[[electing Councillors]] What could be better?

[Alikado]

It appears I need to highlight an important point, namely:

"…the premise is that it will coincide with a significant overhaul of Council processes such that transparency and accountability are enhanced for residents as well as for randomly selected citizen-Councillors …"

The objective is to make Councils work better! There is huge dissatisfaction with Councils notwithstanding their recent up-grading of 'contact ' facilities as evidenced by post #62.

I anticipate going far beyond the option of telephoning a Council call centre (though that is a step in the right direction). I envisage both a restructuring of Council process in aid of transparency and the application of more advanced tech such that residents can directly input their problems and their suggestions.

In fact, the random selection proposal is primarily beneficial in unsettling the dysfunctional party-political mindset of elected Councillors. But it is also a stimulus to change for the reason that by necessity, randomly selecting will create Councillors who had not sought the job and who, if they are to be willing and able to fulfil the role, will require support and encouragement.

Furthermore, you must not overlook the point about what Councillors actually do, now! For most, they promote themselves and their respective parties and otherwise try to make themselves look useful by holding surgeries and intermediating. The current arrangements are a democratic façade. Apart from everything else, there is an implicit call for considerably greater civic engagement and education.

Using the interfaces given phone & web enables residents to directly input their problems and their suggestions.

[sandGroundZero]

Using the interfaces given phone & web enables residents to directly input their problems and their suggestions.

Yes. I am aware of what is currently possible. Are you, perhaps, trying to make the point that local government service provision is good enough as it is?

I believe it can be much better. Certainly, it can become more transparent and responsive to residents.

There is also the larger point, namely that central governments' overarching control is problematic in itself. The conduct of local government needs to be made democratically responsive and transparent so that it can be trusted with the powers and responsibilities of administering services — the principle of subsidiarity — without recurring interference from the centre.

[salus.populi]

Yes. I am aware of what is currently possible. Are you, perhaps, trying to make the point that local government service provision is good enough as it is?

I believe it can be much better. Certainly, it can become more transparent and responsive to residents.

It's underfunded. Councils are well aware of what people would like but thanks to central government they have ever decreasing funds.

People expect the earth because they're paying 5% more, blissfully unaware due to their own ignorance that 5% doesn't bridge the gap of a reduced annual settlement from central government.

Underfunded services will never satisfy people's demands or needs.

[sandGroundZero]

[Sefton (and other Councils) are] underfunded. Councils are well aware of what people would like but thanks to central government they have ever decreasing funds.
People expect the earth because they're paying 5% more, blissfully unaware due to their own ignorance that 5% doesn't bridge the gap of a reduced annual settlement from central government.
Underfunded services will never satisfy people's demands or needs.

Under funding is a separate issue. It is not, however, unrelated. The relationship of central government to local administrations is lopsided — an artefact of our history.

In the 19^th century when industrializing urban boroughs began steps towards alleviating dire conditions for most residents, the institutions of government at the centre were entrenched. Historical continuity is well and good, but in this instance inertia has allowed all manner of dysfunction to accumulate.

[Alikado]

Under funding is a separate issue. It is not, however, unrelated. The relationship of central government to local administrations is lopsided — an artefact of our history.

In the 19^th century when industrializing urban boroughs began steps towards alleviating dire conditions for most residents, the institutions of government at the centre were entrenched. Historical continuity is well and good, but in this instance inertia has allowed all manner of dysfunction to accumulate.

At the turn of the century (19th - 20th) Councils were powerfull, Councilors & Aldermen gave their time freely and had the interests of the local community at heart, they were very often local businessmen, factory owners and merchants who had realised that a 'Good Press' enhanced their reputation and was good for business. Councils have in past been responsible for Water, Gas & Electric Production & Distribution, all the great reservoir schemes date back to these times. Telephones and many hospitals started up under Council control and Councils were respected, Westminister kept out of Local Affairs and Governed Nationally, after all they also had an Empire to run. Councils lost control as services as they expanded Southport Water expanded eventually becoming West Lancs similarly the model was rolled out across the country, they were controlled by puppet boards with very little local control, around the country they all had to dance to the Westminster tune, Gas & electric went the same way becoming regional entities

[sandGroundZero]

At the turn of the century (19th - 20th) Councils were powerfull, Councilors & Aldermen gave their time freely and had the interests of the local community at heart, they were very often local businessmen, factory owners and merchants who had realised that a 'Good Press' enhanced their reputation and was good for business. Councils have in past been responsible for Water, Gas & Electric Production & Distribution, all the great reservoir schemes date back to these times. Telephones and many hospitals started up under Council control and Councils were respected, Westminister kept out of Local Affairs and Governed Nationally, after all they also had an Empire to run. Councils lost control as services as they expanded Southport Water expanded eventually becoming West Lancs similarly the model was rolled out across the country, they were controlled by puppet boards with very little local control, around the country they all had to dance to the Westminster tune, Gas & electric went the same way becoming regional entities

1. At the height of civic scope and activity Councils were tolerated or ignored by central government.
2. Councils' representing local business interests would seek to optimize the business environment. But contemporary Councils have a wider brief.
3. When local governments' activities began to highlight areas of neglect by central government, the latter began to take an interest.
4. The result has been central government asserting its predominance and centralizing formerly local functions.

[sandGroundZero]

To digress briefly

The LCRCA candidates' statutory leaflet arrived. Unlike London where the list of candidates is long (and colourful), the Liverpool City Region's 'Metro Mayor ' candidates are:

Gary Cargill	Green Party
Jade Marsden	The Conservative Party
David Newman	Liberal Democrats
Steve Rotheram	Labour Party

The system of tabulating the votes is Supplementary Voting — SV.
The Supplementary Vote is a majoritarian, preferential voting system. This means that voters rank their two favourite candidates in order of preference, which is then used to elect a single winner via two rounds of vote counting.
Some voters suppose this to be a form of Proportional Representation; emphatically, it is NOT! SV was a New Labour artifice designed to manage an internal party problem. Occasionally the first preference vote leader is overturned; but potentially at the cost of discounting some voters' first and second preferences!

I hesitate to speculate about about which two candidates garner the largest total first preference vote. [The other pair will be eliminated.] On the strength of incumbency and name recognition, I expect Steve Rotheram will be among the top two; conceivably, he could gain 50% of 1^st preference votes to win outright.

Who is prepared to give odds on the Green's Gary Cargill receiving enough 1^st preference votes (in the event no one receives 50%)?

[sandGroundZero]

Notably, not one of the three contenders for Steve Rotheram's job claim to have ever contested (never mind won) a civic election before now.
That would suggest that neither the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives nor the Green Party in the Liverpool City Region have any expectation of winning!

David Newman, LibDem	clean up our politics make sure our region is open and welcoming tackle our climate emergency by launching a green recovery plan make sure nobody is left behind put our region at the heart of the globe
Jade Marsden, Conservative	Not charging the discretionary mayoral precept - so more of your money stays in your pocket. Making sure that every part of our region gets its fair share of spending - not just central Liverpool. Working hard to campaign for our communities. Lobby government to make the region an urban national park … Improving social housing … Working to improve transport connections … Attracting new investment …
Gary Cargill, Green	• build a clean, affordable transport system for everyone invest in developing skills and training for young people protect our valued green spaces for future generations a 'People's Assembly' to make the mayor accountable

Liberal Democrats and Conservatives at least, appear to hold the City Region Mayor and perhaps the City Region itself in high disregard. If either party's candidate by some fluke should prevail, then some of their policies certainly are at odds with the Panjandrums of the respective Southport partiies.

They are offering vague political platitudes. Small wonder few take an interest.

[sandGroundZero]

Jade Marsden's statutory candidate leaflet pages

Jade Marsden

The role of Liverpool City Region Mayor was created to give more local accountability to decisions made in our city. But for most people in the Liverpool City Region, very little has changed since Steve Rotherham was elected in 2017. Our communities need a mayor who will champion health, jobs and opportunities in our region.

• Make our region a better place for young people: Our young people deserve to have the tools to become happy, healthy, adults. So I will work with government to secure the best education and training opportunities for our young people.
• Securing a healthier city region: Our region has some of the worst health outcomes in the country. I will work with our communities to make the changes needed. Like improved air quality, better mental health awareness and support.
• Securing the jobs and investment we need: I will work with business to campaign for extra investment to secure jobs and unlock new opportunities, as we recover from the impacts of the pandemic.

Courageous Ms. Marsden steps into the vacuum that is
Liverpool City Conservatism.
Will she be one of the top two in first round votes for LCR Mayor?

[said]

It's underfunded. Councils are well aware of what people would like but thanks to central government they have ever decreasing funds.

People expect the earth because they're paying 5% more, blissfully unaware due to their own ignorance that 5% doesn't bridge the gap of a reduced annual settlement from central government.

Underfunded services will never satisfy people's demands or needs.

I have often acted as a spokesperson for people because I am not afraid to argue and say what has to be said, as you may have noticed.

Central government had to do something because previously Councils that had had surplus funds at the end of the year just practically threw it down the drain. They were paying out £thousands of tax payer's money on unnecessary items. A large number of the general public complained about it. As I understand it - any council that had a surplus of funding at the end of any one year, was given central government funding less the amount of that surplus. Councils did not want to be seen having a surplus and losing out on the full grant - so they spent it rapidly before the next returns were due in. The Government knew this was happening, so had been reducing the expenditure so that Councils became more accountable. For instance - Liverpool is always crying insufficient funding due to Government cutbacks etc., but not only did central government write off Liverpool's debts, it gave them money continuously to fund things like the Hospitals, Road repairs etc., Even though Liverpool receives huge income from the toll roads, from MerseyRail, from all the businesses in the area, and from investors. But it was and is poorly managed. Liverpool is into huge debt from the European bank. Other Councils have had the same cutbacks across the UK - but they have managed.

Councils should act for the local people and the local environment - that is what they are paid for. Perhaps someone should remind Sefton of that. All local planning is in secrecy, few people get to hear about that has been decided until it is in effect.

[sandGroundZero]

Our region needs a new leadership. It's time to step forward

David Newman promises to:

1. "launch the first UK trail of a universal basic income to ensure nobody is enslaved by poverty";
2. "Re-invent our high streets; and
3. "Invest in cycling, walking and other active travel"

_________________________________________________________________

Evidently, David Newman lives in Southport.

• Has he consulted with Cllr. Pugh & Co.?
• Does he understand LibDem 'pavement politics '?

He promises leadership. That will require him taking tough policy decisions and then, taking a lot of stick from disgruntled residents for it.
I'm guessing the LibDems will prefer Labour's Steve Rotheram as LCR Mayor. If their man should win, Liberal Democrats would be inconveniently associated with the consequences of real policy decisions.

[Alikado]

I have often acted as a spokesperson for people because I am not afraid to argue and say what has to be said, as you may have noticed.

Central government had to do something because previously Councils that had had surplus funds at the end of the year just practically threw it down the drain. They were paying out £thousands of tax payer's money on unnecessary items. A large number of the general public complained about it. As I understand it - any council that had a surplus of funding at the end of any one year, was given central government funding less the amount of that surplus. Councils did not want to be seen having a surplus and losing out on the full grant - so they spent it rapidly before the next returns were due in. The Government knew this was happening, so had been reducing the expenditure so that Councils became more accountable. For instance - Liverpool is always crying insufficient funding due to Government cutbacks etc., but not only did central government write off Liverpool's debts, it gave them money continuously to fund things like the Hospitals, Road repairs etc., Even though Liverpool receives huge income from the toll roads, from MerseyRail, from all the businesses in the area, and from investors. But it was and is poorly managed. Liverpool is into huge debt from the European bank. Other Councils have had the same cutbacks across the UK - but they have managed.

Councils should act for the local people and the local environment - that is what they are paid for. Perhaps someone should remind Sefton of that. All local planning is in secrecy, few people get to hear about that has been decided until it is in effect.

You have got absolutely no idea of how Local Government is funded and how their budgets work, for many years they have been working on rolling budgets any surplus is not deducted from the settlement grant but goes into reserves. Liverpool receive absolutely nothing from Merseyrail and levels of cash from Tolls and parking are assumed by Westminster and taken into account in the settlement grant so in reality it goes to the government,.
Planning is not done in secrecy, any plans submitted then scrutinized then the results and recommendations go to the Planning Committee for rubber stamping, Councils have to stick to the policies and rules or it ends up in court as has occurred with the Homebase redevelopment.

[sandGroundZero]

Gary Cargill's agenda appears to be adapted from the Liverpool City Green Party Manifesto. Greens have elected 3 Councillors in St. Michaels ward and another in neighbouring Greenbank. Perhaps 'success ' in the LCR Mayor contest would be gaining more votes than the Conservatives. One of the top two first round vote tallies would be something of a coup!

It is fair to ask: Are any of the contenders for Steve Rotheram's job well placed to deliver their promises?

[Alikado]

Broadly speaking, what do local councils do?
Councils administer a variety of services:

1. social care;
2. road maintenance;
3. libraries;
4. & formerly, much more

…in many cases initiated by local councils.

For a quaint view of mid-twentieth century councils, see: Local Government (1943)

A contemporary view of Councillors' role courtesy of Cllr. Tony Dawson:

…just shows how times change in 70+ years!

___________________________________________________________________________

There are better ways!

Another round of Council elections is scheduled for May. Wannabe Councillors have declared themselves: Sinclair D'Albuquerque, Lee Durkin. Doubtless the other candidates will appear soon.

It's not unreasonable to wonder about party affiliations. What is the motivation of national political parties embedding themselves in the administration of local services.

So much for your knowledge, you missed the biggest part of the budget out - Education

Party affiliations are all about control from above.

[sandGroundZero]

So much for your knowledge, you missed the biggest part of the budget out - Education

Party affiliations are all about control from above.

Service Expenditure, Sefton 2021/2022