howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
been discussed on here many times but this chap is going against the reg model and arguing that the county council should be disbanded and split into individual authorities.
http://www.dover-express.co.uk/Green-Party-calls-county-council-axed/story-20742441-detail/story.htmlGuest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#2
Not against the Reg model at all, it also means abolition of all the district councils.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#3
Never been against unitary authorities , would move to that model tomorrow but the option is not on the table.
The current model of District Councils is financially unsustainable.
With education moving to academies and social services responsibilities now being outsourced in the main, there is very little left for counties except transport and minor functions many of which overlap with District functions.
Kent would move very easily into a three unitary solution ,excluding Medway-which is already a unitary.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#4
Totally agree Paul, so why aren't we trying to bring it about? A blatant example of the overlaps is waste- where districts collect it and county disposes of it. Totally, utterly, unarguably stupid. It all sounds to me like turkeys not wanting to vote fir Christmas.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#5
Very simple Peter, the name is Pickles. He won't touch it. It starts a survival war whereby the counties spend a fortune of your money trying to protect their existence. East Kent districts would go tomorrow. We already have shared services, agreed strategic regeneration policies and we know what work needs to be done to undertake the functions. An election soon and I don 't doubt it could become one of the issues and policies from both parties. Massive reduction in number of councillors across East Kent.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#6
So it goes in the too-difficult tray and the status quo ante prevails. While I am on my hobby horse, I think the best way to achieve local accountability is to restrict candidacy for district/county/unitary seats to members of town and parish councils. Think about it. It would encourage serious candidates onto town and parish councils, which is not always the case now.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#7
That's the governments too difficult tray,not the councils.
Personally I've never believed in party politics at town and parish level but am one of few .
Having been both a county and district councillor concurrently on one occasion my experience supports your point, although you have not written it specifically.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
most parish councillors give up a few hours a month to do something for their immediate locality and would not want to spend a lot more time on a unitary authority.
if we went down the road that peter suggests and unitary councillors would have to be on town or parish first there would be party politics played at parish level.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#9
At one time before town councils district councillors were charter trustees, elected a mayor etc. and only precepted for ceremonial activities. Probably cost about £28-£30k per annum. Same principle as Peter makes without responsibilities for allotments.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#10
#7, PaulW, so why not pursue what you believe in? (By the way, in case people think I am indulging in a spot of leader-bashing, I'm sure you will agree that we know each other well enough that I would say this to you face to face).
#8, As if party politics doesn't happen already at town level.
One of the advantages would be that many parish councillors also have a real job and are personally known by their constituents. There would still be room for the Miss Marples and Col. Blimps among us to play their part at local level in their spare time, while those with real political ambition cut their teeth and gain valuable experience while still having to earn a living in the real world.
#9, a good argument for getting rid of town and parish councils altogether. Allotments used to be run by friendly societies, as is still the case in Leamington Spa (to my certain knowledge; I have dug over my son's allotment there).
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#11
7# Because I made the point and lost the argument. It's called democracy. Bigger fishes to fry than that one. The view was taken the other party always ran a political slate and gained control. Independents do not achieve the results. Personally I'm not interested in Town Council politics.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#12
7# in respect of unitaries, we have not given up but will play our hand at the right time.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#13
Fair enough, I am conscious of the pointlessness of flogging dead horses but this one deserves to be kept alive. If (when) Whitehall imposes further cuts on local service providers (which is what councils are, I refuse to use the term 'local authorities') you may collectively have no option but to pool budgets with County and go unitary (No county, Medway, East Kent, West Kent, South Kent, with a few border adjustments to ensure similar populations.) Best done before the next round of council elections when control may change. Too many vested interests though.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#14
There has to be consensus to put a scheme forward and county won't agree. Attrition will eventually provide the solution as you have identified.The model would be North Kent with Medway, west Kent and East Kent. Too late for next elections, electoral commission could not meet timetable if parliament agreed.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#15
That's putting the horse before the cart. Put up a viable scheme and then seek consensus. By doing so you can promise cost reductions that Pickles can only dream of. Break the mould. I'm sure all Kent MP's would back it, and they have more pull in Westminster than all councillors put together.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
#16
howard mcsweeney1 wrote:most parish councillors give up a few hours a month to do something for their immediate locality. . .
That relates just to those who see their only requirement is to turn up at the parish council meetings - my own experience is that those who take it seriously can spend a few hours EVERY DAY on parish council business. Also they are described as 'sovereign', meaning in general terms they can raise whatever precept they like and spend it however they like provided there is no other law preventing them from so doing.
The following is a description of the duties of local councils (town and parish), i.e. the things they must do:
• comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010
• comply with employment law
• consider the impact of their decisions on reducing crime and disorder in their area
• have regard to the protection of biodiversity in carrying out their functions
• consider the provision of allotments if there is demand for them from local residents and it is reasonable to do so
• decide whether to adopt a churchyard when it is closed, if asked to do so by the Parochial Church Council.
And things they can do:
In April 2012, the Government introduced the general power of competence for eligible local councils. The general power of competence is designed to make it easier for eligible councils to act. It is intended to permit eligible local councils to do anything that an individual might do, as long as other legislation does not forbid it. This could include, for example, the development of land for residential or commercial purposes.
So the trend with this government is to give local councils more powers and not restrict their fundraising abilities, unlike higher level councils which are capped.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#17
I'm giving you Pickle's rules Peter. County will not agree to talk about any proposal other than a County unitary. You have identified the reason, vested interests. As for MP's across Kent, they were split down the middle on this one at the last count.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#18
Pickles will not be there for ever. Vested interests need to be identified, exposed, embarrassed and expunged. Grasp the nettle, be a rebel. Go on, I dare you! It will only gain you votes.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
