Sky News @SkyNews Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey has called on FIFA to ban the six Argentine players who celebrated with the "Falklands are Argentine" banner from playing in Sunday's final.
Ed Davey has told Sky News he has written to the president Gianni Infantino.
A ridiculous overreaction.
Ed Davey's example is an exact equivalent that did lead to a one match ban for the players involved so NOT doing the same with the a Argentinian players would be two-tier. FIFA isn't consistent about anything so won't happen of course, but to the extent anyone cares about principle, they should do this.
He is, quite literally, having a laugh. Not just at 'libtards' but also, in fact especially, at all the people who voted for him. I guess some of them, those with a few braincells not washed by the cult, have by now come to realise this. I really hope so anyway. Otherwise, bye bye Miss America Pie.
The worst thing about Trump's extraordinary disasters from whatever it is he is suffering from are that we're at the stage where it would be better for everyone if Vance took over.
Sky News @SkyNews Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey has called on FIFA to ban the six Argentine players who celebrated with the "Falklands are Argentine" banner from playing in Sunday's final.
Ed Davey has told Sky News he has written to the president Gianni Infantino.
A ridiculous overreaction.
Ed Davey's example is an exact equivalent that did lead to a one match ban for the players involved so NOT doing the same with the a Argentinian players would be two-tier. FIFA isn't consistent about anything so won't happen of course, but to the extent anyone cares about principle, they should do this.
Admittedly by UEFA, not FIFA, but the event took place outside the stadium, so arguably the Argentinian incident is worse.
Spain captain Alvaro Morata and team-mate Rodri have been banned for one game by Uefa after they chanted "Gibraltar is Spanish" during their side's Euro 2024 victory celebrations.
The Gibraltar Football Association (GFA) made an official complaint about the celebrations to European football's governing body before the pair were charged.
Uefa has now suspended Morata and Rodri "for failing to comply with the general principles of conduct, for violating the basic rules of decent conduct, for using sporting events for manifestations of a non-sporting nature and for bringing the sport of football, and Uefa in particular, into disrepute".
They are banned for Spain's next game, which is against Serbia on Thursday, 5 September.
I can also deduce from this that none of them have any idea what most marriages are actually like:
But ceremonies deemed to be "gimmicks" that risk trivialising the legal act of marriage would not be allowed under what the government calls a "dignity framework". Activities "such as skydiving, white-water rafting, rollercoasters or other amusement rides" would "fall short of the standard," it says in a consultation setting out the plans, external. But it adds: "This would not preclude the inclusion of light-hearted elements such as a reading from Shakespeare, a sing-along to Sweet Caroline or other similar contributions, so long as these remain within the bounds of dignity and do not amount to excessive or inappropriate displays." The proposals also say food and drink, including alcohol, should not be "casually/recreationally consumed during the ceremony".
Speaking as an organist who attends a lot of them, that's all marriages scuppered straight away. They already have ridiculous readings and music and most of the guests are hammered all the time and necking it as they go.
I can also deduce from this that none of them have any idea what most marriages are actually like:
But ceremonies deemed to be "gimmicks" that risk trivialising the legal act of marriage would not be allowed under what the government calls a "dignity framework". Activities "such as skydiving, white-water rafting, rollercoasters or other amusement rides" would "fall short of the standard," it says in a consultation setting out the plans, external. But it adds: "This would not preclude the inclusion of light-hearted elements such as a reading from Shakespeare, a sing-along to Sweet Caroline or other similar contributions, so long as these remain within the bounds of dignity and do not amount to excessive or inappropriate displays." The proposals also say food and drink, including alcohol, should not be "casually/recreationally consumed during the ceremony".
Speaking as an organist who attends a lot of them, that's all marriages scuppered straight away. They already have ridiculous readings and music and most of the guests are hammered all the time and necking it as they go.
I can also deduce from this that none of them have any idea what most marriages are actually like:
But ceremonies deemed to be "gimmicks" that risk trivialising the legal act of marriage would not be allowed under what the government calls a "dignity framework". Activities "such as skydiving, white-water rafting, rollercoasters or other amusement rides" would "fall short of the standard," it says in a consultation setting out the plans, external. But it adds: "This would not preclude the inclusion of light-hearted elements such as a reading from Shakespeare, a sing-along to Sweet Caroline or other similar contributions, so long as these remain within the bounds of dignity and do not amount to excessive or inappropriate displays." The proposals also say food and drink, including alcohol, should not be "casually/recreationally consumed during the ceremony".
Speaking as an organist who attends a lot of them, that's all marriages scuppered straight away. They already have ridiculous readings and music and most of the guests are hammered all the time and necking it as they go.
I can also deduce from this that none of them have any idea what most marriages are actually like:
But ceremonies deemed to be "gimmicks" that risk trivialising the legal act of marriage would not be allowed under what the government calls a "dignity framework". Activities "such as skydiving, white-water rafting, rollercoasters or other amusement rides" would "fall short of the standard," it says in a consultation setting out the plans, external. But it adds: "This would not preclude the inclusion of light-hearted elements such as a reading from Shakespeare, a sing-along to Sweet Caroline or other similar contributions, so long as these remain within the bounds of dignity and do not amount to excessive or inappropriate displays." The proposals also say food and drink, including alcohol, should not be "casually/recreationally consumed during the ceremony".
Speaking as an organist who attends a lot of them, that's all marriages scuppered straight away. They already have ridiculous readings and music and most of the guests are hammered all the time and necking it as they go.
Being married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas is classy enough for my next throw of the dice if Trump can celebrate 250 years of US independence with a cage fight on the Whitehouse lawn.
I can also deduce from this that none of them have any idea what most marriages are actually like:
But ceremonies deemed to be "gimmicks" that risk trivialising the legal act of marriage would not be allowed under what the government calls a "dignity framework". Activities "such as skydiving, white-water rafting, rollercoasters or other amusement rides" would "fall short of the standard," it says in a consultation setting out the plans, external. But it adds: "This would not preclude the inclusion of light-hearted elements such as a reading from Shakespeare, a sing-along to Sweet Caroline or other similar contributions, so long as these remain within the bounds of dignity and do not amount to excessive or inappropriate displays." The proposals also say food and drink, including alcohol, should not be "casually/recreationally consumed during the ceremony".
Speaking as an organist who attends a lot of them, that's all marriages scuppered straight away. They already have ridiculous readings and music and most of the guests are hammered all the time and necking it as they go.
Sigh
Sacking the entire Treasury would be stupid.
Who would crew the first manned landing on Saturn?
(DfE does the first manned landing on the Sun. Parliament the first manned landing on Uranus)
I can also deduce from this that none of them have any idea what most marriages are actually like:
But ceremonies deemed to be "gimmicks" that risk trivialising the legal act of marriage would not be allowed under what the government calls a "dignity framework". Activities "such as skydiving, white-water rafting, rollercoasters or other amusement rides" would "fall short of the standard," it says in a consultation setting out the plans, external. But it adds: "This would not preclude the inclusion of light-hearted elements such as a reading from Shakespeare, a sing-along to Sweet Caroline or other similar contributions, so long as these remain within the bounds of dignity and do not amount to excessive or inappropriate displays." The proposals also say food and drink, including alcohol, should not be "casually/recreationally consumed during the ceremony".
Speaking as an organist who attends a lot of them, that's all marriages scuppered straight away. They already have ridiculous readings and music and most of the guests are hammered all the time and necking it as they go.
Sigh
Sacking the entire Treasury would be stupid.
Who would crew the first manned landing on Saturn?
(DfE does the first manned landing on the Sun. Parliament the first manned landing on Uranus)
Excuse me!
I have no wish to have a bunch of MPs land on my anus!
At around 08:48 on 25 June 2026, the 07:51 Northern passenger service from Colne to Preston struck a car on Hoghton automatic half-barrier level crossing, which is situated between Preston and Blackburn. The driver of the car was fatally injured in the accident and a child who was a passenger in the car was also seriously injured. No injuries were caused to anyone on the train.
The evidence available to RAIB shows that the train had passed a green (proceed) signal as it approached the crossing. RAIB’s preliminary examination also found that the road traffic lights and audible alarm at the crossing had not been activated, and that the half-barriers were raised.
It's quite concerning level crossing safety signals can actually fail in such way. I would have expected the system to keep the lights at red unless it had an indication the barrier and alarms had been triggered.
Automatic half barrier crossings don't interlock with the signals like that; full barrier crossings do. The reasoning generally given is that to interlock with the signals you need to close the barriers a lot longer before the train arrives, and drivers tend not to like that. But Wikipedia tells me they are now gradually phasing them out in favour of full barrier crossings.
I can also deduce from this that none of them have any idea what most marriages are actually like:
But ceremonies deemed to be "gimmicks" that risk trivialising the legal act of marriage would not be allowed under what the government calls a "dignity framework". Activities "such as skydiving, white-water rafting, rollercoasters or other amusement rides" would "fall short of the standard," it says in a consultation setting out the plans, external. But it adds: "This would not preclude the inclusion of light-hearted elements such as a reading from Shakespeare, a sing-along to Sweet Caroline or other similar contributions, so long as these remain within the bounds of dignity and do not amount to excessive or inappropriate displays." The proposals also say food and drink, including alcohol, should not be "casually/recreationally consumed during the ceremony".
Speaking as an organist who attends a lot of them, that's all marriages scuppered straight away. They already have ridiculous readings and music and most of the guests are hammered all the time and necking it as they go.
This is Starmerism all over. An update to procedures which nobody was clamouring for.
I can also deduce from this that none of them have any idea what most marriages are actually like:
But ceremonies deemed to be "gimmicks" that risk trivialising the legal act of marriage would not be allowed under what the government calls a "dignity framework". Activities "such as skydiving, white-water rafting, rollercoasters or other amusement rides" would "fall short of the standard," it says in a consultation setting out the plans, external. But it adds: "This would not preclude the inclusion of light-hearted elements such as a reading from Shakespeare, a sing-along to Sweet Caroline or other similar contributions, so long as these remain within the bounds of dignity and do not amount to excessive or inappropriate displays." The proposals also say food and drink, including alcohol, should not be "casually/recreationally consumed during the ceremony".
Speaking as an organist who attends a lot of them, that's all marriages scuppered straight away. They already have ridiculous readings and music and most of the guests are hammered all the time and necking it as they go.
This is Starmerism all over. An update to procedures which nobody was clamouring for.
I'm not sure what all the flapping is about, other than the normal Pavlovian desire to have a go at SKS.
Mr Cameron introduced Equal Marriage in 2013, soon after the GFC.
This is more or less following what Scotland did already, and will have the advantage of more options - including lower cost - weddings being available to those who want or need them.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
1. Saving money 2. Cutting costs 3. Rinse and repeat...
Whether money is actually ever saved is another matter, but the bean counters say 'economies of scale'.
Farage may hope he wins by a big enough majority in Clacton to avoid a recall by election
That's what he set out to do. I can't see Labour and the Tories blindsided by that one.
To be cynical, would Labour want to risk the Conservatives winning a re-run in Clacton?
In that case surely the Tories can muster 10% of vexed Clacton voters.
Unlikely, since its 10% of the electorate and not 10% of voters.
Would probably require multiple parties voters to sign up.
I didn't specify 10% of Conservative voters or even voters. If the Conservatives have a hope of overturning Farage I am suggesting they have the wherewithal to rally enough angry voters to recall the MP again.
I can also deduce from this that none of them have any idea what most marriages are actually like:
But ceremonies deemed to be "gimmicks" that risk trivialising the legal act of marriage would not be allowed under what the government calls a "dignity framework". Activities "such as skydiving, white-water rafting, rollercoasters or other amusement rides" would "fall short of the standard," it says in a consultation setting out the plans, external. But it adds: "This would not preclude the inclusion of light-hearted elements such as a reading from Shakespeare, a sing-along to Sweet Caroline or other similar contributions, so long as these remain within the bounds of dignity and do not amount to excessive or inappropriate displays." The proposals also say food and drink, including alcohol, should not be "casually/recreationally consumed during the ceremony".
Speaking as an organist who attends a lot of them, that's all marriages scuppered straight away. They already have ridiculous readings and music and most of the guests are hammered all the time and necking it as they go.
Besides the odd definition of light hearted and the dignity restrictions, the overall direction of travel there is a rare good one.
It is a liberalisation which should generally be welcomed. Wedding venues are incredibly expensive and if a liberalisation can give people more choice and potentially save thousands, what's not to like?
I know many pubs etc with marquees that already host receptions but are forbidden from having the ceremony as not licensed for that. If this allows them to offer that, and people want that, then that should be welcomed.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
Farage may hope he wins by a big enough majority in Clacton to avoid a recall by election
Given you only need 10%, there's very little chance a win of even 90% on low turnout prevents a recall. Every recall petition bar the first has easily succeeded.
From an opposition standpoint you'd still push hard, since it forces him to do it over again, and why not take the chance that some of his support might have fallen away? Even if most stuck with him (as it probably would) at least some wouldn't).
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
1. Saving money 2. Cutting costs 3. Rinse and repeat...
Whether money is actually ever saved is another matter, but the bean counters say 'economies of scale'.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
Given we desperately need developments and that you (rightly) welcome migration which means we need even more developments, then why are you saying it will make new developments easier as if it is a bad thing?
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Mostly planning, I reckon.
There are lots of cities that want to expand, know about expansion, but can't really because they have built out to where the city limit was put in 1974 or whenever. Go over the boundary and you have a different council whose priorities are often about green belts, strategic gaps and not being absorbed by that ghastly metropolis. Democratic will of the people, innit?
It doesn't have to be that way- South Cambridgeshire has broadly accepted that it has a role taking people as part of the Cambridge co-prosperity sphere, because Cambridge City's boundaries are insane (they exclude the nicest Cambridge college, for example). But most of the councils for surrounding districts see it as their duty to be as dog-in-the-manger as possible.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
I don't think centralisation is always bad and decentralising always good. I think that is often the case, so it gets treated like it is universal, with the result that sometimes people centralise but have to pretend they are not.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
Farage may hope he wins by a big enough majority in Clacton to avoid a recall by election
That's what he set out to do. I can't see Labour and the Tories blindsided by that one.
To be cynical, would Labour want to risk the Conservatives winning a re-run in Clacton?
In that case surely the Tories can muster 10% of vexed Clacton voters.
Unlikely, since its 10% of the electorate and not 10% of voters.
Would probably require multiple parties voters to sign up.
I didn't specify 10% of Conservative voters or even voters. If the Conservatives have a hope of overturning Farage I am suggesting they have the wherewithal to rally enough angry voters to recall the MP again.
I'm sure the likes of 3 parties can pull together 8000 votes for a recall
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
Given we desperately need developments and that you (rightly) welcome migration which means we need even more developments, then why are you saying it will make new developments easier as if it is a bad thing?
And even if it is, facilitating that would be an entirely legitimate political choice for government to make. Something being 'political' does not automatically mean it is bad, unless people mean it narrowly to mean 'party political' to advantage one side in electoral terms.
Which is a potential accusation, but administrative boundaries being driven by political considerations is pretty normal - the criteria for setting them are done by politicians for a start, and you have criteria like community but also electoral equality (for wards) that end up conflicting, and no matter how you do it the reality of where people live don't fit perfectly in that.
Are these proposals borked? Possibly, in some areas (Devon looks a mess to me). But having a political drive to reduce the number of councils, and possibly to make development easier (I don't think it will be that easier, but whatever)? Legitimate.
And people don't even care about their local council until it is changed. I've known people who still think they live in a district council which was abolished nearly 20 years ago.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
I don't think centralisation is always bad and decentralising always good. I think that is often the case, so it gets treated like it is universal, with the result that sometimes people centralise but have to pretend they are not.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
One area I gree with Richard is that gerrymandering seems to be the primary concern with some of these boundaries.
Eg in Lancashire why on earth twin Preston with Lancaster when it takes a half hour on the M6 to get between them? Whereas Preston and South Ribble and Chorley form one contiguous urban development with a river down the middle but will now be separate Councils?
It could not possibly be because Preston and Lancaster more solidly vote Labour while South Ribble and Chorley can often vote Tory? No, couldn't possibly be that ...
The same almost happened with Warrington and Cheshire, lots of arguments about how it should be arranged and whether the town should be in Merseyside's development with much of the arguments based on partisan politics.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
1. Saving money 2. Cutting costs 3. Rinse and repeat...
Whether money is actually ever saved is another matter, but the bean counters say 'economies of scale'.
When have the bean counters ever been right?
My council, perhaps to justify it's own existence, has said unitarisation enabled saving money and cutting costs which was essential, and unlikely to happen without it. It was done against the wishes of most of the preceding councils and the policy of the Leader's own national party at the time, but they must have changed their tune as they put her in the Lords several years later.
It's not the cure to all ills, and can be done in a hamfisted way, but this is an area I support the motive of the government at least.
I'm sure there will be some legal challenges, but on its face that sounds hard to succeed - there are criteria for areas the minister will suppose to have followed, but I'm sure the language was loose around essentially making judgement calls, so it would be easy to defend as reasonable even if everyone hates it.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
1. Saving money 2. Cutting costs 3. Rinse and repeat...
Whether money is actually ever saved is another matter, but the bean counters say 'economies of scale'.
When have the bean counters ever been right?
Presumably when there’s been a load of beans that needed counting.
“How many beans do you make that, Dave?” “Three thousand, four hundred and fifty two, Alan” “Nice one, thanks. That’s quite a lot of beans”
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
I don't think centralisation is always bad and decentralising always good. I think that is often the case, so it gets treated like it is universal, with the result that sometimes people centralise but have to pretend they are not.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
One area I gree with Richard is that gerrymandering seems to be the primary concern with some of these boundaries.
Eg in Lancashire why on earth twin Preston with Lancaster when it takes a half hour on the M6 to get between them? Whereas Preston and South Ribble and Chorley form one contiguous urban development with a river down the middle but will now be separate Councils?
It could not possibly be because Preston and Lancaster more solidly vote Labour while South Ribble and Chorley can often vote Tory? No, couldn't possibly be that ...
The same almost happened with Warrington and Cheshire, lots of arguments about how it should be arranged and whether the town should be in Merseyside's development with much of the arguments based on partisan politics.
I think it's fair to be suspicious of it, but gerrymandering is not as simple as politicians think as areas change over time anyway, and the individual parts really are heavily influenced by public comments. So I suspect any advantage gained would be fleeting.
Farage may hope he wins by a big enough majority in Clacton to avoid a recall by election
That's what he set out to do. I can't see Labour and the Tories blindsided by that one.
To be cynical, would Labour want to risk the Conservatives winning a re-run in Clacton?
In that case surely the Tories can muster 10% of vexed Clacton voters.
Unlikely, since its 10% of the electorate and not 10% of voters.
Would probably require multiple parties voters to sign up.
I didn't specify 10% of Conservative voters or even voters. If the Conservatives have a hope of overturning Farage I am suggesting they have the wherewithal to rally enough angry voters to recall the MP again.
I'm sure the likes of 3 parties can pull together 8000 votes for a recall
Me too, but I was responding to a scenario where Labour were opposing a recall and only 1 party was supporting it.
10% of the electorate will require more than just one parties voters to sign up realistically. Which will probably not be an issue given how divisive Farage is.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
I don't think centralisation is always bad and decentralising always good. I think that is often the case, so it gets treated like it is universal, with the result that sometimes people centralise but have to pretend they are not.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
Could be about clearing the decks before Burnham's Great Reshuffle- allow the programme to slip much more and the May 2027 elections start to look precarious.
The other fun game (if you like that sort of fun game) is to compare what's coming out to the Redcliffe-Maud map of nearly 60 years ago. It looks like we're ending up with somewhat smaller units, and better respect for counties, but the logic is similar.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
I don't think centralisation is always bad and decentralising always good. I think that is often the case, so it gets treated like it is universal, with the result that sometimes people centralise but have to pretend they are not.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
Could be about clearing the decks before Burnham's Great Reshuffle- allow the programme to slip much more and the May 2027 elections start to look precarious.
The other fun game (if you like that sort of fun game) is to compare what's coming out to the Redcliffe-Maud map of nearly 60 years ago. It looks like we're ending up with somewhat smaller units, and better respect for counties, but the logic is similar.
Farage may hope he wins by a big enough majority in Clacton to avoid a recall by election
That's what he set out to do. I can't see Labour and the Tories blindsided by that one.
To be cynical, would Labour want to risk the Conservatives winning a re-run in Clacton?
In that case surely the Tories can muster 10% of vexed Clacton voters.
Unlikely, since its 10% of the electorate and not 10% of voters.
Would probably require multiple parties voters to sign up.
I didn't specify 10% of Conservative voters or even voters. If the Conservatives have a hope of overturning Farage I am suggesting they have the wherewithal to rally enough angry voters to recall the MP again.
I'm sure the likes of 3 parties can pull together 8000 votes for a recall
Me too, but I was responding to a scenario where Labour were opposing a recall and only 1 party was supporting it.
10% of the electorate will require more than just one parties voters to sign up realistically. Which will probably not be an issue given how divisive Farage is.
When Farage wins the by-election against Binface the other parties can still come away with a win, because they can berate him for wasting taxpayers’ money on a stunt.
When Farage gets recalled and faces a second by-election, which he will also win even if more narrowly, then it gives him a perfect way back to credibility. He can now point the wasting taxpayers money at the other parties (even if in reality it’s 10% of his electorate) and will start to look invincible. “The establishment tried to bring me down twice but the good people of Clacton weren’t fooled”.
The only potential beneficiary of a recall election is the conservatives, if they get very lucky and have the support of other parties. If you’re Labour or the Lib Dems, why would you go along with this? Worst case you bolster Reform. Best case you give the Tories a way back. And you probably end up with the election, if not of Farage, then of a Tory on the far, Reform-adjacent nationalist wing of that party.
I suppose for the Lib Dems that possibly makes some sense, given their strategy to further toxify the Tory brand. But not for Labour.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
I don't think centralisation is always bad and decentralising always good. I think that is often the case, so it gets treated like it is universal, with the result that sometimes people centralise but have to pretend they are not.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
Could be about clearing the decks before Burnham's Great Reshuffle- allow the programme to slip much more and the May 2027 elections start to look precarious.
The other fun game (if you like that sort of fun game) is to compare what's coming out to the Redcliffe-Maud map of nearly 60 years ago. It looks like we're ending up with somewhat smaller units, and better respect for counties, but the logic is similar.
Cheshire/Merseyside/GM looks quite different but they've kind of been done in past years anyway.
Lancashire looks almost the same, except the RedcliffeMaud one twins Preston with Leyland [South Ribble] and Chorley, which as I said before is a contiguous urban development (even more now than it was 60 years ago) while today's proposal separates them and twins Preston with Lancaster, with which it has nothing other than party affiliation in common.
Andy Burnham is facing a revolt from his core support on the Labour left over his plans to appoint Shabana Mahmood over Ed Miliband as chancellor amid claims that she lacks an economic vision and is too divisive for the role
Burnham is expected to confirm Mahmood, the home secretary, as his chancellor on Monday after being warned that Miliband risks becoming a lightning rod for criticism of the government
However, Mahmood, who is on the right of the Labour Party, has never held an economic position in government and has said relatively little about her fiscal views in the past. Her hardline immigration reforms have proved particularly contentious on the left
A senior ally of Burnham said: “Shabana has no sense of the economics. It’s just not something she’s ever spoken about. She’s not collaborative. It’s not clear how she would drive the machine.”
The King of the North has not even kissed hands and already Labour is splitting over whether a radical like Ed M should be CoE or a continuity Starmer/Reeves figure like Mahmoud.
Andy Burnham is facing a revolt from his core support on the Labour left over his plans to appoint Shabana Mahmood over Ed Miliband as chancellor amid claims that she lacks an economic vision and is too divisive for the role
Burnham is expected to confirm Mahmood, the home secretary, as his chancellor on Monday after being warned that Miliband risks becoming a lightning rod for criticism of the government
However, Mahmood, who is on the right of the Labour Party, has never held an economic position in government and has said relatively little about her fiscal views in the past. Her hardline immigration reforms have proved particularly contentious on the left
A senior ally of Burnham said: “Shabana has no sense of the economics. It’s just not something she’s ever spoken about. She’s not collaborative. It’s not clear how she would drive the machine.”
I'd rather somebody who has no idea how to drive than someone who would drive us off a cliff.
A dismal choice, but what we face with the current government, over and over again.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
1. Saving money 2. Cutting costs 3. Rinse and repeat...
Whether money is actually ever saved is another matter, but the bean counters say 'economies of scale'.
When have the bean counters ever been right?
My council, perhaps to justify it's own existence, has said unitarisation enabled saving money and cutting costs which was essential, and unlikely to happen without it. It was done against the wishes of most of the preceding councils and the policy of the Leader's own national party at the time, but they must have changed their tune as they put her in the Lords several years later.
It's not the cure to all ills, and can be done in a hamfisted way, but this is an area I support the motive of the government at least.
I'm sure there will be some legal challenges, but on its face that sounds hard to succeed - there are criteria for areas the minister will suppose to have followed, but I'm sure the language was loose around essentially making judgement calls, so it would be easy to defend as reasonable even if everyone hates it.
I would love to know how they are going to save money - at least any that would be worth all the chaos of the reorganisation. As i mentioned, job losses will be practuically zero because districts and counties did very different jobs before the reorg and those jobs will still need to be done afterwards. Real estate savings will be similarly almost zero because of the continuing need for office space for all those people.
There will be a few savings in HR but very few I ssupect as the new HR departments will be having to deal with so many more people.
There will be a few senior managers and heads of department going but that will be it.
There have been little or no savings made with the rpevious moves to unitary authorities and since the TUPE rules were adopted for local givernment in 2008 there will be even less scope for savings.
I do believe that in a few years we will look back and realise that, far from saving money, the reorg actually cost money.
Farage may hope he wins by a big enough majority in Clacton to avoid a recall by election
That's what he set out to do. I can't see Labour and the Tories blindsided by that one.
To be cynical, would Labour want to risk the Conservatives winning a re-run in Clacton?
In that case surely the Tories can muster 10% of vexed Clacton voters.
Unlikely, since its 10% of the electorate and not 10% of voters.
Would probably require multiple parties voters to sign up.
I didn't specify 10% of Conservative voters or even voters. If the Conservatives have a hope of overturning Farage I am suggesting they have the wherewithal to rally enough angry voters to recall the MP again.
I'm sure the likes of 3 parties can pull together 8000 votes for a recall
Me too, but I was responding to a scenario where Labour were opposing a recall and only 1 party was supporting it.
10% of the electorate will require more than just one parties voters to sign up realistically. Which will probably not be an issue given how divisive Farage is.
When Farage wins the by-election against Binface the other parties can still come away with a win, because they can berate him for wasting taxpayers’ money on a stunt.
When Farage gets recalled and faces a second by-election, which he will also win even if more narrowly, then it gives him a perfect way back to credibility. He can now point the wasting taxpayers money at the other parties (even if in reality it’s 10% of his electorate) and will start to look invincible. “The establishment tried to bring me down twice but the good people of Clacton weren’t fooled”.
The only potential beneficiary of a recall election is the conservatives, if they get very lucky and have the support of other parties. If you’re Labour or the Lib Dems, why would you go along with this? Worst case you bolster Reform. Best case you give the Tories a way back. And you probably end up with the election, if not of Farage, then of a Tory on the far, Reform-adjacent nationalist wing of that party.
I suppose for the Lib Dems that possibly makes some sense, given their strategy to further toxify the Tory brand. But not for Labour.
Support the weak against the strong, surely? If Reform are ascendant then boost the Tories, if the Tories start to look like a credible opposition, the aim your fire at them! Classic British Government policy!
Particularly when you recall that Park and Dowding were effectively sacked for ensuring we won the Battle of Britain.
For those who worry too much about infighting inside the Ukrainian government - read Churchill's history of the World War II. Munitions ministers' resignations, defense and navy ministers dramas, egos of top generals, their dismissals and appointments - a lot of things will look familiar... https://x.com/k_sonin/status/2077827472452686216
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
Given we desperately need developments and that you (rightly) welcome migration which means we need even more developments, then why are you saying it will make new developments easier as if it is a bad thing?
Because what it actually means is people living in one area deciding that all those developments should be in another area - preferably some distance away from them. The urban areas have large swathes of brownfield sites which should be redeveloped. But that is more expensive both for the developers and the local authorities. So now they will have nice large areas of green field they can build on instead. It is simply supercharged NIMBYism.
Farage may hope he wins by a big enough majority in Clacton to avoid a recall by election
That's what he set out to do. I can't see Labour and the Tories blindsided by that one.
It's an open question what the other parties would prefer to do with Farage, assuming he is re-elected at his stunt election.
First hurdle: he needs a finding against him from the commissioner. Next issue: the committee needs to decide what if any penalty to impose; ie whether to impose enough to make possible a recall. Next issue: if they do impose such a penalty, it's then a matter for the initiative of the Clacton electors.
Political question: would the parties feel that the best course is to allow all the bad publicity of a finding by the commissioner, but not encourage 10% of the voters to sign a recall petition. A second by election, which Farage may well win, would give Reform chance to convince gullible voters that Farage is being put in double jeopardy (he isn't of course) and that the establishment is out to get him.
The other political question is this: if the likely result of a second by-election is either a Reform or Conservative win, then what is in it for Labour and the LibDems? Why should they risk strengthening the Conservative Party?
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
I don't think centralisation is always bad and decentralising always good. I think that is often the case, so it gets treated like it is universal, with the result that sometimes people centralise but have to pretend they are not.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
Centralisation is bad on principle. It moves democratic power further up the food chain away from the actual electorate.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
I don't think centralisation is always bad and decentralising always good. I think that is often the case, so it gets treated like it is universal, with the result that sometimes people centralise but have to pretend they are not.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
Most lefties will be in favour of centralisation because it suits their agenda.
Looks like another evening ahead of 'America has totally lost its mind'.
Not totally.
Jon Ossoff: Here's what's going to happen tonight. The world's most famous sore loser will deliver a prime time presidential sour grapes address to pursue his six year old grievances about the 2020 election. https://x.com/BlueGeorgia/status/2077806246451716280
Farage may hope he wins by a big enough majority in Clacton to avoid a recall by election
That's what he set out to do. I can't see Labour and the Tories blindsided by that one.
It's an open question what the other parties would prefer to do with Farage, assuming he is re-elected at his stunt election.
First hurdle: he needs a finding against him from the commissioner. Next issue: the committee needs to decide what if any penalty to impose; ie whether to impose enough to make possible a recall. Next issue: if they do impose such a penalty, it's then a matter for the initiative of the Clacton electors.
Political question: would the parties feel that the best course is to allow all the bad publicity of a finding by the commissioner, but not encourage 10% of the voters to sign a recall petition. A second by election, which Farage may well win, would give Reform chance to convince gullible voters that Farage is being put in double jeopardy (he isn't of course) and that the establishment is out to get him.
The other political question is this: if the likely result of a second by-election is either a Reform or Conservative win, then what is in it for Labour and the LibDems? Why should they risk strengthening the Conservative Party?
The plus 1 MP for the Tories is a small price to pay for kicking out grifter Farage.
Sky News @SkyNews Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey has called on FIFA to ban the six Argentine players who celebrated with the "Falklands are Argentine" banner from playing in Sunday's final.
Ed Davey has told Sky News he has written to the president Gianni Infantino.
A ridiculous overreaction.
Ed Davey's example is an exact equivalent that did lead to a one match ban for the players involved so NOT doing the same with the a Argentinian players would be two-tier. FIFA isn't consistent about anything so won't happen of course, but to the extent anyone cares about principle, they should do this.
Admittedly by UEFA, not FIFA, but the event took place outside the stadium, so arguably the Argentinian incident is worse.
Spain captain Alvaro Morata and team-mate Rodri have been banned for one game by Uefa after they chanted "Gibraltar is Spanish" during their side's Euro 2024 victory celebrations.
The Gibraltar Football Association (GFA) made an official complaint about the celebrations to European football's governing body before the pair were charged.
Uefa has now suspended Morata and Rodri "for failing to comply with the general principles of conduct, for violating the basic rules of decent conduct, for using sporting events for manifestations of a non-sporting nature and for bringing the sport of football, and Uefa in particular, into disrepute".
They are banned for Spain's next game, which is against Serbia on Thursday, 5 September.
Indeed. But coming from Ed Davey, or Keir Starmer for that matter, it just looks like sour grapes. It won't benefit England. It might increase anti-British feeling in Argentina. There is no upside for us. Politicians should STFU.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
I don't think centralisation is always bad and decentralising always good. I think that is often the case, so it gets treated like it is universal, with the result that sometimes people centralise but have to pretend they are not.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
Most lefties will be in favour of centralisation because it suits their agenda.
Except that the new PM is wholly in favour whilst Badenoch is opposed. And the Blessed Margaret was vehemently against Local Authorities who didn't toe the line.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
1. Saving money 2. Cutting costs 3. Rinse and repeat...
Whether money is actually ever saved is another matter, but the bean counters say 'economies of scale'.
When have the bean counters ever been right?
My council, perhaps to justify it's own existence, has said unitarisation enabled saving money and cutting costs which was essential, and unlikely to happen without it. It was done against the wishes of most of the preceding councils and the policy of the Leader's own national party at the time, but they must have changed their tune as they put her in the Lords several years later.
It's not the cure to all ills, and can be done in a hamfisted way, but this is an area I support the motive of the government at least.
I'm sure there will be some legal challenges, but on its face that sounds hard to succeed - there are criteria for areas the minister will suppose to have followed, but I'm sure the language was loose around essentially making judgement calls, so it would be easy to defend as reasonable even if everyone hates it.
I would love to know how they are going to save money - at least any that would be worth all the chaos of the reorganisation. As i mentioned, job losses will be practuically zero because districts and counties did very different jobs before the reorg and those jobs will still need to be done afterwards. Real estate savings will be similarly almost zero because of the continuing need for office space for all those people.
There will be a few savings in HR but very few I ssupect as the new HR departments will be having to deal with so many more people.
There will be a few senior managers and heads of department going but that will be it.
There have been little or no savings made with the rpevious moves to unitary authorities and since the TUPE rules were adopted for local givernment in 2008 there will be even less scope for savings.
I do believe that in a few years we will look back and realise that, far from saving money, the reorg actually cost money.
We shall see. I think it has worked before and can work again, but it'll take 5 years to really know.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
I don't think centralisation is always bad and decentralising always good. I think that is often the case, so it gets treated like it is universal, with the result that sometimes people centralise but have to pretend they are not.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
Most lefties will be in favour of centralisation because it suits their agenda.
Margaret Thatcher was arguably the most centralising PM we've had in my lifetime.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
I don't think centralisation is always bad and decentralising always good. I think that is often the case, so it gets treated like it is universal, with the result that sometimes people centralise but have to pretend they are not.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
Most lefties will be in favour of centralisation because it suits their agenda.
Except that the new PM is wholly in favour whilst Badenoch is opposed. And the Blessed Margaret was vehemently against Local Authorities who didn't toe the line.
So Burnham is supporting centralisation just as Andy says. These reorganisations are all about centralisation.
Looks like another evening ahead of 'America has totally lost its mind'.
Not totally.
Jon Ossoff: Here's what's going to happen tonight. The world's most famous sore loser will deliver a prime time presidential sour grapes address to pursue his six year old grievances about the 2020 election. https://x.com/BlueGeorgia/status/2077806246451716280
I do think losing in 2020 drove Trump a little barmy. His obsession and vindictiveness really cranked up, as he cannot accept he could possibly ever have lost. It drove him to insist people call him 'the president' when out of office (not President Trump, as americans are wont to do), and over time force out almost everyone who refused to say that he won in 2020.
It has distracted him with seeking revenge when, conceivably, he could have got the GOP to focus on things that were more popular.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
I don't think centralisation is always bad and decentralising always good. I think that is often the case, so it gets treated like it is universal, with the result that sometimes people centralise but have to pretend they are not.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
Most lefties will be in favour of centralisation because it suits their agenda.
Margaret Thatcher was arguably the most centralising PM we've had in my lifetime.
She scrapped the GLC because she didn't like Livingstone.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
I don't think centralisation is always bad and decentralising always good. I think that is often the case, so it gets treated like it is universal, with the result that sometimes people centralise but have to pretend they are not.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
Most lefties will be in favour of centralisation because it suits their agenda.
Except that the new PM is wholly in favour whilst Badenoch is opposed. And the Blessed Margaret was vehemently against Local Authorities who didn't toe the line.
So Burnham is supporting centralisation just as Andy says. These reorganisations are all about centralisation.
And sometimes that works.
It runs counter to general rhetoric from most parties about what they want to see, more power at local levels, but that dissonance is quite normal for them.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
Given we desperately need developments and that you (rightly) welcome migration which means we need even more developments, then why are you saying it will make new developments easier as if it is a bad thing?
Because what it actually means is people living in one area deciding that all those developments should be in another area - preferably some distance away from them. The urban areas have large swathes of brownfield sites which should be redeveloped. But that is more expensive both for the developers and the local authorities. So now they will have nice large areas of green field they can build on instead. It is simply supercharged NIMBYism.
Where are these mythical large swathes of brownfield sites that have not been redeveloped in the past quarter of a century where our population has grown by about 20%?
Any brownfield sites that can be developed should be and largely are, but we need green too. And will do as long as our population rises and until we clear the backlog of missing developments we need.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
Given we desperately need developments and that you (rightly) welcome migration which means we need even more developments, then why are you saying it will make new developments easier as if it is a bad thing?
Because what it actually means is people living in one area deciding that all those developments should be in another area - preferably some distance away from them. The urban areas have large swathes of brownfield sites which should be redeveloped. But that is more expensive both for the developers and the local authorities. So now they will have nice large areas of green field they can build on instead. It is simply supercharged NIMBYism.
Where are these mythical large swathes of brownfield sites that have not been redeveloped in the past quarter of a century where our population has grown by about 20%?
Any brownfield sites that can be developed should be and largely are, but we need green too. And will do as long as our population rises and until we clear the backlog of missing developments we need.
1.5 million homes. Half of it with some form of planning permission in place. But developers don't like building on brownfield sites because of the additional costs.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
1. Saving money 2. Cutting costs 3. Rinse and repeat...
Whether money is actually ever saved is another matter, but the bean counters say 'economies of scale'.
When have the bean counters ever been right?
My council, perhaps to justify it's own existence, has said unitarisation enabled saving money and cutting costs which was essential, and unlikely to happen without it. It was done against the wishes of most of the preceding councils and the policy of the Leader's own national party at the time, but they must have changed their tune as they put her in the Lords several years later.
It's not the cure to all ills, and can be done in a hamfisted way, but this is an area I support the motive of the government at least.
I'm sure there will be some legal challenges, but on its face that sounds hard to succeed - there are criteria for areas the minister will suppose to have followed, but I'm sure the language was loose around essentially making judgement calls, so it would be easy to defend as reasonable even if everyone hates it.
I would love to know how they are going to save money - at least any that would be worth all the chaos of the reorganisation. As i mentioned, job losses will be practuically zero because districts and counties did very different jobs before the reorg and those jobs will still need to be done afterwards. Real estate savings will be similarly almost zero because of the continuing need for office space for all those people.
There will be a few savings in HR but very few I ssupect as the new HR departments will be having to deal with so many more people.
There will be a few senior managers and heads of department going but that will be it.
There have been little or no savings made with the rpevious moves to unitary authorities and since the TUPE rules were adopted for local givernment in 2008 there will be even less scope for savings.
I do believe that in a few years we will look back and realise that, far from saving money, the reorg actually cost money.
Yep. Just like what happened with Streetings abolition of PHE. I see the same faces as before, just with new titles.
So the Miliband PB betting coup is back on!! I do not understand why pundits are surprised by the complications here – appointing a Cabinet is about creating a team and balancing various factions. A bit like football but unlike fantasy football where you can just pick your 11 best players. Not to mention that Swinford and other journalists are breathlessly overreacting to what is probably little more than gossip and wishful thinking.
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
I don't think centralisation is always bad and decentralising always good. I think that is often the case, so it gets treated like it is universal, with the result that sometimes people centralise but have to pretend they are not.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
Most lefties will be in favour of centralisation because it suits their agenda.
Most righties will be in favour of centralisation because it suits their agenda. It's not like lefties have run the government for all of the past 40 or 50 years.
Comments
At least it didn't hit his bails.
"I don’t even know what to say anymore. Couches and now this."
The worst thing about Trump's extraordinary disasters from whatever it is he is suffering from are that we're at the stage where it would be better for everyone if Vance took over.
That's how bad things are.
Spain captain Alvaro Morata and team-mate Rodri have been banned for one game by Uefa after they chanted "Gibraltar is Spanish" during their side's Euro 2024 victory celebrations.
The Gibraltar Football Association (GFA) made an official complaint about the celebrations to European football's governing body before the pair were charged.
Uefa has now suspended Morata and Rodri "for failing to comply with the general principles of conduct, for violating the basic rules of decent conduct, for using sporting events for manifestations of a non-sporting nature and for bringing the sport of football, and Uefa in particular, into disrepute".
They are banned for Spain's next game, which is against Serbia on Thursday, 5 September.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c8xle8e7ngno
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgvwxygpv2o
I can also deduce from this that none of them have any idea what most marriages are actually like:
But ceremonies deemed to be "gimmicks" that risk trivialising the legal act of marriage would not be allowed under what the government calls a "dignity framework".
Activities "such as skydiving, white-water rafting, rollercoasters or other amusement rides" would "fall short of the standard," it says in a consultation setting out the plans, external.
But it adds: "This would not preclude the inclusion of light-hearted elements such as a reading from Shakespeare, a sing-along to Sweet Caroline or other similar contributions, so long as these remain within the bounds of dignity and do not amount to excessive or inappropriate displays."
The proposals also say food and drink, including alcohol, should not be "casually/recreationally consumed during the ceremony".
Speaking as an organist who attends a lot of them, that's all marriages scuppered straight away. They already have ridiculous readings and music and most of the guests are hammered all the time and necking it as they go.
99 not out was the equivalent of about 150 given the brainlessness of the rest of the lineup.
Sacking the entire Treasury would be stupid.
Who would crew the first manned landing on Saturn?
(DfE does the first manned landing on the Sun. Parliament the first manned landing on Uranus)
I have no wish to have a bunch of MPs land on my anus!
It's a Christmas film.
Would probably require multiple parties voters to sign up.
Unless he retires before, of course.
Mr Cameron introduced Equal Marriage in 2013, soon after the GFC.
This is more or less following what Scotland did already, and will have the advantage of more options - including lower cost - weddings being available to those who want or need them.
2. Cutting costs
3. Rinse and repeat...
Whether money is actually ever saved is another matter, but the bean counters say 'economies of scale'.
It is a liberalisation which should generally be welcomed. Wedding venues are incredibly expensive and if a liberalisation can give people more choice and potentially save thousands, what's not to like?
I know many pubs etc with marquees that already host receptions but are forbidden from having the ceremony as not licensed for that. If this allows them to offer that, and people want that, then that should be welcomed.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
From an opposition standpoint you'd still push hard, since it forces him to do it over again, and why not take the chance that some of his support might have fallen away? Even if most stuck with him (as it probably would) at least some wouldn't).
There are lots of cities that want to expand, know about expansion, but can't really because they have built out to where the city limit was put in 1974 or whenever. Go over the boundary and you have a different council whose priorities are often about green belts, strategic gaps and not being absorbed by that ghastly metropolis. Democratic will of the people, innit?
It doesn't have to be that way- South Cambridgeshire has broadly accepted that it has a role taking people as part of the Cambridge co-prosperity sphere, because Cambridge City's boundaries are insane (they exclude the nicest Cambridge college, for example). But most of the councils for surrounding districts see it as their duty to be as dog-in-the-manger as possible.
I think the principle behind the drive towards unitarisation is a good one particularly given the very limited resources for local government. I don't think districts and county councils are necessary or particularly effective. Existing unitaries show that things like real estate savings and managerial reductions will likely come over time.
Now, some of the choices for the reorganisations are certainly questionable to say the least, so some of the areas as proposed are not ideal, but the way divisions are pulled together by the LGBCE (now or in a later review) makes political gerrymandering a lot harder than people think, as they do not just follow what the local councils or a party tells them - they often the local council suggestion as a starting point, since they have the most resources to suggest an all-council proposal, but local comments can change things a lot.
I made a public comment on one in my area, and it was cited as reason to make a fairly significant set of changes against even the wishes of the councillor who represented that area.
It's very peculiar that the final call has been dropped now, but my contacts in this area tell me it's because Steve Reed is an arse.
Which is a potential accusation, but administrative boundaries being driven by political considerations is pretty normal - the criteria for setting them are done by politicians for a start, and you have criteria like community but also electoral equality (for wards) that end up conflicting, and no matter how you do it the reality of where people live don't fit perfectly in that.
Are these proposals borked? Possibly, in some areas (Devon looks a mess to me). But having a political drive to reduce the number of councils, and possibly to make development easier (I don't think it will be that easier, but whatever)? Legitimate.
And people don't even care about their local council until it is changed. I've known people who still think they live in a district council which was abolished nearly 20 years ago.
Eg in Lancashire why on earth twin Preston with Lancaster when it takes a half hour on the M6 to get between them? Whereas Preston and South Ribble and Chorley form one contiguous urban development with a river down the middle but will now be separate Councils?
It could not possibly be because Preston and Lancaster more solidly vote Labour while South Ribble and Chorley can often vote Tory? No, couldn't possibly be that ...
The same almost happened with Warrington and Cheshire, lots of arguments about how it should be arranged and whether the town should be in Merseyside's development with much of the arguments based on partisan politics.
It's not the cure to all ills, and can be done in a hamfisted way, but this is an area I support the motive of the government at least.
I'm sure there will be some legal challenges, but on its face that sounds hard to succeed - there are criteria for areas the minister will suppose to have followed, but I'm sure the language was loose around essentially making judgement calls, so it would be easy to defend as reasonable even if everyone hates it.
“How many beans do you make that, Dave?”
“Three thousand, four hundred and fifty two, Alan”
“Nice one, thanks. That’s quite a lot of beans”
10% of the electorate will require more than just one parties voters to sign up realistically. Which will probably not be an issue given how divisive Farage is.
How long he'll keep going in Tests I don't know.
The other fun game (if you like that sort of fun game) is to compare what's coming out to the Redcliffe-Maud map of nearly 60 years ago. It looks like we're ending up with somewhat smaller units, and better respect for counties, but the logic is similar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe-Maud_Report#/media/File:RedcliffeMaudReportMap1969.png
When Farage gets recalled and faces a second by-election, which he will also win even if more narrowly, then it gives him a perfect way back to credibility. He can now point the wasting taxpayers money at the other parties (even if in reality it’s 10% of his electorate) and will start to look invincible. “The establishment tried to bring me down twice but the good people of Clacton weren’t fooled”.
The only potential beneficiary of a recall election is the conservatives, if they get very lucky and have the support of other parties. If you’re Labour or the Lib Dems, why would you go along with this? Worst case you bolster Reform. Best case you give the Tories a way back. And you probably end up with the election, if not of Farage, then of a Tory on the far, Reform-adjacent nationalist wing of that party.
I suppose for the Lib Dems that possibly makes some sense, given their strategy to further toxify the Tory brand. But not for Labour.
Lancashire looks almost the same, except the RedcliffeMaud one twins Preston with Leyland [South Ribble] and Chorley, which as I said before is a contiguous urban development (even more now than it was 60 years ago) while today's proposal separates them and twins Preston with Lancaster, with which it has nothing other than party affiliation in common.
Steven Swinford
@Steven_Swinford
Exclusive:
Andy Burnham is facing a revolt from his core support on the Labour left over his plans to appoint Shabana Mahmood over Ed Miliband as chancellor amid claims that she lacks an economic vision and is too divisive for the role
Burnham is expected to confirm Mahmood, the home secretary, as his chancellor on Monday after being warned that Miliband risks becoming a lightning rod for criticism of the government
However, Mahmood, who is on the right of the Labour Party, has never held an economic position in government and has said relatively little about her fiscal views in the past. Her hardline immigration reforms have proved particularly contentious on the left
A senior ally of Burnham said: “Shabana has no sense of the economics. It’s just not something she’s ever spoken about. She’s not collaborative. It’s not clear how she would drive the machine.”
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2077860858437288181
FFS.
Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
34m
All going swimmingly
https://x.com/MrHarryCole/status/2077866268737102128
A dismal choice, but what we face with the current government, over and over again.
There will be a few savings in HR but very few I ssupect as the new HR departments will be having to deal with so many more people.
There will be a few senior managers and heads of department going but that will be it.
There have been little or no savings made with the rpevious moves to unitary authorities and since the TUPE rules were adopted for local givernment in 2008 there will be even less scope for savings.
I do believe that in a few years we will look back and realise that, far from saving money, the reorg actually cost money.
Particularly when you recall that Park and Dowding were effectively sacked for ensuring we won the Battle of Britain.
For those who worry too much about infighting inside the Ukrainian government - read Churchill's history of the World War II. Munitions ministers' resignations, defense and navy ministers dramas, egos of top generals, their dismissals and appointments - a lot of things will look familiar...
https://x.com/k_sonin/status/2077827472452686216
Jon Ossoff: Here's what's going to happen tonight. The world's most famous sore loser will deliver a prime time presidential sour grapes address to pursue his six year old grievances about the 2020 election.
https://x.com/BlueGeorgia/status/2077806246451716280
And the Blessed Margaret was vehemently against Local Authorities who didn't toe the line.
It has distracted him with seeking revenge when, conceivably, he could have got the GOP to focus on things that were more popular.
It runs counter to general rhetoric from most parties about what they want to see, more power at local levels, but that dissonance is quite normal for them.
Any brownfield sites that can be developed should be and largely are, but we need green too. And will do as long as our population rises and until we clear the backlog of missing developments we need.
Vice-president’s comments could further fuel conspiracies paedophile was asset to foreign intelligence services
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/07/15/jd-vance-joe-rogan-podcast-epstein/ (£££)
But the deep state wants people talking about ice cream.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/24/almost-15m-homes-could-be-built-on-brownfield-sites-in-england-report-finds
29.7% of the vote won it.
Ramsey and Bury - Reform UK Hold
Reform UK - 506 - 29.7
Independent - 417 - 24.5
Conservatives - 412 - 24.2
Lib Dem - 126 - 7.4
Green - 123 - 7.2
Labour - 118 - 6.9
Blow by Blow lays bare Beck’s soul, and explores his fierce rivalries with almost every other guitarist, from Eric Clapton to Jimi Hendrix
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/non-fiction/blow-brad-tolinski-chris-gill-review-jeff-beck-page-clapton/ (£££)
For those drawing up their holibobs reading lists.
Asked Kimi K3 what it would do as UK PM to return North England to being among the richest economies in the world. Best answer yet. From any model.
https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2077869443644854480
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjrvdqyr5d5o