[[electing Councillors]] What could be better?

[Alikado]

During his three-year spell as Mayor of Birmingham in the 1870s, and prior to his elevation to the Commons, Joseph Chamberlain created a framework for municipal government which survived intact into the later years of the 20th Century. How is Joe’s legacy shaping up ?

What drove Chamberlain’s vision was a rejection of the old ‘economist’ model of local government, one of low rates and even lower expenditure. If councils were to provide the range of services a growing electorate demanded – libraries and baths, schools and parks – then the economics needed to be re-configured.

By taking into municipal ownership the public utilities, and then running them at a profit, Birmingham’s reputation for sound finances allowed the city to borrow yet more, and thereby to create the raft of services we associate with local government. They called it gas-and-water socialism; Sir Albert Bore described it more accurately as ‘municipal capitalism’.

All of this was only possible because of the relative economic independence of the Victorian city state, which raised its own revenues and directed them where it wished. As Professor Peter Marsh pointed out in his key-note address, Chamberlain’s background and training as an industrialist was crucial to the way he turned Birmingham into a kind of ‘municipal company’.

— Joseph Chamberlain and the rise and fall of local government

________________________________________________________________________

The City of Birmingham in the 19^th century became a model of municipal activism at a time when parliament and central government struggled with the socioeconomic plight of Britain's industrial working class.
Need we return to Victorian social conditions before we appreciate the proper role for local vis-à-vis central government?

That is the problem, when local Councils become successful at services such as Gas, Water & Electric supply, running hospitals, Fire, Police and Ambulance Services Governments take the Services away from them and then dump unpopular things on them.

[sandGroundZero]

That is the problem, when local Councils become successful at services such as Gas, Water & Electric supply, running hospitals, Fire, Police and Ambulance Services Governments take the Services away from them and then dump unpopular things on them. — post #32

It is not quite as simple as that. Many necessary social services are never 'profitable '. It is the case though, that utilities (for instance) are profitable and private investors resent their public ownership.

…from Ranger Against War blog

What we have is a long history of central governments blocking "municipal capitalism" so that the reliable profits of household utilities are made private with the consequence that municipalities do not have means of financing themselves except by inequitable taxes (e.g. Counciil Tax) and fees (e.g. parking charges) and an unwelcome reliance upon central government handouts.

[Alikado]

It is not quite as simple as that. Many necessary social services are never 'profitable '. It is the case though, that utilities (for instance) are profitable and private investors resent their public ownership.

…from Ranger Against War blog

What we have is a long history of central governments blocking "municipal capitalism" so that the reliable profits of household utilities are made private with the consequence that municipalities do not have means of financing themselves except by inequitable taxes (e.g. Counciil Tax) and fees (e.g. parking charges) and an unwelcome reliance upon central government handouts.

The Councils do not impose the taxes, they have very little say or flexibility in their budget, services are imposed on them with service levels that have to be met and there is not a lot they can do about how they can run the service particularly when parts may be externally run.

[sandGroundZero]

Conservatives Must Come Clean on their Part in Pop Up Problems

Cllr. Pugh thinks he's one-uped his Conservative rivals for Southport votes in noting Conservative candidates and Councillors had effectively disclaimed a Conservative central government policy (— specifically the implementation of Emergency Active Travel Routes). The implication: that there is an expectation for Councillors to adhere to the (national) 'party line '.

In effect, Councillors do brandish their party identities. These identities tend to be derived largely from their respective parties nationally. This identification is bound to have a detrimental impact on the deliberation of local service provision.

A modest reform, replacing one third of elected Councillors with local voters selected randomly, would alter the dynamics of Council deliberations. Regardless of which party (or none) they may support, a third of the Council comprised of randomly selected voters would inject circumspection among the remaining two thirds.

Certainly, such an experiment would be worthwhile.

[sandGroundZero]

|

Minister of Housing, Communities & Local Government Robert Jenrick, MP is evidently contemplating appointing commissioners to intervene in Liverpool's city Council. Jenrick is expected to make a statement on Wednesday "…in response to a report from inspectors investigating whether the council has provided the best value to the taxpayer …".

_________________________________________________________________________________

Jenrick granted planning permission for a £1bn property scheme
two weeks before the developer donated £12,000 to the Conservative party.

"Jenrick and his housing department initially backed a plan by the billionaire for media tycoon Richard Desmond to construct 1,524 apartments on a site in the Isle of the Dogs, east London.
As documents released on Wednesday confirm, Jenrick knew that Desmond had only 24 hours to have the development approved before new council community charges were imposed that would have cost him about £45m."

Go figure!

[local]

The blog continues.

[Desert Region]

The blog continues.

What would sGZ do if the Forum came to a close?

I hope they have all their work backed up.

[sandGroundZero]

As anticipated, Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP, The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has initiated oversight measures pertaining to aspects of Liverpool City Council's administration.

Robert Jenrick, MP & Joe (had a great fall) Anderson

[sandGroundZero]

Santander is to close its Bootle office

[duncet]

Elected Councillors should have no political affiliation and simply act in the best interests of their constituents. They should not form or vote in groups, no one should have control of the Council. They are supposed to be our representatives and yet they (mostly) represent the interests of their political party of choice. This is unacceptable.

The only Councillor I'm aware of around Southport who, despite having a political affiliation, always acts in her constituents' best interests is Lynne Thompson. She works her socks off for the people of Ainsdale. The other Councillors around Sefton could and should learn a lot from her.

I totally agree. There is no place in local government for party politics. Councillors can be elected based on their party political ideology rather than their suitability to represent the views of local people.
Nevertheless, it is the civil servants who have the main say into how our town is run.

[sandGroundZero]

Local and mayoral elections feel all too ceremonial,
because real power always seems to lie elsewhere

"British politics is heavily weighted to London. …
"That power imbalance causes all kinds of problems. A recent report by the Institute for Government identified failure to coordinate with local authorities as a significant cause of error in managing the pandemic. The report’s authors found the relationship marked by “bitterness” and “suspicion”. One of their sources highlights a “disgraceful, patronising view of local government” as incapable and inexperienced.
…
"…Historically, local government faced a catch-22 situation. The power and prestige that came with the job were not sufficient to attract impressive candidates; the low calibre of candidates justified central government’s reluctance to bestow more powers and thereby bolster the prestige. …"

— Rafael Behr ex; theguardian.com/uk

[said]

I totally agree. There is no place in local government for party politics. Councillors can be elected based on their party political ideology rather than their suitability to represent the views of local people.
Nevertheless, it is the civil servants who have the main say into how our town is run.

Yes, but Councillors should only be selected who are local people, and there should never be more than two members of ANY family serving on the council at any one time. Preferably one member of a family only. That way, no matter which party they belong to they are more likely to collaborate together instead of the present cross party bickering which is common and where nothing gets done for the town. Civil servants are the last people who should be given the final say on how a town is run. They are not business people and they are distant from the local community. The evidence is obvious.

[said]

Local and mayoral elections feel all too ceremonial,
because real power always seems to lie elsewhere

"British politics is heavily weighted to London. …
"That power imbalance causes all kinds of problems. A recent report by the Institute for Government identified failure to coordinate with local authorities as a significant cause of error in managing the pandemic. The report’s authors found the relationship marked by “bitterness” and “suspicion”. One of their sources highlights a “disgraceful, patronising view of local government” as incapable and inexperienced.
…
"…Historically, local government faced a catch-22 situation. The power and prestige that came with the job were not sufficient to attract impressive candidates; the low calibre of candidates justified central government’s reluctance to bestow more powers and thereby bolster the prestige. …"

— Rafael Behr ex; theguardian.com/uk

As far as our local government positions are concerned - it is not that there are a lack of highly educated suitable candidates - it is that such people would be highly unlikely to get in anyway due to the very narrow criteria of who you know rather than what you know. Cronyism is practiced heavily in our local council.

[sandGroundZero]

… so, reform
…select Councillors randomly from among eligible voters

[sandGroundZero]

"…The votes cast on 6 May will count. Local regimes will change. And yet there will also be a gap between the scale of the electoral event and its impact. In a less centralised system and a less parochial political culture, it would be Super Thursday: an occasion when the country wielded the power of the ballot box. Instead it will be another one of those days when millions of trips to the polling station feel all too ceremonial, because real power is somehow always elsewhere." — It should be Super Thursday for voters

…but not while London holds the reins

Rafael Behr | Guardian

______________________________________________________


Sefton Council wards

…Civil servants are the last people who should be given the final say on how a town is run. They are not business people and they are distant from the local community. The evidence is obvious. — post #45

As far as our local government positions are concerned - it is not that there are a lack of highly educated suitable candidates - it is that such people would be highly unlikely to get in anyway due to the very narrow criteria of who you know rather than what you know. Cronyism is practiced heavily in our local council. — post #46

It appears to be the case that Councils, their Officers and Councillors are held in low esteem. The reason may be that every voter knows that ultimate power resides in Whitehall.