Should 'The City Region' take responsibilty for more servicres away from Councils?

[Alikado]

The Council have heard how Homeless people are being failed by Sefton particularly in the South of the Borough. People being made homeless near to the Borough Boundaries are gravitating towards the City Centre and failing to get proper services as they are looked on as being 'the other areas responsibility'.
Should the City Region become more involved and possibly take over services completely?
The Transport, Police and Fire and Rescue already operate over the complete area.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...uncil-17819501

[Toodles McGinty]

It's a tricky situation. The whole subject of homelessness has so many different causes and problems.

I'm not sure how Sefton Council should maintain responsibility for people who have moved out of the area, even if it is a matter of a few miles outside the county. It sounds harsh, but if a person is no longer within the Sefton boundary, then it isn't the council's problem.

More importantly, all councils should have funds from central government to tackle the problem. Then yes, given that homeless people gravitate towards city centres, those city centres should receive the lion's share of the coffers.

Sadly most councils, particularly in the north, are so woefully underfunded, that I assume homelessness is low on the list of priorities and is left to charities to sort out. Given the current unpredictable political situation, that isn't going to change anytime soon.

[said]

The Council have heard how Homeless people are being failed by Sefton particularly in the South of the Borough. People being made homeless near to the Borough Boundaries are gravitating towards the City Centre and failing to get proper services as they are looked on as being 'the other areas responsibility'.
Should the City Region become more involved and possibly take over services completely?
The Transport, Police and Fire and Rescue already operate over the complete area.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...uncil-17819501

City regions cannot be expected to know all the details of local regions and there will always be a heavier bias towards the areas with which they are more familiar. On the other hand, all Councils tend to overspend recklessly due to associated cronyism. It would be fairer if independent accountants are given an annual list of priority spending in every region and allocated finance according to necessity and future profitability. Public service people are not known for their business prowess and should not be involved in this process.

[sandGroundZero]

On post #3 "…all Councils tend to overspend recklessly due to associated cronyism. It would be fairer if independent accountants are given an annual list of priority spending in every region and allocated finance according to necessity and future profitability. Public service people are not known for their business prowess and should not be involved in this process."

1. Surely, "independent accountants" appointed for the purpose are "public service people"; and
2. what constitutes "necessity and future profitability" in this context, in your scenario?

Are you suggesting that Councils be operated as Public Limited Companies aiming to return a profit for share holders? "Fairer" for who, exactly?

[sandGroundZero]

Thread: Should 'The City Region' take responsibilty for more servicres away from Councils?

The respective responsibilities of component Councils vis-à-vis (in this instance) Liverpool City Region were determined by central government of the time — David Cameron (noted for his 'big society' plan), George Osborne & Co.

It is characteristic of our so-called democratic institutions that they are by design intended to contain democracy, as distinct from promoting and expanding democracy. Overhauling our institutions is a priority.

Establish the means by which local people can have an effective input in matters effecting their daily lives. Technology has a role in this. As citizens' engagement is established, legitimacy must flow upward from the very local to the regional and finally, national level.

It is nothing short of a revolution!

.

[Hamble]

Are you hoping for a Derek hit with that title?

[sandGroundZero]

Extracted from the Liverpool Echo (as per link):

"In the meeting, Labour councillor Anthony Carr raised the question of whether the local authority had "failed" some substance abusers due to their "transient" nature and a lack of collaboration between organisations such as Merseyside Police and the probation service.
He said that with some of these people moving to the Liverpool City Centre, they fall under the care of Liverpool City Council and so Sefton Council do not keep track of them anymore."

Viewing the linked article ex: the Echo, it is a Councillor (Carr) on the social care scrutiny committee raising questions about "a lack of collaboration between organisations". The article points out Sefton figures vis-à-vis the "national average" that is, that Sefton has "a higher number of drug-related deaths and rates of Hepatitis C than the national average".

So might not the tag line say: "Sefton is struggling with…" this serious national problem? The better question: Why is this problem such as it is in Sefton? The answer might be that the Borough's Adult Social Care is under sustained pressure owing, not least, to failures of central government policy.

[said]

On post #3 "…all Councils tend to overspend recklessly due to associated cronyism. It would be fairer if independent accountants are given an annual list of priority spending in every region and allocated finance according to necessity and future profitability. Public service people are not known for their business prowess and should not be involved in this process."

1. Surely, "independent accountants" appointed for the purpose are "public service people"; and
2. what constitutes "necessity and future profitability" in this context, in your scenario?

Are you suggesting that Councils be operated as Public Limited Companies aiming to return a profit for share holders? "Fairer" for who, exactly?

Any expenditure made by public bodies should be made accountable. The money spent on large issues should always be considered as to effectiveness of such costs to future planning. For instance, should the council agree to an additional large house to be supplied for the care of children - when it can be foreseen that a special unit would be more advantageous in the future? Should the council spend out on a new roadway now when it can be seen that a new motorway in the same area would be of greater benefit in the future? No, there should not be any shareholders and no it should not operate as a PLC. It should be a completely separate enterprise. The councils do publish annual accounts - but these are far too vague to be called transparent. Liverpool should be a good example. There is far too much financial outlay on inexplicable accounts, and associations which have given rise to serious suspicions, particularly in view of Liverpool's past history.

[said]

Extracted from the Liverpool Echo (as per link):

"In the meeting, Labour councillor Anthony Carr raised the question of whether the local authority had "failed" some substance abusers due to their "transient" nature and a lack of collaboration between organisations such as Merseyside Police and the probation service.
He said that with some of these people moving to the Liverpool City Centre, they fall under the care of Liverpool City Council and so Sefton Council do not keep track of them anymore."

Viewing the linked article ex: the Echo, it is a Councillor (Carr) on the social care scrutiny committee raising questions about "a lack of collaboration between organisations". The article points out Sefton figures vis-à-vis the "national average" that is, that Sefton has "a higher number of drug-related deaths and rates of Hepatitis C than the national average".

So might not the tag line say: "Sefton is struggling with…" this serious national problem? The better question: Why is this problem such as it is in Sefton? The answer might be that the Borough's Adult Social Care is under sustained pressure owing, not least, to failures of central government policy.

Absolutely not! Sefton has experienced the same cuts that every other region has had. Liverpool Combined Council has received far more money from central government than most other councils and has had massive debts overwritten.

The addiction problem is no more than it is in other low employment areas. One reason for people taking drugs is due to low self esteem, which can either be related to family upbringing or related to lack of employment. Several of those who are now taking drugs, have parents whose education revolved around policies that allowed pupils to choose how they, themselves, wanted to be educated. This, to no surprise was an utter failure. Still, those parents lacked the direction of a good education. Unable to pass anything of value on to their own children, has left their children struggling to keep up in school which meant those children have low self esteem.
Another reason for people becoming addicts is the modern day application to life. One does not have to do anything - it is all done for you! Many young people are unable to make their own decisions, and will agree to anything rather than stand on their own two feet. They do not know how to, nor why they should, simply say no.

[sandGroundZero]

Regarding post #8 by said:

We can agree that public bodies need to be managed effectively, not least because public trust rests upon that. Plus of course, tax payers rightly resent waste.

In case you hadn't detected from other threads where we've crossed swords, I am not an advocate of the current administrative arrangements of our governmental (all levels) institutions; quite the reverse. What is more, my belief is that radical changes at local level must precede necessary changes for regional and national levels of government.

Inarticulate, ideological rants about how badly our Councils are doing do not progress the matter. As for the original post of this thread (including the headline of the Echo's report cited) it appears, perhaps inadvertently, misleading. In fact, Sefton's Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee is seen to be taking its statutory responsibilities seriously.

[Alikado]

Absolutely not! Sefton has experienced the same cuts that every other region has had. Liverpool Combined Council has received far more money from central government than most other councils and has had massive debts overwritten.

The addiction problem is no more than it is in other low employment areas. One reason for people taking drugs is due to low self esteem, which can either be related to family upbringing or related to lack of employment. Several of those who are now taking drugs, have parents whose education revolved around policies that allowed pupils to choose how they, themselves, wanted to be educated. This, to no surprise was an utter failure. Still, those parents lacked the direction of a good education. Unable to pass anything of value on to their own children, has left their children struggling to keep up in school which meant those children have low self esteem.
Another reason for people becoming addicts is the modern day application to life. One does not have to do anything - it is all done for you! Many young people are unable to make their own decisions, and will agree to anything rather than stand on their own two feet. They do not know how to, nor why they should, simply say no.

As far as Adult Social goes Sefton have a bigger problem than most Councils due to the number of Older Residents, Social Care takes a massive chunk of the budget and the Government provide less each year yet cap any increase in Council Tax but impose legal obligations to provide services.

[said]

Not going by today's news! Liverpool council passed planning for even more large development to go ahead, and like several other developments in the city - they failed to vet the companies carrying out the work. Result, yet another company has gone into administration with thousands of overseas investors losing their life savings while company directors end up rich. That must be the seventh one at least, in the past decade.

[said]

As far as Adult Social goes Sefton have a bigger problem than most Councils due to the number of Older Residents, Social Care takes a massive chunk of the budget and the Government provide less each year yet cap any increase in Council Tax but impose legal obligations to provide services.

A lot of that is due to the fact that people in Social Care are free to choose which area they want to live in. I mean given Bootle or Skelmerdale for instance - you would also choose to live in a sea side resort! Southport has a massive population of older people who have moved into the area from outlying areas. People should be housed in their own locations, it puts a huge pressure on other authorities. Sefton Council did protest about the numbers to other councils, but they did not want to know.

[sandGroundZero]

"Liverpool Combined Council has received far more money from central government than most other councils and has had massive debts overwritten."

said post #9 this thread

I believe said has posted similar assertions regarding largess bestowed upon the Liverpool region Combined Authority in the recent past.

Please may we have specifics? Tell us where you've discovered these grants, benefits in kind or whatever so that we may check their validity and/or applicability to your post.

[sandGroundZero]

…The addiction problem is no more than it is in other low employment areas. One reason for people taking drugs is due to low self esteem, which can either be related to family upbringing or related to lack of employment. Several of those who are now taking drugs, have parents whose education revolved around policies that allowed pupils to choose how they, themselves, wanted to be educated. This, to no surprise was an utter failure. Still, those parents lacked the direction of a good education. Unable to pass anything of value on to their own children, has left their children struggling to keep up in school which meant those children have low self esteem.
Another reason for people becoming addicts is the modern day application to life. One does not have to do anything - it is all done for you! Many young people are unable to make their own decisions, and will agree to anything rather than stand on their own two feet. They do not know how to, nor why they should, simply say no.

These are rather sweeping generalizations on complex matters including substance abuse, personal responsibility and even, parenting. I don't suppose you'd like to justify them; would you?
[p.s. "this is common knowledge" doesn't cut it, you know.]

.