especially on a largely male forum. Pas devant.
Alistair Campbell talking to an charity the International Justice Mission tackling online, streamed, child abuse. It's in the second half of a video in The Rest is Politics: https://youtu.be/QYcAFanHwf8?t=1665
(Given his Facebook history, I'd like to hear Nick Clegg on this.)
(This is just one angle, and there are many more needed.)
As much as I dislike Nick Clegg for his role in the coalition, I really really despise him for taking the money to run the corporate whitewash for Facebook's enabling of child exploitation.
Burner phones and ‘safe’ charging cables. Nothing to see here.
Starmer, and the British Establishment generally, still believe in international order and free trade as taught in GCSE economics and PPE 101. We got ripped off by the Americans and we will get ripped off by the Chinese. Heck, we even got ripped off by the French. They think China will play by the rules because they think everyone plays by the rules.
And in doing so they'll piss off the Americans because they want to piss off Trump but have not thought about what happens after Trump pisses off when his term ends in three years or less. They've forgotten about not burning your bridges on the way out.
Prediction: Trump won’t piss off when his term ends; if it ends.
I'm of the opinion Trump won't survive his term, but if he gets to November 2028, he'll be re-elected to critical acclaim with 99% of the vote.
My step mother remember the occasional elections for some minor things in the USSR. Complete with separate voting booths for Yes or No. The wrong one was indicated by the presence of a group of men in bad fake leather jackets.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
Bloody Tories...
That would be the gold now worth $5000 an ounce? That gold?
'You will have to pry Gordon sold the gold from my cold, dead hands'
It's a fair criticism, benefiting from the merit of being true.
Does it become fairer the more times it’s repeated, or does it just disappear into the susurration of PB Tory moaning (and boy, is there a lot of that)?
This is an uncomfortable, but important, interview - especially on a largely male forum. Pas devant.
Alistair Campbell talking to an charity the International Justice Mission tackling online, streamed, child abuse. It's in the second half of a video in The Rest is Politics: https://youtu.be/QYcAFanHwf8?t=1665
(Given his Facebook history, I'd like to hear Nick Clegg on this.)
(This is just one angle, and there are many more needed.)
As much as I dislike Nick Clegg for his role in the coalition, I really really despise him for taking the money to run the corporate whitewash for Facebook's enabling of child exploitation.
Don’t be unfair
Nick Clegg was whitewashing far, far more than just child exploitation at Farcebook.
This is an uncomfortable, but important, interview - especially on a largely male forum. Pas devant.
Alistair Campbell talking to an charity the International Justice Mission tackling online, streamed, child abuse. It's in the second half of a video in The Rest is Politics: https://youtu.be/QYcAFanHwf8?t=1665
(Given his Facebook history, I'd like to hear Nick Clegg on this.)
(This is just one angle, and there are many more needed.)
As much as I dislike Nick Clegg for his role in the coalition, I really really despise him for taking the money to run the corporate whitewash for Facebook's enabling of child exploitation.
I don't know enough to have a clear view on where he fitted in, before and after departure.
I am clear that this is the latest evolution of a previous issue, around abusers who used to travel, and sex abuse imnages amde to orders. I was across the versions of these when heavily blogging in 2007-2012.
I think the key point in this excellent header is that the public don't understand why they are being asked to pay more and more for less and less. So, why is that?
I don't think that there is any doubt that local authorities are top heavy in terms of management and have bureaucratic structures that generate endless paperwork and pointless meetings. Most large organisations are the same. My niece applied for a lowered pavement outside her house so that she could park in her driveway. Initially, she was told that this did not require a building warrant, then that it did, then that a neighbour had objected for some obscure reason, then someone had to come and see it.... More than a year after this very simple application was made she is still waiting on a final decision. Hours have been spent on....what? It's pathetic and, writ large, a major source of delay in development in the UK.
But, having said all of that, the reality is that local authorities are not in control of their finances. What services they can provide are very dependent upon their block grants and it is an easy thing for Westminster (or Holyrood) politicans to cut because they don't get the blame for it. In addition their local tax raising powers have been severely restricted to keep inflation down and to win votes.
For me, local authorities need more power within their areas of responsibility. The regulatory systems they have to work within in care, children's services and education are all hopelessly complicated and prevent a more sensible prioritisation or even a political choice. Westminster (and Holyrood) need to back off in a large way. Yeah, right.
No expert, but I suspect the only way to punch through all this is via directly-elected mayors who have the profile to be judged on their record, separate from their party affiliation.
If successful, they can withstand the ups and downs of their parties - examples being Andy Burnham who obviously runs far ahead of Labour in Greater Manchester, and Ben Houchen who seems to be extraordinarily popular in Teesside for a Tory.
So then you get local elections which are actually about local issues. At the moment, local councillors must wonder what the point is if, despite doing a good job, they get voted out because their party happens to be unpopular at the time of the election.
I think the key point in this excellent header is that the public don't understand why they are being asked to pay more and more for less and less. So, why is that?
I don't think that there is any doubt that local authorities are top heavy in terms of management and have bureaucratic structures that generate endless paperwork and pointless meetings. Most large organisations are the same. My niece applied for a lowered pavement outside her house so that she could park in her driveway. Initially, she was told that this did not require a building warrant, then that it did, then that a neighbour had objected for some obscure reason, then someone had to come and see it.... More than a year after this very simple application was made she is still waiting on a final decision. Hours have been spent on....what? It's pathetic and, writ large, a major source of delay in development in the UK.
But, having said all of that, the reality is that local authorities are not in control of their finances. What services they can provide are very dependent upon their block grants and it is an easy thing for Westminster (or Holyrood) politicans to cut because they don't get the blame for it. In addition their local tax raising powers have been severely restricted to keep inflation down and to win votes.
For me, local authorities need more power within their areas of responsibility. The regulatory systems they have to work within in care, children's services and education are all hopelessly complicated and prevent a more sensible prioritisation or even a political choice. Westminster (and Holyrood) need to back off in a large way. Yeah, right.
No expert, but I suspect the only way to punch through all this is via directly-elected mayors who have the profile to be judged on their record, separate from their party affiliation.
If successful, they can withstand the ups and downs of their parties - examples being Andy Burnham who obviously runs far ahead of Labour in Greater Manchester, and Ben Houchen who seems to be extraordinarily popular in Teesside for a Tory.
So then you get local elections which are actually about local issues. At the moment, local councillors must wonder what the point is if, despite doing a good job, they get voted out because their party happens to be unpopular at the time of the election.
Ben Houchen attaches his name to anything vaguely good even if he has zero actual involvement.
I will repeat what I've said before that when the house of cards that is Teesworks finally is revealed he will be regarded as no better than T Dan Smith and probably prosecuted in the same way.
It seems to me that the local government election/funding problem illustrates a fairly diagnosable democracy problem along with a concept problem as well.
Firstly in any notionally democratic hierarchy a general rule applies, arising out of human nature: the higher level of the democratic hierarchy will always want to maximise its power and minimise its responsibility.
The conceptual problem in local democracy is that it is rational to want two incompatible things: local decision and accountability but also an absence of 'postcode lottery' about any local service we happen to want at any particular moment.
In respect of Westminster v local government this is fairly obvious. But because total state managed expenditure is a vast proportion of all activity from building nuclear submarines to park benches and playground swings it goes right down to the level of the village primary school and beyond.
Result: blame transference is one of the great creative industries of the democratic world. It is a social blight. Result: good well intentioned school governors (volunteers) and management etc spend long winter evenings exercising responsibility without power, while a thousand miles away well paid politicians exercise power without responsibility.
Underneath is the problem that local government has no constitutional basis and hence no security.
In most other democracies, the fundamentals of its local governance are set out in its constitution. For sure, constitutions can change - but that's normally an extended process with a series of hurdles to jump, and not something governments do lightly.
The absence of any formalised constitution in the UK means that local government exists and operates entirely at the whim of national government - it can be re-organised, abolished, have its election dates changed, have its funding cut or capped, all according to the political decisions of a majority party at Westminster, elected on 35-40% of the vote, and has next to no reliable funding sources of its own (other than, perhaps, parking charges - which in itself explains a lot).
There's perhaps a very gradual movement in the opposite direction with the introduction of regional mayors ?
And it ought to be acknowledged that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is causing the controversy discussed in the header, does significantly increase powers devolved to the higher tier of local government.
I am just wondering if the increase in 'powers' is actually an increase in responsibilities and liabilities but without all the powers necessary to do them effectively.
The effective bankruptcy of local government is the result of a massive increase in statutory duties without any kind of corresponding increase in revenue raising powers. Trying to fund child protection from car park fees doesn't work, and when large scale capital projects fall apart- looking a the Tory disaster in Woking- the road to ruin usual takes less than five years. The forced merger of local government units dating back to the Saxons in England and the Middle Ages in Scotland has left local powers a shadow of what they were before the reorganisation in 1974/5. Neither do units such as West Cheshire or East Ayrshire command much local loyalty. This is yet another way the Conservatives smashed things up and failed to build anything viable to replace them. Reform talk the same talk but are even less aware of the problem, which is why they have been so shocked by how hard it is to change things, even if you can move flags around.
Local government reform is an increasingly urgent problem, but it is also a real hot potato and few outside the political nerdery are even aware of the scale of the problem. Spoiler alert: it is already in the hundreds of billions.
All these reforms of local councils seem to be designed to do one thing only which is to centralise more power and take accountability even fuirther away from the electorate. That goies for all the psat reforms under both parties as well. This is not a party political issue, it is a politician issue. The centre wants more power (whatever the party in power) and they will get it in the (often false) name of efficiency
We hear people on here arguing for the abolition of local councils and for everything to be run by Whitehall and Westminster.While there may be an argument for a National Social Care Authority, the argument for a National Waste Collection Authority looks more tenuous for all economies of scale might suggest if Biffa had the capacity to collect every rubbish bin in England, it might work out cheaper per unit.
The current situation where two thirds to three quarters (if not more) of expenditure is swallowed up by social care provision (and not just for adults) is unsustainable and for those authorities which avoid that you have housing (Newham has been bankrupted by both the cost of temporary housing provision and its own financial mismanagement).
The level of Services required is incrasingly beyond the resources of even well-run Councils (of which there are many of all stripes and none) to provide and that's the crunch point yet you also have a Government which is £150 billion in the hole.
I do think Land Value Taxation has to come along with some more serious property-related taxes but the other side of the question (and it's valid to ask and Councils ask it all the time) is which Services should be provide and which Services are we statutorily required to provide but in truth don't need to?
On topic I think this is a terrible thread header filled with personal opinion disguised as fact. The fact that some Councillors will be sitting for 7 years after having been elected for 4 and that the Electoral Commission themselves are scathing in their criticism of the Government and say that the reasons given for delays are simply not valid should lead us all to oppose these postponements.
Certain councils near each other can have differing results, Rotherham for instance has lower like for like tax compared to Bassetlaw/Nottinghamshire and their pothole management is much better.
They may get a better financial settlement from central govt, have lower social care costs or they may be better managed. As someone in a well-run authority (libraries still operating, leisure centres replaced, potholes as best they can manage under the onslaught from HGVs), the fear is the increasing popularity of the party that runs the neighbouring authority, which is badly run in comparison, (can't afford to replace the leisure centre they demolished, money wasted on cycle lanes so poor they are avoided, pothole filling poorer, the ones filled last week on my route are now loose chippings in the gutter). I live in one and currently work in the other so compare weekly, but the majority probably won't realize until they inflict the incompetence on the rest of us.
My regular commutes are ~ 40 (Bassetlaw) / 25 Rotherham MBC area / 20 Motorway / 15 Sheffield council area so I'm in a good position to compare the relative merits of the roads around the South Yorkshire border...
On topic I think this is a terrible thread header filled with personal opinion disguised as fact. The fact that some Councillors will be sitting for 7 years after having been elected for 4 and that the Electoral Commission themselves are scathing in their criticism of the Government and say that the reasons given for delays are simply not valid should lead us all to oppose these postponements.
Whether or not to postpone an election is very clearly one which is itself outside party politics and should be taken by a body similar to the Boundary Commission, which is accepted as working outside the realm of party advantage. The foundation stones of democracy are not safe in the hands of competitors within a democracy. Alex Ferguson was a very fine manager, but you wouldn't appoint him as referee in a Man U game.
On topic I think this is a terrible thread header filled with personal opinion disguised as fact. The fact that some Councillors will be sitting for 7 years after having been elected for 4 and that the Electoral Commission themselves are scathing in their criticism of the Government and say that the reasons given for delays are simply not valid should lead us all to oppose these postponements.
Pah!
What does this “Electoral Commission” know about elections?
On topic I think this is a terrible thread header filled with personal opinion disguised as fact. The fact that some Councillors will be sitting for 7 years after having been elected for 4 and that the Electoral Commission themselves are scathing in their criticism of the Government and say that the reasons given for delays are simply not valid should lead us all to oppose these postponements.
No strong view either way so think that is too harsh. Yes personal opinion, but that is hardly rare in pb headers. It got me thinking about the issue, which is sometimes sufficient for a header, but still don't think it is clear cut either way.
Big win for the Scottish Lib Dems in the East Dumbarton Council by-election yesterday. SNP second, then Reform and Labour, then Green, Tory and a very minor party.
It seems to me that the local government election/funding problem illustrates a fairly diagnosable democracy problem along with a concept problem as well.
Firstly in any notionally democratic hierarchy a general rule applies, arising out of human nature: the higher level of the democratic hierarchy will always want to maximise its power and minimise its responsibility.
The conceptual problem in local democracy is that it is rational to want two incompatible things: local decision and accountability but also an absence of 'postcode lottery' about any local service we happen to want at any particular moment.
In respect of Westminster v local government this is fairly obvious. But because total state managed expenditure is a vast proportion of all activity from building nuclear submarines to park benches and playground swings it goes right down to the level of the village primary school and beyond.
Result: blame transference is one of the great creative industries of the democratic world. It is a social blight. Result: good well intentioned school governors (volunteers) and management etc spend long winter evenings exercising responsibility without power, while a thousand miles away well paid politicians exercise power without responsibility.
Underneath is the problem that local government has no constitutional basis and hence no security.
In most other democracies, the fundamentals of its local governance are set out in its constitution. For sure, constitutions can change - but that's normally an extended process with a series of hurdles to jump, and not something governments do lightly.
The absence of any formalised constitution in the UK means that local government exists and operates entirely at the whim of national government - it can be re-organised, abolished, have its election dates changed, have its funding cut or capped, all according to the political decisions of a majority party at Westminster, elected on 35-40% of the vote, and has next to no reliable funding sources of its own (other than, perhaps, parking charges - which in itself explains a lot).
There's perhaps a very gradual movement in the opposite direction with the introduction of regional mayors ?
And it ought to be acknowledged that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is causing the controversy discussed in the header, does significantly increase powers devolved to the higher tier of local government.
I am just wondering if the increase in 'powers' is actually an increase in responsibilities and liabilities but without all the powers necessary to do them effectively.
The effective bankruptcy of local government is the result of a massive increase in statutory duties without any kind of corresponding increase in revenue raising powers. Trying to fund child protection from car park fees doesn't work, and when large scale capital projects fall apart- looking a the Tory disaster in Woking- the road to ruin usual takes less than five years. The forced merger of local government units dating back to the Saxons in England and the Middle Ages in Scotland has left local powers a shadow of what they were before the reorganisation in 1974/5. Neither do units such as West Cheshire or East Ayrshire command much local loyalty. This is yet another way the Conservatives smashed things up and failed to build anything viable to replace them. Reform talk the same talk but are even less aware of the problem, which is why they have been so shocked by how hard it is to change things, even if you can move flags around.
Local government reform is an increasingly urgent problem, but it is also a real hot potato and few outside the political nerdery are even aware of the scale of the problem. Spoiler alert: it is already in the hundreds of billions.
All these reforms of local councils seem to be designed to do one thing only which is to centralise more power and take accountability even fuirther away from the electorate. That goies for all the psat reforms under both parties as well. This is not a party political issue, it is a politician issue. The centre wants more power (whatever the party in power) and they will get it in the (often false) name of efficiency
I am in favour of Localism, important and as described by you - which is why I oppose this governments awful Police Reforms, centralise more power at expense of Localism.
But Conservative Government, and many Conservative councils are the architects of the ongoing local Government re-organisation for streamlining for fiscal efficiencies. One in three people in England live in area covered by two local authorities — two chief executives, two sets of councillors, two finance directors - this reform slashes the number of councillors by 5,000 gets rid of highly-paid senior roles too.
I think the key point in this excellent header is that the public don't understand why they are being asked to pay more and more for less and less. So, why is that?
I don't think that there is any doubt that local authorities are top heavy in terms of management and have bureaucratic structures that generate endless paperwork and pointless meetings. Most large organisations are the same. My niece applied for a lowered pavement outside her house so that she could park in her driveway. Initially, she was told that this did not require a building warrant, then that it did, then that a neighbour had objected for some obscure reason, then someone had to come and see it.... More than a year after this very simple application was made she is still waiting on a final decision. Hours have been spent on....what? It's pathetic and, writ large, a major source of delay in development in the UK.
But, having said all of that, the reality is that local authorities are not in control of their finances. What services they can provide are very dependent upon their block grants and it is an easy thing for Westminster (or Holyrood) politicans to cut because they don't get the blame for it. In addition their local tax raising powers have been severely restricted to keep inflation down and to win votes.
For me, local authorities need more power within their areas of responsibility. The regulatory systems they have to work within in care, children's services and education are all hopelessly complicated and prevent a more sensible prioritisation or even a political choice. Westminster (and Holyrood) need to back off in a large way. Yeah, right.
No expert, but I suspect the only way to punch through all this is via directly-elected mayors who have the profile to be judged on their record, separate from their party affiliation.
If successful, they can withstand the ups and downs of their parties - examples being Andy Burnham who obviously runs far ahead of Labour in Greater Manchester, and Ben Houchen who seems to be extraordinarily popular in Teesside for a Tory.
So then you get local elections which are actually about local issues. At the moment, local councillors must wonder what the point is if, despite doing a good job, they get voted out because their party happens to be unpopular at the time of the election.
None of that will matter until local government is allowed to do things that Westminster really doesn't want them to do.
Burner phones and ‘safe’ charging cables. Nothing to see here.
Starmer, and the British Establishment generally, still believe in international order and free trade as taught in GCSE economics and PPE 101. We got ripped off by the Americans and we will get ripped off by the Chinese. Heck, we even got ripped off by the French. They think China will play by the rules because they think everyone plays by the rules.
And in doing so they'll piss off the Americans because they want to piss off Trump but have not thought about what happens after Trump pisses off when his term ends in three years or less. They've forgotten about not burning your bridges on the way out.
Prediction: Trump won’t piss off when his term ends; if it ends.
I'm of the opinion Trump won't survive his term, but if he gets to November 2028, he'll be re-elected to critical acclaim with 99% of the vote.
You seem to be under the impression that death is a barrier to re-election.
{Konstantin Chernenko has been wheeled into the chat}
Big win for the Scottish Lib Dems in the East Dumbarton Council by-election yesterday. SNP second, then Reform and Labour, then Green, Tory and a very minor party.
Apparently the East Dunbartonshire by-election was a disaster for the Scottish Tories who were looking to defend the seat but crashed into sixth place. There were mitigating circumstances as the man who was being replaced was jailed for romance fraud last year and was forced out.
I think the key point in this excellent header is that the public don't understand why they are being asked to pay more and more for less and less. So, why is that?
I don't think that there is any doubt that local authorities are top heavy in terms of management and have bureaucratic structures that generate endless paperwork and pointless meetings. Most large organisations are the same. My niece applied for a lowered pavement outside her house so that she could park in her driveway. Initially, she was told that this did not require a building warrant, then that it did, then that a neighbour had objected for some obscure reason, then someone had to come and see it.... More than a year after this very simple application was made she is still waiting on a final decision. Hours have been spent on....what? It's pathetic and, writ large, a major source of delay in development in the UK.
But, having said all of that, the reality is that local authorities are not in control of their finances. What services they can provide are very dependent upon their block grants and it is an easy thing for Westminster (or Holyrood) politicans to cut because they don't get the blame for it. In addition their local tax raising powers have been severely restricted to keep inflation down and to win votes.
For me, local authorities need more power within their areas of responsibility. The regulatory systems they have to work within in care, children's services and education are all hopelessly complicated and prevent a more sensible prioritisation or even a political choice. Westminster (and Holyrood) need to back off in a large way. Yeah, right.
No expert, but I suspect the only way to punch through all this is via directly-elected mayors who have the profile to be judged on their record, separate from their party affiliation.
If successful, they can withstand the ups and downs of their parties - examples being Andy Burnham who obviously runs far ahead of Labour in Greater Manchester, and Ben Houchen who seems to be extraordinarily popular in Teesside for a Tory.
So then you get local elections which are actually about local issues. At the moment, local councillors must wonder what the point is if, despite doing a good job, they get voted out because their party happens to be unpopular at the time of the election.
None of that will matter until local government is allowed to do things that Westminster really doesn't want them to do.
The Malmesbury UnDicatorship plan for local government -
1) Impose an obligation on local government to run a surplus. 2) Remove the other obligations 3) Given them power to impose any level of tax they feel like. 4) Sell the rights to a series following the resultant comedy to Netflix.
It seems to me that the local government election/funding problem illustrates a fairly diagnosable democracy problem along with a concept problem as well.
Firstly in any notionally democratic hierarchy a general rule applies, arising out of human nature: the higher level of the democratic hierarchy will always want to maximise its power and minimise its responsibility.
The conceptual problem in local democracy is that it is rational to want two incompatible things: local decision and accountability but also an absence of 'postcode lottery' about any local service we happen to want at any particular moment.
In respect of Westminster v local government this is fairly obvious. But because total state managed expenditure is a vast proportion of all activity from building nuclear submarines to park benches and playground swings it goes right down to the level of the village primary school and beyond.
Result: blame transference is one of the great creative industries of the democratic world. It is a social blight. Result: good well intentioned school governors (volunteers) and management etc spend long winter evenings exercising responsibility without power, while a thousand miles away well paid politicians exercise power without responsibility.
Underneath is the problem that local government has no constitutional basis and hence no security.
In most other democracies, the fundamentals of its local governance are set out in its constitution. For sure, constitutions can change - but that's normally an extended process with a series of hurdles to jump, and not something governments do lightly.
The absence of any formalised constitution in the UK means that local government exists and operates entirely at the whim of national government - it can be re-organised, abolished, have its election dates changed, have its funding cut or capped, all according to the political decisions of a majority party at Westminster, elected on 35-40% of the vote, and has next to no reliable funding sources of its own (other than, perhaps, parking charges - which in itself explains a lot).
There's perhaps a very gradual movement in the opposite direction with the introduction of regional mayors ?
And it ought to be acknowledged that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is causing the controversy discussed in the header, does significantly increase powers devolved to the higher tier of local government.
I am just wondering if the increase in 'powers' is actually an increase in responsibilities and liabilities but without all the powers necessary to do them effectively.
The effective bankruptcy of local government is the result of a massive increase in statutory duties without any kind of corresponding increase in revenue raising powers. Trying to fund child protection from car park fees doesn't work, and when large scale capital projects fall apart- looking a the Tory disaster in Woking- the road to ruin usual takes less than five years. The forced merger of local government units dating back to the Saxons in England and the Middle Ages in Scotland has left local powers a shadow of what they were before the reorganisation in 1974/5. Neither do units such as West Cheshire or East Ayrshire command much local loyalty. This is yet another way the Conservatives smashed things up and failed to build anything viable to replace them. Reform talk the same talk but are even less aware of the problem, which is why they have been so shocked by how hard it is to change things, even if you can move flags around.
Local government reform is an increasingly urgent problem, but it is also a real hot potato and few outside the political nerdery are even aware of the scale of the problem. Spoiler alert: it is already in the hundreds of billions.
All these reforms of local councils seem to be designed to do one thing only which is to centralise more power and take accountability even fuirther away from the electorate. That goies for all the psat reforms under both parties as well. This is not a party political issue, it is a politician issue. The centre wants more power (whatever the party in power) and they will get it in the (often false) name of efficiency
I am in favour of Localism, important and as described by you - which is why I oppose this governments awful Police Reforms, centralise more power at expense of Localism.
But Conservative Government, and many Conservative councils are the architects of the ongoing local Government re-organisation for streamlining for fiscal efficiencies. One in three people in England live in area covered by two local authorities — two chief executives, two sets of councillors, two finance directors - this reform slashes the number of councillors by 5,000 gets rid of highly-paid senior roles too.
BUt the question is whether having a single chief executive rather than 2 will make anyone's services better or better value for money. I am damn near certain that I will get worse - and less acountable - services from a South Lincolnshire Council than I have been getting from South Kesteven District Council. I am equally certain that I will see no drop in Council Tax as a result of this reorganisation so I will be paying more for less. That will be the story across the whole of England.
"An immigration enforcement officer was an illegal migrant who stole money from small boat migrants, a court has heard.
Besmir Matera, from Albania, has been charged, with four other immigration officers, with conspiracy to steal following a Home Office investigation.
They are alleged to have stolen money from migrants when they arrived in the UK after being rescued from dinghies in the Channel between 2021 and 2022.
Mr Matera, 36, is also charged with entering the UK illegally between July 2003 and March 2004 by giving a false name, date of birth and nationality in an asylum application.
He is also charged with possessing false passports between 2011 and 2022 and a false driving licence between 2018 and 2022."
There are two different factors at work here - why these local elections have been postponed as against the policy of unitary authorities (it's called unitarisation but that's a horrible word).
The reason the process is taking so long is because of the timescale of statutory consultation and then the time for the Government to decide which of the options for local Government re-organisation presented is the one they prefer (why it has to be down to the Government I don't know, a local referendum would be better).
Surrey had its consultation last summer (ended in August I believe) but that was on two clear options - one for two Councils (West and East) and one for three (likely West, North and East). The Government then took three months to reach a definitive conclusion - this was mainly due to the complete clear out of the DCLOG Ministerial team in the wake of the departure of Angela Rayner.
Even with a final decision, there remains an Order which has to be laid before Parliament before the process can officially begin and that includes the elections for Shadow Authorities in May this year and the eventual dissolution of the existing County and Borough/District Councils in March 2027 by which time some of the County Councillors elected in 2021 will have served nearly six years of a four year term.
The process in other councils (Norfolk, Suffolk and East & West Sussex) has been incredibly slow with consultations still going on - it beggars belief it has taken so long and that's what we should be getting annoyed about. A second postponement of elections means Shadow elections in May 2027 and the dissolution of existing authorities in March 2028 meaning Councillors elected in 2021 will serve nearly seven years of a four year term.
With hindsight, the 2025 County elections in those authorities could and should have taken place and that is the problem.
There'sa wider debate about the role and scope of local councils and local Government but that's not why the elections this year have been cancelled - it's the process and for once you can blame Labour for that (though there were, as I recall, similar delays during the Conservative administrations). It's different when you look at places like Cornwall where the County simply swallowed up the Districts and Boroughs - the current model is creating new Councils and that creates legal and HR challenges.
“With hindsight” or clear lessons to be learned and saved as government record, to infirm the next upheaval in Local Government?
If I am understanding you correctly, you advocate speeding the process up by scrapping the lengthly consultation process? And if it’s going to be a lengthy process, don’t cancel elections? Know as foresight not hindsight how long the process realistically will take>.
I would counter, if you definitely know you are into last year, it’s performative and wasteful to hold elections for something abolished in 12 months, councillors abolished in 12 months. Instead bring in change managers as consultants to manage the change on time.
I’m not convinced a referendum would speed things up, or be strongly democratic way of deciding it. The only correct decision is to scrap having two councils at same time, and we elect councillors and governments to ensure the right decisions and strong government happen. When you put it out in a referendum the answer you get can be a lottery between the right way to proceeded and the wrong one. To argue for referendum on this, is at same time to trash the strong intellectual arguments for representative democracy as being stronger than “referendum democracy.” You can spot the mindless left and right wing Populists on PB, when they say give us a referendum on this. And no surprise the fact is Reform and Adolf Hitler both favour “referendum democracy” over representative democracy.
It seems to me that the local government election/funding problem illustrates a fairly diagnosable democracy problem along with a concept problem as well.
Firstly in any notionally democratic hierarchy a general rule applies, arising out of human nature: the higher level of the democratic hierarchy will always want to maximise its power and minimise its responsibility.
The conceptual problem in local democracy is that it is rational to want two incompatible things: local decision and accountability but also an absence of 'postcode lottery' about any local service we happen to want at any particular moment.
In respect of Westminster v local government this is fairly obvious. But because total state managed expenditure is a vast proportion of all activity from building nuclear submarines to park benches and playground swings it goes right down to the level of the village primary school and beyond.
Result: blame transference is one of the great creative industries of the democratic world. It is a social blight. Result: good well intentioned school governors (volunteers) and management etc spend long winter evenings exercising responsibility without power, while a thousand miles away well paid politicians exercise power without responsibility.
Underneath is the problem that local government has no constitutional basis and hence no security.
In most other democracies, the fundamentals of its local governance are set out in its constitution. For sure, constitutions can change - but that's normally an extended process with a series of hurdles to jump, and not something governments do lightly.
The absence of any formalised constitution in the UK means that local government exists and operates entirely at the whim of national government - it can be re-organised, abolished, have its election dates changed, have its funding cut or capped, all according to the political decisions of a majority party at Westminster, elected on 35-40% of the vote, and has next to no reliable funding sources of its own (other than, perhaps, parking charges - which in itself explains a lot).
There's perhaps a very gradual movement in the opposite direction with the introduction of regional mayors ?
And it ought to be acknowledged that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is causing the controversy discussed in the header, does significantly increase powers devolved to the higher tier of local government.
I am just wondering if the increase in 'powers' is actually an increase in responsibilities and liabilities but without all the powers necessary to do them effectively.
The effective bankruptcy of local government is the result of a massive increase in statutory duties without any kind of corresponding increase in revenue raising powers. Trying to fund child protection from car park fees doesn't work, and when large scale capital projects fall apart- looking a the Tory disaster in Woking- the road to ruin usual takes less than five years. The forced merger of local government units dating back to the Saxons in England and the Middle Ages in Scotland has left local powers a shadow of what they were before the reorganisation in 1974/5. Neither do units such as West Cheshire or East Ayrshire command much local loyalty. This is yet another way the Conservatives smashed things up and failed to build anything viable to replace them. Reform talk the same talk but are even less aware of the problem, which is why they have been so shocked by how hard it is to change things, even if you can move flags around.
Local government reform is an increasingly urgent problem, but it is also a real hot potato and few outside the political nerdery are even aware of the scale of the problem. Spoiler alert: it is already in the hundreds of billions.
All these reforms of local councils seem to be designed to do one thing only which is to centralise more power and take accountability even fuirther away from the electorate. That goies for all the psat reforms under both parties as well. This is not a party political issue, it is a politician issue. The centre wants more power (whatever the party in power) and they will get it in the (often false) name of efficiency
I am in favour of Localism, important and as described by you - which is why I oppose this governments awful Police Reforms, centralise more power at expense of Localism.
But Conservative Government, and many Conservative councils are the architects of the ongoing local Government re-organisation for streamlining for fiscal efficiencies. One in three people in England live in area covered by two local authorities — two chief executives, two sets of councillors, two finance directors - this reform slashes the number of councillors by 5,000 gets rid of highly-paid senior roles too.
BUt the question is whether having a single chief executive rather than 2 will make anyone's services better or better value for money. I am damn near certain that I will get worse - and less acountable - services from a South Lincolnshire Council than I have been getting from South Kesteven District Council. I am equally certain that I will see no drop in Council Tax as a result of this reorganisation so I will be paying more for less. That will be the story across the whole of England.
I think the key point in this excellent header is that the public don't understand why they are being asked to pay more and more for less and less. So, why is that?
I don't think that there is any doubt that local authorities are top heavy in terms of management and have bureaucratic structures that generate endless paperwork and pointless meetings. Most large organisations are the same. My niece applied for a lowered pavement outside her house so that she could park in her driveway. Initially, she was told that this did not require a building warrant, then that it did, then that a neighbour had objected for some obscure reason, then someone had to come and see it.... More than a year after this very simple application was made she is still waiting on a final decision. Hours have been spent on....what? It's pathetic and, writ large, a major source of delay in development in the UK.
But, having said all of that, the reality is that local authorities are not in control of their finances. What services they can provide are very dependent upon their block grants and it is an easy thing for Westminster (or Holyrood) politicans to cut because they don't get the blame for it. In addition their local tax raising powers have been severely restricted to keep inflation down and to win votes.
For me, local authorities need more power within their areas of responsibility. The regulatory systems they have to work within in care, children's services and education are all hopelessly complicated and prevent a more sensible prioritisation or even a political choice. Westminster (and Holyrood) need to back off in a large way. Yeah, right.
No expert, but I suspect the only way to punch through all this is via directly-elected mayors who have the profile to be judged on their record, separate from their party affiliation.
If successful, they can withstand the ups and downs of their parties - examples being Andy Burnham who obviously runs far ahead of Labour in Greater Manchester, and Ben Houchen who seems to be extraordinarily popular in Teesside for a Tory.
So then you get local elections which are actually about local issues. At the moment, local councillors must wonder what the point is if, despite doing a good job, they get voted out because their party happens to be unpopular at the time of the election.
None of that will matter until local government is allowed to do things that Westminster really doesn't want them to do.
The Malmesbury UnDicatorship plan for local government -
1) Impose an obligation on local government to run a surplus. 2) Remove the other obligations 3) Given them power to impose any level of tax they feel like. 4) Sell the rights to a series following the resultant comedy to Netflix.
Take it this experiment will be done in a local authority well away from yourself...
I think the key point in this excellent header is that the public don't understand why they are being asked to pay more and more for less and less. So, why is that?
I don't think that there is any doubt that local authorities are top heavy in terms of management and have bureaucratic structures that generate endless paperwork and pointless meetings. Most large organisations are the same. My niece applied for a lowered pavement outside her house so that she could park in her driveway. Initially, she was told that this did not require a building warrant, then that it did, then that a neighbour had objected for some obscure reason, then someone had to come and see it.... More than a year after this very simple application was made she is still waiting on a final decision. Hours have been spent on....what? It's pathetic and, writ large, a major source of delay in development in the UK.
But, having said all of that, the reality is that local authorities are not in control of their finances. What services they can provide are very dependent upon their block grants and it is an easy thing for Westminster (or Holyrood) politicans to cut because they don't get the blame for it. In addition their local tax raising powers have been severely restricted to keep inflation down and to win votes.
For me, local authorities need more power within their areas of responsibility. The regulatory systems they have to work within in care, children's services and education are all hopelessly complicated and prevent a more sensible prioritisation or even a political choice. Westminster (and Holyrood) need to back off in a large way. Yeah, right.
No expert, but I suspect the only way to punch through all this is via directly-elected mayors who have the profile to be judged on their record, separate from their party affiliation.
If successful, they can withstand the ups and downs of their parties - examples being Andy Burnham who obviously runs far ahead of Labour in Greater Manchester, and Ben Houchen who seems to be extraordinarily popular in Teesside for a Tory.
So then you get local elections which are actually about local issues. At the moment, local councillors must wonder what the point is if, despite doing a good job, they get voted out because their party happens to be unpopular at the time of the election.
None of that will matter until local government is allowed to do things that Westminster really doesn't want them to do.
The Malmesbury UnDicatorship plan for local government -
1) Impose an obligation on local government to run a surplus. 2) Remove the other obligations 3) Given them power to impose any level of tax they feel like. 4) Sell the rights to a series following the resultant comedy to Netflix.
Take it this experiment will be done in a local authority well away from yourself...
Big win for the Scottish Lib Dems in the East Dumbarton Council by-election yesterday. SNP second, then Reform and Labour, then Green, Tory and a very minor party.
Apparently the East Dunbartonshire by-election was a disaster for the Scottish Tories who were looking to defend the seat but crashed into sixth place. There were mitigating circumstances as the man who was being replaced was jailed for romance fraud last year and was forced out.
It was real bad. I suppose another mitigating circumstance is that the ward is in a LibDem Westminster seat (was Jo Swinson's) which they are hoping to take in May for Holyrood. They will have been all over it. But it does show the vulnerability of the Tories in high status/high income areas to the LibDems. This is probably as close to Surrey as you get in Scotland.
Thanks @MoonRabbit - interesting piece on an over looked area, local government.
A point I would add though is that as far as I know no one is being asked - directly - about these local government re-orgs.
My area certainly is not having any kind of referendum, which is what I would expect. We are to lose our well functioning district council. No one I speak to is in favour of this.
In 2009 Durham became a unitary authority and the small local councils were disbanded.
Don’t recall being asked about it but ‘consultations’ were, by some happy coincidence, favourable.
Trump chooses KEVIN WARSH for Fed chair. Trump considered Warsh in 2017 but chose Jerome Powell instead. The president announced his decision on Truth Social.
I think the key point in this excellent header is that the public don't understand why they are being asked to pay more and more for less and less. So, why is that?
I don't think that there is any doubt that local authorities are top heavy in terms of management and have bureaucratic structures that generate endless paperwork and pointless meetings. Most large organisations are the same. My niece applied for a lowered pavement outside her house so that she could park in her driveway. Initially, she was told that this did not require a building warrant, then that it did, then that a neighbour had objected for some obscure reason, then someone had to come and see it.... More than a year after this very simple application was made she is still waiting on a final decision. Hours have been spent on....what? It's pathetic and, writ large, a major source of delay in development in the UK.
But, having said all of that, the reality is that local authorities are not in control of their finances. What services they can provide are very dependent upon their block grants and it is an easy thing for Westminster (or Holyrood) politicans to cut because they don't get the blame for it. In addition their local tax raising powers have been severely restricted to keep inflation down and to win votes.
For me, local authorities need more power within their areas of responsibility. The regulatory systems they have to work within in care, children's services and education are all hopelessly complicated and prevent a more sensible prioritisation or even a political choice. Westminster (and Holyrood) need to back off in a large way. Yeah, right.
No expert, but I suspect the only way to punch through all this is via directly-elected mayors who have the profile to be judged on their record, separate from their party affiliation.
If successful, they can withstand the ups and downs of their parties - examples being Andy Burnham who obviously runs far ahead of Labour in Greater Manchester, and Ben Houchen who seems to be extraordinarily popular in Teesside for a Tory.
So then you get local elections which are actually about local issues. At the moment, local councillors must wonder what the point is if, despite doing a good job, they get voted out because their party happens to be unpopular at the time of the election.
I don't live under a directly elected mayor, so here is a question to which I don't know the answer: To what extent is the directly elected mayor directly responsible for raising, by taxes of any sort, the money he or she will direct to be spent?
Trump chooses KEVIN WARSH for Fed chair. Trump considered Warsh in 2017 but chose Jerome Powell instead. The president announced his decision on Truth Social.
Since leaving the Fed nearly 15 years ago, Mr. Warsh, who currently works with billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller and is also a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, has emerged as a staunch critic of the central bank.
It seems to me that the local government election/funding problem illustrates a fairly diagnosable democracy problem along with a concept problem as well.
Firstly in any notionally democratic hierarchy a general rule applies, arising out of human nature: the higher level of the democratic hierarchy will always want to maximise its power and minimise its responsibility.
The conceptual problem in local democracy is that it is rational to want two incompatible things: local decision and accountability but also an absence of 'postcode lottery' about any local service we happen to want at any particular moment.
In respect of Westminster v local government this is fairly obvious. But because total state managed expenditure is a vast proportion of all activity from building nuclear submarines to park benches and playground swings it goes right down to the level of the village primary school and beyond.
Result: blame transference is one of the great creative industries of the democratic world. It is a social blight. Result: good well intentioned school governors (volunteers) and management etc spend long winter evenings exercising responsibility without power, while a thousand miles away well paid politicians exercise power without responsibility.
Underneath is the problem that local government has no constitutional basis and hence no security.
In most other democracies, the fundamentals of its local governance are set out in its constitution. For sure, constitutions can change - but that's normally an extended process with a series of hurdles to jump, and not something governments do lightly.
The absence of any formalised constitution in the UK means that local government exists and operates entirely at the whim of national government - it can be re-organised, abolished, have its election dates changed, have its funding cut or capped, all according to the political decisions of a majority party at Westminster, elected on 35-40% of the vote, and has next to no reliable funding sources of its own (other than, perhaps, parking charges - which in itself explains a lot).
There's perhaps a very gradual movement in the opposite direction with the introduction of regional mayors ?
And it ought to be acknowledged that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is causing the controversy discussed in the header, does significantly increase powers devolved to the higher tier of local government.
I am just wondering if the increase in 'powers' is actually an increase in responsibilities and liabilities but without all the powers necessary to do them effectively.
The effective bankruptcy of local government is the result of a massive increase in statutory duties without any kind of corresponding increase in revenue raising powers. Trying to fund child protection from car park fees doesn't work, and when large scale capital projects fall apart- looking a the Tory disaster in Woking- the road to ruin usual takes less than five years. The forced merger of local government units dating back to the Saxons in England and the Middle Ages in Scotland has left local powers a shadow of what they were before the reorganisation in 1974/5. Neither do units such as West Cheshire or East Ayrshire command much local loyalty. This is yet another way the Conservatives smashed things up and failed to build anything viable to replace them. Reform talk the same talk but are even less aware of the problem, which is why they have been so shocked by how hard it is to change things, even if you can move flags around.
Local government reform is an increasingly urgent problem, but it is also a real hot potato and few outside the political nerdery are even aware of the scale of the problem. Spoiler alert: it is already in the hundreds of billions.
All these reforms of local councils seem to be designed to do one thing only which is to centralise more power and take accountability even fuirther away from the electorate. That goies for all the psat reforms under both parties as well. This is not a party political issue, it is a politician issue. The centre wants more power (whatever the party in power) and they will get it in the (often false) name of efficiency
I am in favour of Localism, important and as described by you - which is why I oppose this governments awful Police Reforms, centralise more power at expense of Localism.
But Conservative Government, and many Conservative councils are the architects of the ongoing local Government re-organisation for streamlining for fiscal efficiencies. One in three people in England live in area covered by two local authorities — two chief executives, two sets of councillors, two finance directors - this reform slashes the number of councillors by 5,000 gets rid of highly-paid senior roles too.
BUt the question is whether having a single chief executive rather than 2 will make anyone's services better or better value for money. I am damn near certain that I will get worse - and less acountable - services from a South Lincolnshire Council than I have been getting from South Kesteven District Council. I am equally certain that I will see no drop in Council Tax as a result of this reorganisation so I will be paying more for less. That will be the story across the whole of England.
But would that be result of the re-organisation, or all the other factors and nuances of where local government is right now in this country that’s in the header and throughout this thread discussion?
Perhaps to over simplify the elephant in the room - central government doesn’t allow Local Authorities any real real authority, but what it has “stitched up” Local Authorities to deliver is not properly funded, either, and the whole edifice is headed towards bankruptcy.
Meanwhile, Front Page of the Daily Telegraph today is running a Campaign to Save Democracy, trying to convince us the decision is simply about a government trying to “save some council seats?” Which I’m calling a glib smokescreen, behind which is the real debate we should be having.
Big win for the Scottish Lib Dems in the East Dumbarton Council by-election yesterday. SNP second, then Reform and Labour, then Green, Tory and a very minor party.
Apparently the East Dunbartonshire by-election was a disaster for the Scottish Tories who were looking to defend the seat but crashed into sixth place. There were mitigating circumstances as the man who was being replaced was jailed for romance fraud last year and was forced out.
It was real bad. I suppose another mitigating circumstance is that the ward is in a LibDem Westminster seat (was Jo Swinson's) which they are hoping to take in May for Holyrood. They will have been all over it. But it does show the vulnerability of the Tories in high status/high income areas to the LibDems. This is probably as close to Surrey as you get in Scotland.
Yes, I stayed there, just off the West Highland Way, last spring. It’s a pleasant, scenic area to the south of Loch Lomond and looked fairly prosperous to me. Yet within easy driving distance of Glasgow
The problem with local democracy in this country, it seems to me, is we have for decades now operated a weird hodgepodge of different systems and different layers of government depending where you live in the country. Meaning most people have very little idea who is responsible for who, what they are paying or voting for, or what impact it will have on their lives.
The plan to create unitary authorities does at least go some way to simplifying things but things need to go a lot further on that front. Successive governments have also taken very contradictory actions in this area - so for every local government simplification there is another layer added on top, mayoral/PCCs etc.
There are two different factors at work here - why these local elections have been postponed as against the policy of unitary authorities (it's called unitarisation but that's a horrible word).
The reason the process is taking so long is because of the timescale of statutory consultation and then the time for the Government to decide which of the options for local Government re-organisation presented is the one they prefer (why it has to be down to the Government I don't know, a local referendum would be better).
Surrey had its consultation last summer (ended in August I believe) but that was on two clear options - one for two Councils (West and East) and one for three (likely West, North and East). The Government then took three months to reach a definitive conclusion - this was mainly due to the complete clear out of the DCLOG Ministerial team in the wake of the departure of Angela Rayner.
Even with a final decision, there remains an Order which has to be laid before Parliament before the process can officially begin and that includes the elections for Shadow Authorities in May this year and the eventual dissolution of the existing County and Borough/District Councils in March 2027 by which time some of the County Councillors elected in 2021 will have served nearly six years of a four year term.
The process in other councils (Norfolk, Suffolk and East & West Sussex) has been incredibly slow with consultations still going on - it beggars belief it has taken so long and that's what we should be getting annoyed about. A second postponement of elections means Shadow elections in May 2027 and the dissolution of existing authorities in March 2028 meaning Councillors elected in 2021 will serve nearly seven years of a four year term.
With hindsight, the 2025 County elections in those authorities could and should have taken place and that is the problem.
There'sa wider debate about the role and scope of local councils and local Government but that's not why the elections this year have been cancelled - it's the process and for once you can blame Labour for that (though there were, as I recall, similar delays during the Conservative administrations). It's different when you look at places like Cornwall where the County simply swallowed up the Districts and Boroughs - the current model is creating new Councils and that creates legal and HR challenges.
“With hindsight” or clear lessons to be learned and saved as government record, to infirm the next upheaval in Local Government?
If I am understanding you correctly, you advocate speeding the process up by scrapping the lengthly consultation process? And if it’s going to be a lengthy process, don’t cancel elections? Know as foresight not hindsight how long the process realistically will take>.
I would counter, if you definitely know you are into last year, it’s performative and wasteful to hold elections for something abolished in 12 months, councillors abolished in 12 months. Instead bring in change managers as consultants to manage the change on time.
I’m not convinced a referendum would speed things up, or be strongly democratic way of deciding it. The only correct decision is to scrap having two councils at same time, and we elect councillors and governments to ensure the right decisions and strong government happen. When you put it out in a referendum the answer you get can be a lottery between the right way to proceeded and the wrong one. To argue for referendum on this, is at same time to trash the strong intellectual arguments for representative democracy as being stronger than “referendum democracy.” You can spot the mindless left and right wing Populists on PB, when they say give us a referendum on this. And no surprise the fact is Reform and Adolf Hitler both favour “referendum democracy” over representative democracy.
Note that many authorities will be electing councillors for one year terms this year: the third placed winners in Metropolitan all ups that usually elect in thirds will serve but a single year, then be up for re-election in the 2027 cycle.
(Aren’t the civil service supposed to catch this kind of thing?)
There's so much law not even the government can keep track of it all.
Probably true. UK law especially seems to metastasise - endless detail instead of clear principles.
(I suspect lawyers are just too good at twisting clear principle into compete insanity in the courts & so endless detail swatting away each and every attempt to pervert the law is the only way to rein them in.)
"An immigration enforcement officer was an illegal migrant who stole money from small boat migrants, a court has heard.
Besmir Matera, from Albania, has been charged, with four other immigration officers, with conspiracy to steal following a Home Office investigation.
They are alleged to have stolen money from migrants when they arrived in the UK after being rescued from dinghies in the Channel between 2021 and 2022.
Mr Matera, 36, is also charged with entering the UK illegally between July 2003 and March 2004 by giving a false name, date of birth and nationality in an asylum application.
He is also charged with possessing false passports between 2011 and 2022 and a false driving licence between 2018 and 2022."
Trump chooses KEVIN WARSH for Fed chair. Trump considered Warsh in 2017 but chose Jerome Powell instead. The president announced his decision on Truth Social.
The US political class, across the board, is as bent as the proverbial nine bob note.
And good luck to all those standing for public office in May, no matter for which political grouping
In today's hostile climate you all have my admiration including paper candidates who may get the surprise of their lives !!!!
My parent, who had a brief and deeply regretted career in politics, was struggling for candidates so put themselves down as a paper candidate for some rural rotten borough that had been represented by the same "Independent" landowner for 36 years. The fury when they were elected unopposed raged for several days, turned out that the incumbent had always had a gentle reminder from the election officer to submit their papers but as my parent had got theirs in in good time there was no need.
So, if you are coerced into being a paper candidate make sure your papers go in at the last possible minute.
We should have no shortage of candidates. Three per party from five parties. Maybe some independents (definitely in other wards). The ballot papers will be as long as a Christmas shop till receipt.
I always wonder how they manage the count when electing more than one at a time - you can't just put the ballots into piles for each individual candidate. Presumably more faff, so takes longer.
Most can be put in piles and bundled, as straight votes for the party slate. The mixed votes are done afterwards, using a tally sheet, where one person reads out the votes and another marks up the tally sheet with little x es
The problem with local democracy in this country, it seems to me, is we have for decades now operated a weird hodgepodge of different systems and different layers of government depending where you live in the country. Meaning most people have very little idea who is responsible for who, what they are paying or voting for, or what impact it will have on their lives.
The plan to create unitary authorities does at least go some way to simplifying things but things need to go a lot further on that front. Successive governments have also taken very contradictory actions in this area - so for every local government simplification there is another layer added on top, mayoral/PCCs etc.
And as I said this morning, none of it necessarily has any permanence or security. A new government could easily decide it doesn’t like the mayoral system and unpick the whole thing again
Just as Labour is doing away with PCCs
Both Labour and Tory like the mayoral system because they are elected over large areas, magnifying the distortion of FPTP, making it hard for the smaller parties to get a look in. Under politics as it was, they’d mostly have been Labour or Tory, and mostly probably pretty safe, allowing the parties to use the power of selection and patronage to keep them under control.
What a shame that they’re being rolled out now and neither of the two old parties are able to command such steady support
On topic I think this is a terrible thread header filled with personal opinion disguised as fact. The fact that some Councillors will be sitting for 7 years after having been elected for 4 and that the Electoral Commission themselves are scathing in their criticism of the Government and say that the reasons given for delays are simply not valid should lead us all to oppose these postponements.
“terrible thread header filled with personal opinion disguised as fact’
I think there are plenty of carefully researched facts in there, as well as opinion. I won’t apologise for re-writing the point I wanted to make about state of Local Democracy, and awfulness of national discourse on the mess of it it, in order to make it more of an Opinion Piece - because a punchy opinion piece header needs punchy provocation in it, to be the proper header to draw discussion.
And I am sure I have covered off what you are asking for, the key paragraph in bold in the header.
The truth is exactly what voters need to hear. Why are service’s scrapped and Council Taxes hiked, regardless who I vote in? What is the actual problem going on? And in this democracy, who is being honest and upfront about all council finances hogtied and heading to bankruptcy – and offering us solutions for it?
And on the solution to all this, I am sensing we are both actually in agreement. Less centralised control, more localism.
I've not heard of David Runciman until I came across this account of his thinking (by James Marriott), but his defence of democracy seems plausible. I like the example of WW1 France. Perhaps there's hope after all?
"Runciman’s thesis, roughly, is that any given week in a democracy looks like a clown show of dithering, delay, u-turns, squabbling and complacency. But from the longer perspective the chaos is effective — a symptom of democracy’s capacity to criticise itself, to change tack, to spread its bets widely, keep its options open and correct its failures.
"Democracies can just keep hitting “reset” in a way autocracies generally can’t. It looks like chaos (e.g. the last ten years of UK politics) in the short term. In the long term it’s often a kind of genius:
"In 1917, the penultimate year of the First World War, France got through four prime ministers. This looked unforgivably amateurish — especially when compared with the authority of Germany's “silent master” General Ludendorff. But after a series of duds France eventually landed on Georges Clémenceau, “Le Tigre” and the saviour of his country. Germany had no alternative to Ludendorff who would soon bring his nation to its knees.
"Liz Truss was bad. But just imagine if she was our dictator for life."
"An immigration enforcement officer was an illegal migrant who stole money from small boat migrants, a court has heard.
Besmir Matera, from Albania, has been charged, with four other immigration officers, with conspiracy to steal following a Home Office investigation.
They are alleged to have stolen money from migrants when they arrived in the UK after being rescued from dinghies in the Channel between 2021 and 2022.
Mr Matera, 36, is also charged with entering the UK illegally between July 2003 and March 2004 by giving a false name, date of birth and nationality in an asylum application.
He is also charged with possessing false passports between 2011 and 2022 and a false driving licence between 2018 and 2022."
Trump chooses KEVIN WARSH for Fed chair. Trump considered Warsh in 2017 but chose Jerome Powell instead. The president announced his decision on Truth Social.
The US political class, across the board, is as bent as the proverbial nine bob note.
Comments
While you probably couldn't offload that much without crashing the price, I very much doubt the $3.5bn realised was reinvested quite so wisely.
In my area there are multi-millionaire pound properties that are (probably avoiding/evading) paying the same council tax as a 3/4 bed family house and that is the only annual tax levied on that property. The cost of council services has been shifted down the wealth ladder and to general taxation.
(Though no one forecast the current price.)
This is the perfect self-perpetuating myth, by tanking the economy and encouraging the flight to gold you can massively increase the amount that Brown cost the UK in hindsight.
That will be 3-4 hectares or a little under 10 acres as a minimum in a suburban or edge of town area.
It will be an approx £20-75m GDV (Gross Development Value) project, depending on area of the country.
And good luck to all those standing for public office in May, no matter for which political grouping
In today's hostile climate you all have my admiration including paper candidates who may get the surprise of their lives !!!!
what the hell is Reform thinking? They are supposed to be the party of DOGE, and stop the waste? Reform are revealing they are actually in favour of waste - provided that wasteful spending can bolster an already splendid news day for them, one day next May! That’s what Populist thinking always is - one rule if it’s on this foot, another rule if boots on the other foot. Just look at Trump - would he not keep the elections, rules and laws that do help him, cancel the ones that won’t help him? Farage is Trump, Trump is Farage.
Total BTC market cap today is only $1.7trn, at an $80,000 valuation.
At an $800 valuation, as long ago as 2017, there would only have been $17bn of Bitcoin in existence.
For the avoidance of doubt, I shall be a Labour Party candidate.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
I wonder what odds you could have got on the Greens selecting a plumber, Reform selecting a southern academic and Labour selecting anyone but Andy Burnham in a vital Manchester by-election contest.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2017152215027249190
In this case the scale of the offence is huge, and there is also the role of deterrence as this is NOT an isolated example.
In Nottinghamshire a lot of it is former long-term independents, who have to an extent run things at District level - but County is a differnet ballgame with budgets of hundreds of millions or low billions, not 10s of millions.
It's like taking a SME company and giving them a mid-cap.
In Notts we are relatively fortunate.
So, if you are coerced into being a paper candidate make sure your papers go in at the last possible minute.
@tomorrowsmps
🟢 GORTON & DENTON: Hannah Spencer got 457 votes to 65 for Fesl Raza-Khan and 63 for Sarah Wakefield.
https://x.com/tomorrowsmps/status/2016998766759305223
I stand by “hiking”. All the media are using it. Political Parties using it against each other. Because the bottom line is, from point of where Households are right now today. Your household budgeting is at breaking point, or under, the council tax bill last year now hiked all they way up to this new one.
The essential criticism - and it's the same one equally fairly levelled at the Thatcher governments (many of whose policies Blair/Brown adopted) - is that asset sales were used to finance current spending rather than investment.
I don't think that there is any doubt that local authorities are top heavy in terms of management and have bureaucratic structures that generate endless paperwork and pointless meetings. Most large organisations are the same. My niece applied for a lowered pavement outside her house so that she could park in her driveway. Initially, she was told that this did not require a building warrant, then that it did, then that a neighbour had objected for some obscure reason, then someone had to come and see it.... More than a year after this very simple application was made she is still waiting on a final decision. Hours have been spent on....what? It's pathetic and, writ large, a major source of delay in development in the UK.
But, having said all of that, the reality is that local authorities are not in control of their finances. What services they can provide are very dependent upon their block grants and it is an easy thing for Westminster (or Holyrood) politicans to cut because they don't get the blame for it. In addition their local tax raising powers have been severely restricted to keep inflation down and to win votes.
For me, local authorities need more power within their areas of responsibility. The regulatory systems they have to work within in care, children's services and education are all hopelessly complicated and prevent a more sensible prioritisation or even a political choice. Westminster (and Holyrood) need to back off in a large way. Yeah, right.
Manchester and Tameside has a combined population of about 800,000.
https://x.com/GreenPartyHan/status/1972965709119734242?s=20
I believe that Gorton was one of the places where Oswald Mosley was put on his arse on his comeback tour. Fingers crossed for a repeat performance!
I always wonder how they manage the count when electing more than one at a time - you can't just put the ballots into piles for each individual candidate. Presumably more faff, so takes longer.
As someone in a well-run authority (libraries still operating, leisure centres replaced, potholes as best they can manage under the onslaught from HGVs), the fear is the increasing popularity of the party that runs the neighbouring authority, which is badly run in comparison, (can't afford to replace the leisure centre they demolished, money wasted on cycle lanes so poor they are avoided, pothole filling poorer, the ones filled last week on my route are now loose chippings in the gutter).
I live in one and currently work in the other so compare weekly, but the majority probably won't realize until they inflict the incompetence on the rest of us.
We've got a local by-election shortly and then in May we can, apparently expect County Council elections. I must say I haven't really seen any proposals for re-organisation in Essex which make much sense; a council for SE Essex based on Southend will simply mean that the outlying areas are forgotten about and similarly on for North and North East Essex based on Colchester will be to the disadvantage of what has been, up until now a somewhat rural area to the West of the city.
Although some idiot has proposed and apparently work is starting on 6000 houses in the presently green area to the North of Witham.
As far as the by-election, mentioned earlier, so far we have a Labour candidate and an Independent who will, if elected, be part of the Green & Independent Group. There's no sign, that I've seen anyway, of either a Conservative or Reform candidate.
The one you are making.
The one others are making that the price of gold has subsequently rocketed.
I'd suggest a third is being a Labour chancellor.
I am all for Localism. And it’s the reason I wholly oppose the rubbish Police Reforms the rubbish Home Secretary announced last week - just a power grab to the centre at expense of Localism.
Local government reform is an increasingly urgent problem, but it is also a real hot potato and few outside the political nerdery are even aware of the scale of the problem. Spoiler alert: it is already in the hundreds of billions.
Alistair Campbell talking to an charity the International Justice Mission tackling online, streamed, child abuse. It's in the second half of a video in The Rest is Politics:
https://youtu.be/QYcAFanHwf8?t=1665
This is the Rights Lab at Nottingham University, which is mentioned:
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/beacons-of-excellence/rights-lab/index.aspx
(Given his Facebook history, I'd like to hear Nick Clegg on this.)
(This is just one angle, and there are many more needed.)
There are two different factors at work here - why these local elections have been postponed as against the policy of unitary authorities (it's called unitarisation but that's a horrible word).
The reason the process is taking so long is because of the timescale of statutory consultation and then the time for the Government to decide which of the options for local Government re-organisation presented is the one they prefer (why it has to be down to the Government I don't know, a local referendum would be better).
Surrey had its consultation last summer (ended in August I believe) but that was on two clear options - one for two Councils (West and East) and one for three (likely West, North and East). The Government then took three months to reach a definitive conclusion - this was mainly due to the complete clear out of the DCLOG Ministerial team in the wake of the departure of Angela Rayner.
Even with a final decision, there remains an Order which has to be laid before Parliament before the process can officially begin and that includes the elections for Shadow Authorities in May this year and the eventual dissolution of the existing County and Borough/District Councils in March 2027 by which time some of the County Councillors elected in 2021 will have served nearly six years of a four year term.
The process in other councils (Norfolk, Suffolk and East & West Sussex) has been incredibly slow with consultations still going on - it beggars belief it has taken so long and that's what we should be getting annoyed about. A second postponement of elections means Shadow elections in May 2027 and the dissolution of existing authorities in March 2028 meaning Councillors elected in 2021 will serve nearly seven years of a four year term.
With hindsight, the 2025 County elections in those authorities could and should have taken place and that is the problem.
There'sa wider debate about the role and scope of local councils and local Government but that's not why the elections this year have been cancelled - it's the process and for once you can blame Labour for that (though there were, as I recall, similar delays during the Conservative administrations). It's different when you look at places like Cornwall where the County simply swallowed up the Districts and Boroughs - the current model is creating new Councils and that creates legal and HR challenges.
They would have eased the gold onto the market over a period of month (they had done similar before). But they had been deemed too old fashioned....
Abolished by one G. Brown as it happens.
Actual* experts, eh?
*As opposed to the experts who have no expertise. See many, many large consultancies, senior management, senior government officials etc etc.
Nick Clegg was whitewashing far, far more than just child exploitation at Farcebook.
I am clear that this is the latest evolution of a previous issue, around abusers who used to travel, and sex abuse imnages amde to orders. I was across the versions of these when heavily blogging in 2007-2012.
If successful, they can withstand the ups and downs of their parties - examples being Andy Burnham who obviously runs far ahead of Labour in Greater Manchester, and Ben Houchen who seems to be extraordinarily popular in Teesside for a Tory.
So then you get local elections which are actually about local issues. At the moment, local councillors must wonder what the point is if, despite doing a good job, they get voted out because their party happens to be unpopular at the time of the election.
I will repeat what I've said before that when the house of cards that is Teesworks finally is revealed he will be regarded as no better than T Dan Smith and probably prosecuted in the same way.
The current situation where two thirds to three quarters (if not more) of expenditure is swallowed up by social care provision (and not just for adults) is unsustainable and for those authorities which avoid that you have housing (Newham has been bankrupted by both the cost of temporary housing provision and its own financial mismanagement).
The level of Services required is incrasingly beyond the resources of even well-run Councils (of which there are many of all stripes and none) to provide and that's the crunch point yet you also have a Government which is £150 billion in the hole.
I do think Land Value Taxation has to come along with some more serious property-related taxes but the other side of the question (and it's valid to ask and Councils ask it all the time) is which Services should be provide and which Services are we statutorily required to provide but in truth don't need to?
What does this “Electoral Commission” know about elections?
But Conservative Government, and many Conservative councils are the architects of the ongoing local Government re-organisation for streamlining for fiscal efficiencies. One in three people in England live in area covered by two local authorities — two chief executives, two sets of councillors, two finance directors - this reform slashes the number of councillors by 5,000 gets rid of highly-paid senior roles too.
{Konstantin Chernenko has been wheeled into the chat}
1) Impose an obligation on local government to run a surplus.
2) Remove the other obligations
3) Given them power to impose any level of tax they feel like.
4) Sell the rights to a series following the resultant comedy to Netflix.
(Canadian speaks.)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AAjzpL_LIxc
Besmir Matera, from Albania, has been charged, with four other immigration officers, with conspiracy to steal following a Home Office investigation.
They are alleged to have stolen money from migrants when they arrived in the UK after being rescued from dinghies in the Channel between 2021 and 2022.
Mr Matera, 36, is also charged with entering the UK illegally between July 2003 and March 2004 by giving a false name, date of birth and nationality in an asylum application.
He is also charged with possessing false passports between 2011 and 2022 and a false driving licence between 2018 and 2022."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/29/immigration-officer-was-illegal-immigrant-court-hears
If I am understanding you correctly, you advocate speeding the process up by scrapping the lengthly consultation process? And if it’s going to be a lengthy process, don’t cancel elections? Know as foresight not hindsight how long the process realistically will take>.
I would counter, if you definitely know you are into last year, it’s performative and wasteful to hold elections for something abolished in 12 months, councillors abolished in 12 months. Instead bring in change managers as consultants to manage the change on time.
I’m not convinced a referendum would speed things up, or be strongly democratic way of deciding it. The only correct decision is to scrap having two councils at same time, and we elect councillors and governments to ensure the right decisions and strong government happen. When you put it out in a referendum the answer you get can be a lottery between the right way to proceeded and the wrong one. To argue for referendum on this, is at same time to trash the strong intellectual arguments for representative democracy as being stronger than “referendum democracy.” You can spot the mindless left and right wing Populists on PB, when they say give us a referendum on this. And no surprise the fact is Reform and Adolf Hitler both favour “referendum democracy” over representative democracy.
And no one has asked us.
Don’t recall being asked about it but ‘consultations’ were, by some happy coincidence, favourable.
For where I live it has not been great.
(Aren’t the civil service supposed to catch this kind of thing?)
Since leaving the Fed nearly 15 years ago, Mr. Warsh, who currently works with billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller and is also a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, has emerged as a staunch critic of the central bank.
NY Times live blog
Perhaps to over simplify the elephant in the room - central government doesn’t allow Local Authorities any real real authority, but what it has “stitched up” Local Authorities to deliver is not properly funded, either, and the whole edifice is headed towards bankruptcy.
Meanwhile, Front Page of the Daily Telegraph today is running a Campaign to Save Democracy, trying to convince us the decision is simply about a government trying to “save some council seats?” Which I’m calling a glib smokescreen, behind which is the real debate we should be having.
https://x.com/dm180914/status/2017198311543910437?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
‘Actually, we thought the WASPI women were terrible people all along.’
The plan to create unitary authorities does at least go some way to simplifying things but things need to go a lot further on that front. Successive governments have also taken very contradictory actions in this area - so for every local government simplification there is another layer added on top, mayoral/PCCs etc.
Brace, brace !
(I suspect lawyers are just too good at twisting clear principle into compete insanity in the courts & so endless detail swatting away each and every attempt to pervert the law is the only way to rein them in.)
https://x.com/0xwave/status/2017066261365289168?s=61
Just as Labour is doing away with PCCs
Both Labour and Tory like the mayoral system because they are elected over large areas, magnifying the distortion of FPTP, making it hard for the smaller parties to get a look in. Under politics as it was, they’d mostly have been Labour or Tory, and mostly probably pretty safe, allowing the parties to use the power of selection and patronage to keep them under control.
What a shame that they’re being rolled out now and neither of the two old parties are able to command such steady support
I think there are plenty of carefully researched facts in there, as well as opinion. I won’t apologise for re-writing the point I wanted to make about state of Local Democracy, and awfulness of national discourse on the mess of it it, in order to make it more of an Opinion Piece - because a punchy opinion piece header needs punchy provocation in it, to be the proper header to draw discussion.
And I am sure I have covered off what you are asking for, the key paragraph in bold in the header.
The truth is exactly what voters need to hear. Why are service’s scrapped and Council Taxes hiked, regardless who I vote in? What is the actual problem going on? And in this democracy, who is being honest and upfront about all council finances hogtied and heading to bankruptcy – and offering us solutions for it?
And on the solution to all this, I am sensing we are both actually in agreement. Less centralised control, more localism.
"Runciman’s thesis, roughly, is that any given week in a democracy looks like a clown show of dithering, delay, u-turns, squabbling and complacency. But from the longer perspective the chaos is effective — a symptom of democracy’s capacity to criticise itself, to change tack, to spread its bets widely, keep its options open and correct its failures.
"Democracies can just keep hitting “reset” in a way autocracies generally can’t. It looks like chaos (e.g. the last ten years of UK politics) in the short term. In the long term it’s often a kind of genius:
"In 1917, the penultimate year of the First World War, France got through four prime ministers. This looked unforgivably amateurish — especially when compared with the authority of Germany's “silent master” General Ludendorff. But after a series of duds France eventually landed on Georges Clémenceau, “Le Tigre” and the saviour of his country. Germany had no alternative to Ludendorff who would soon bring his nation to its knees.
"Liz Truss was bad. But just imagine if she was our dictator for life."