Trump further laying the ground for fixing November's elections.
The claim is, of course, absurd. He's expecting us to believe that he won fair and square, during a Democratic administration, but somehow the election was fixed to defeat him while he was President.. and then he won again fair and square under another Democratic administration.
It would be risible, but for the fact that a third of the country believes his dangerous nonsense.
Meanwhile his masked paramilitaries roam the streets, unconstrained by law.
Mike Johnson is quite right. The voters have only one last chance to save American democracy.
Not in the way he meant, of course.
There needs to be a tiny bit of truth in your statement for it to work.
The fact the tiny bit of truth is 180 degrees opposite what is really required is ironic but hey you can’t have everything
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 take the other side on this one.
We have tried slash-and-burn ad infinitum, and it has comprehensively failed.
I think building up local autonomy, rather than turning local authorities into cardboard cutouts on lollipop sticks, held by Westminster departments, is a better option.
And that we need such a shift institutionalised in a way which will be difficult to destroy next time we get an ultra-centralising party into Government,
Capacity, capability, checks and balances are crucial, but the most important thing imo is that Regional Mayors (if that is the term we use) and Councils get a decent time to work - which I would call 25 years - rather than being destroyed gratuitously for reasons of blind political dogma.
I'm sure there are things I would prefer to be different - eg some elements of the German system, but we are starting here and a process that has evolved slowly is being developed. So I see know point in demolishing it and starting again from a blasted heath.
So Khan is going to be London mayor and a member of the Lords at the same time?
Well, Nigel Farage holds down multiple jobs while being an MP, so why can’t Khan hold down two related jobs?
I thought it wasn’t unacceptable for Farage ?
Still he seems to live rent free in many people’s heads.
He’s the leader of the highest polling party and favourite to be next PM. This is a political discussion forum. I don’t think it’s odd that we talk about him a lot, Taz!
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.
I don't see that.
AFAICS the noisiest voice in favour of centralisation (ie against the current process that Burnham wishes to drive) is Kemi claiming that it is an 'attack on democracy'.
Plus an entire chorus of Ref UK Councillors who under the surface I think wish to preserve their own roles as Councillors in the existing setup, rather than face their electorates.
Here for example is Linden Kemkaran, the former Tory who now leads Kent CC for Reform UK:
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 take the other side on this one.
We have tried slash-and-burn ad infinitum, and it has comprehensively failed.
I think building up local autonomy, rather than turning local authorities into cardboard cutouts on lollipop sticks, held by Westminster departments, is a better option.
And that we need such a shift institutionalised in a way which will be difficult to destroy next time we get an ultra-centralising party into Government,
Capacity, capability, checks and balances are crucial, but the most important thing imo is that Regional Mayors (if that is the term we use) and Councils get a decent time to work - which I would call 25 years - rather than being destroyed gratuitously for reasons of blind political dogma.
I'm sure there are things I would prefer to be different - eg some elements of the German system, but we are starting here and a process that has evolved slowly is being developed. So I see know point in demolishing it and starting again from a blasted heath.
Fine words but the removal or tiers of local government is exactly the reverse of what you claim to desire. It is detroying any element of localism and centralising power initially at the regional level but ultimately at Westminster, who will find it far easier to control a smallwer number of larger councils.
So Khan is going to be London mayor and a member of the Lords at the same time?
Well, Nigel Farage holds down multiple jobs while being an MP, so why can’t Khan hold down two related jobs?
I thought it wasn’t unacceptable for Farage ?
Still he seems to live rent free in many people’s heads.
He’s the leader of the highest polling party and favourite to be next PM. This is a political discussion forum. I don’t think it’s odd that we talk about him a lot, Taz!
Also Farage’s money problems are (and will continue to be for a while) a major news story
So Khan is going to be London mayor and a member of the Lords at the same time?
Well, Nigel Farage holds down multiple jobs while being an MP, so why can’t Khan hold down two related jobs?
I thought it wasn’t unacceptable for Farage ?
Still he seems to live rent free in many people’s heads.
The "rent free" thing is getting really tedious.
Anyway, I think you mean "was unacceptable", and you're not entirely wrong - but what's really claimed to be unacceptable in Farage's case are the conflicts of interest, his acceptance of enormous penal gist if cash, and the apparent lack of commitment to his job as an MP.
A better precedent for Khan is, of course Ben Houchen, who is also a mayor and has sat for three years in the Lords. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Houchen I don't see there's a massive conflict between the two roles., and no one else seems to be making much noise about it (including you).
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.
Allegedly, claimed by a group the CPRE with a very vested-interest and based on a series of flawed assumptions.
Yes if every single brownfield site were capable of being transformed to housing, at high density, and nothing else then those houses could be built.
However that is never going to happen and can't happen. Some land is unsuitable due to contamination or other reasons. And some will inevitably get used for other purposes, such as industry or retail or anything else. Indeed, build homes and other services are needed so its never all going to go to housing.
So yes, brownfield can be a part of the mix - and is, but green is needed too.
Find some counter evidence and you might be worth listening to on this. But vague claims which are not backed up by any actual evidence, whilst occasionally a PB standard, does not win arguments.
It’s incredible that they are still doing this. Crimea is now struggling without power with a consequential shortage of water. It’s becoming indefensible but so long as the Russians are willing to offer high value targets like this it makes sense for Ukraine to simply add to the pain.
Indeed. They lost ten more ships last night at well. Crimea will soon be totally uninhabitable, and with no way to get supplies in any quantity.
Is Prime Minister Burnham going to have music by Manchester bands backing all of his speeches? Maybe he can get Steve Bray to play selected tunes when Burnham is making announcements outside Downing Street.
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 take the other side on this one.
We have tried slash-and-burn ad infinitum, and it has comprehensively failed.
I think building up local autonomy, rather than turning local authorities into cardboard cutouts on lollipop sticks, held by Westminster departments, is a better option.
And that we need such a shift institutionalised in a way which will be difficult to destroy next time we get an ultra-centralising party into Government,
Capacity, capability, checks and balances are crucial, but the most important thing imo is that Regional Mayors (if that is the term we use) and Councils get a decent time to work - which I would call 25 years - rather than being destroyed gratuitously for reasons of blind political dogma.
I'm sure there are things I would prefer to be different - eg some elements of the German system, but we are starting here and a process that has evolved slowly is being developed. So I see know point in demolishing it and starting again from a blasted heath.
Fine words but the removal or tiers of local government is exactly the reverse of what you claim to desire. It is detroying any element of localism and centralising power initially at the regional level but ultimately at Westminster, who will find it far easier to control a smallwer number of larger councils.
Let's see what Burnham does, Richard.
Your scepticism may be merited, but if he's really determined to devolve power from Westminster, we'll know well before the next election. If he doesn't, then he will have failed to implement his one really distinctive policy, and will be judged accordingly.
The Angry Astronaut (don't ask) on the spectacularly bloody obvious: SpaceX's Starship[1] is nowhere near ready for human flight nor the precursor flights necessary for a moon landing. It's just flying up, doing a bit of suborbital, then landing/crashing. And it keeps doing that over and over again. And it hasn't deployed a single satellite into orbit yet.
And he's been working on this for over ten years now.
Kennedy announced the moon program in 1961 and it landed in 1969. And followed it up with seven flights (inc one failure).
[1] The top bit with the pointy end is called Starship. The bottom bit with the grid fins is called Super Heavy. The two combined is also called Starship
Angry Astronaut is fun as a name. It reminds me of some of the imaginary sci-fi titles mentioned in scif0 titles. For example, the Haunted Asteriod.
For Musk himself, I'm coming to appreciate "Space Karen", which catches his egocentric tantrums well - very Eugène Terre'Blanche.
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 take the other side on this one.
We have tried slash-and-burn ad infinitum, and it has comprehensively failed.
I think building up local autonomy, rather than turning local authorities into cardboard cutouts on lollipop sticks, held by Westminster departments, is a better option.
And that we need such a shift institutionalised in a way which will be difficult to destroy next time we get an ultra-centralising party into Government,
Capacity, capability, checks and balances are crucial, but the most important thing imo is that Regional Mayors (if that is the term we use) and Councils get a decent time to work - which I would call 25 years - rather than being destroyed gratuitously for reasons of blind political dogma.
I'm sure there are things I would prefer to be different - eg some elements of the German system, but we are starting here and a process that has evolved slowly is being developed. So I see know point in demolishing it and starting again from a blasted heath.
Fine words but the removal or tiers of local government is exactly the reverse of what you claim to desire. It is detroying any element of localism and centralising power initially at the regional level but ultimately at Westminster, who will find it far easier to control a smallwer number of larger councils.
Let's see what Burnham does, Richard.
Your scepticism may be merited, but if he's really determined to devolve power from Westminster, we'll know well before the next election. If he doesn't, then he will have failed to implement his one really distinctive policy, and will be judged accordingly.
Bear in mind my argument is not against Burnham, it is against these current plans for reorganisation. They are being proposed as an end in themselves and a means of saving money and increasing local power (they will do neither).
Whatever Burnham is going to propose could just as easily have been done within the existing structure but with the addition of the regional mayors. The current plans massively reduce local accountability and democracy and will do nothing to either save money nor improve services.
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 take the other side on this one.
We have tried slash-and-burn ad infinitum, and it has comprehensively failed.
I think building up local autonomy, rather than turning local authorities into cardboard cutouts on lollipop sticks, held by Westminster departments, is a better option.
And that we need such a shift institutionalised in a way which will be difficult to destroy next time we get an ultra-centralising party into Government,
Capacity, capability, checks and balances are crucial, but the most important thing imo is that Regional Mayors (if that is the term we use) and Councils get a decent time to work - which I would call 25 years - rather than being destroyed gratuitously for reasons of blind political dogma.
I'm sure there are things I would prefer to be different - eg some elements of the German system, but we are starting here and a process that has evolved slowly is being developed. So I see know point in demolishing it and starting again from a blasted heath.
Fine words but the removal or tiers of local government is exactly the reverse of what you claim to desire. It is detroying any element of localism and centralising power initially at the regional level but ultimately at Westminster, who will find it far easier to control a smallwer number of larger councils.
Let's see what Burnham does, Richard.
Your scepticism may be merited, but if he's really determined to devolve power from Westminster, we'll know well before the next election. If he doesn't, then he will have failed to implement his one really distinctive policy, and will be judged accordingly.
I agree - the proof will be in the pudding.
Whatever was done would be able to be critiqued from multiple angles. We could go closer to the French model and big-up out town and parish councils, which are currently handmaidens. My particular beef is with the join between District and County - on my accessibility beat it's insanely complex keeping up with who is responsible for what, even with something as obscure as a fence, a section of path or an estate agent board attached to a road sign.
As things are here, we are having N2D2 - Notts, Nottingham, Derbys and Derby. That is, at least, comprehensible and a regional label which has been in use for 3 decades for services. It might have been feasible to add L2 for Leics, Leicester, but it's not obvious nonsense.
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 take the other side on this one.
We have tried slash-and-burn ad infinitum, and it has comprehensively failed.
I think building up local autonomy, rather than turning local authorities into cardboard cutouts on lollipop sticks, held by Westminster departments, is a better option.
And that we need such a shift institutionalised in a way which will be difficult to destroy next time we get an ultra-centralising party into Government,
Capacity, capability, checks and balances are crucial, but the most important thing imo is that Regional Mayors (if that is the term we use) and Councils get a decent time to work - which I would call 25 years - rather than being destroyed gratuitously for reasons of blind political dogma.
I'm sure there are things I would prefer to be different - eg some elements of the German system, but we are starting here and a process that has evolved slowly is being developed. So I see know point in demolishing it and starting again from a blasted heath.
Fine words but the removal or tiers of local government is exactly the reverse of what you claim to desire. It is detroying any element of localism and centralising power initially at the regional level but ultimately at Westminster, who will find it far easier to control a smallwer number of larger councils.
Let's see what Burnham does, Richard.
Your scepticism may be merited, but if he's really determined to devolve power from Westminster, we'll know well before the next election. If he doesn't, then he will have failed to implement his one really distinctive policy, and will be judged accordingly.
Bear in mind my argument is not against Burnham, it is against these current plans for reorganisation. They are being proposed as an end in themselves and a means of saving money and increasing local power (they will do neither).
Whatever Burnham is going to propose could just as easily have been done within the existing structure but with the addition of the regional mayors. The current plans massively reduce local accountability and democracy and will do nothing to either save money nor improve services.
I don't think we disagree much. But is legislating and implementing a reversal of the the current plans at the same time as starting to implement devolution, ahead of the next election, really viable ?
So Khan is going to be London mayor and a member of the Lords at the same time?
Well, Nigel Farage holds down multiple jobs while being an MP, so why can’t Khan hold down two related jobs?
I thought it wasn’t unacceptable for Farage ?
Still he seems to live rent free in many people’s heads.
He’s the leader of the highest polling party and favourite to be next PM. This is a political discussion forum. I don’t think it’s odd that we talk about him a lot, Taz!
It’s odd when someone says, like, how can Khan hold two jobs and it’s ’muh, Farage’
What about Labour Mayors who’ve been MPs or other MPs holding second jobs.
It’s an obsession in some bordering on the deranged and means the bigger picture is missed
Comments
The fact the tiny bit of truth is 180 degrees opposite what is really required is ironic but hey you can’t have everything
We have tried slash-and-burn ad infinitum, and it has comprehensively failed.
I think building up local autonomy, rather than turning local authorities into cardboard cutouts on lollipop sticks, held by Westminster departments, is a better option.
And that we need such a shift institutionalised in a way which will be difficult to destroy next time we get an ultra-centralising party into Government,
Capacity, capability, checks and balances are crucial, but the most important thing imo is that Regional Mayors (if that is the term we use) and Councils get a decent time to work - which I would call 25 years - rather than being destroyed gratuitously for reasons of blind political dogma.
I'm sure there are things I would prefer to be different - eg some elements of the German system, but we are starting here and a process that has evolved slowly is being developed. So I see know point in demolishing it and starting again from a blasted heath.
AFAICS the noisiest voice in favour of centralisation (ie against the current process that Burnham wishes to drive) is Kemi claiming that it is an 'attack on democracy'.
Plus an entire chorus of Ref UK Councillors who under the surface I think wish to preserve their own roles as Councillors in the existing setup, rather than face their electorates.
Here for example is Linden Kemkaran, the former Tory who now leads Kent CC for Reform UK:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1518044223407702
Anyway, I think you mean "was unacceptable", and you're not entirely wrong - but what's really claimed to be unacceptable in Farage's case are the conflicts of interest, his acceptance of enormous penal gist if cash, and the apparent lack of commitment to his job as an MP.
A better precedent for Khan is, of course Ben Houchen, who is also a mayor and has sat for three years in the Lords.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Houchen
I don't see there's a massive conflict between the two roles., and no one else seems to be making much noise about it (including you).
How quickly will it get tired?
Your scepticism may be merited, but if he's really determined to devolve power from Westminster, we'll know well before the next election.
If he doesn't, then he will have failed to implement his one really distinctive policy, and will be judged accordingly.
For Musk himself, I'm coming to appreciate "Space Karen", which catches his egocentric tantrums well - very Eugène Terre'Blanche.
Whatever Burnham is going to propose could just as easily have been done within the existing structure but with the addition of the regional mayors. The current plans massively reduce local accountability and democracy and will do nothing to either save money nor improve services.
F1: 10 place grid penalty for Norris for exceeding parts' limits.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/articles/cj038y0levyo
NEW THREAD
Whatever was done would be able to be critiqued from multiple angles. We could go closer to the French model and big-up out town and parish councils, which are currently handmaidens. My particular beef is with the join between District and County - on my accessibility beat it's insanely complex keeping up with who is responsible for what, even with something as obscure as a fence, a section of path or an estate agent board attached to a road sign.
As things are here, we are having N2D2 - Notts, Nottingham, Derbys and Derby. That is, at least, comprehensible and a regional label which has been in use for 3 decades for services. It might have been feasible to add L2 for Leics, Leicester, but it's not obvious nonsense.
But is legislating and implementing a reversal of the the current plans at the same time as starting to implement devolution, ahead of the next election, really viable ?
What about Labour Mayors who’ve been MPs or other MPs holding second jobs.
It’s an obsession in some bordering on the deranged and means the bigger picture is missed