Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: On the edge Nov 30 2014, 04:52 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30266834

I have to say, as far as I'm concerned, this would be the biggest downside to the devolution no vote. Whilst logically, it might seem the right answer to restore and give back powers to local councils, their antics round here suggest that they can't cope with the power they have already.

We do have a model, Newbury Town Council was restored, after a period of abolition, but it's been an unmitigated disaster. Equally, WBC was created (in reality) by giving a district council far more powers than they had previously. Again, that Council has hardly covered itself in glory.

In spite of the large number of councillors, at local level, we seem unable to find effective leaders at any level. I can't see that we'd correct that simply by giving the Councils even more power.

Yes, there needs to be an English counter to the devolved 'governments' elsewhere, or we'll end up with a Charter Trustees model; a convenient milch cow to subsidise spending. But this proposal is surely the wrong answer.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 30 2014, 07:19 PM

The Local Government Association is the trade body for the local government administration industry, so they're always going to be demanding more power and more money.

I'd deliver all public services through national agencies so there'd be the greatest economy of scale, concentration of expertise, and a consistent level of service, and I'd abolish all of the elected councils and make the MP the sole democratic representative.

I'd also require all public services to work with citizen juries at an appropriate level of localness so that there was a level of direct democracy in every public service - national juries for national services such as defence, regional juries for regional services such as policing, local juries for local services such as schools, etc.

And of course I'd expect the greatest possible engagement of volunteers in all services.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 1 2014, 07:25 PM

Whilst I would like to see more powers devolved locally not to WBC or NTC please neither of which seem to have the competence to run anything. Please let us have our local services merged with Wokingham and possibly Windsor & Maidenhead too. Then we may get some competent officers to run the authority.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 1 2014, 07:48 PM

The main criteria is to make any local Councils accountable to precept payers. As with our present rabble once elected they want to forget the precept payer and not engage with them in any shape or form especially if they happen to ask questions which they don't want to give an answer to. There must be a method of getting rid of them under special circumstances when required and make them accountable and transparent.

The present lot just seem to run the town as a personal little club and if you are not a member of that club then you are not wanted until of course an election arises.
Rather than giving them more local power I would rather get rid of the lot of them unless accountability is given a major overhaul.

Posted by: blackdog Dec 2 2014, 01:14 AM

I agree that WBC should merge with other local districts to create a viable authority (they are all too small) and gain some economies of scale. But I don't think that other local authorities are any better run (people I talk to from Wokingham would certainly disagree that their council does a good job). Local authorities have been shafted by a succession of Westminster administrations only interested in gathering everything into their control. All they can do these days is what Whitehall tells them to do.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 2 2014, 08:03 AM

Not totally convinced that it was all the fault of Whitehall. Let's face it, a deficit of real political leadership locally and the proclivity of certain parties to play act Westminister politics locally has also contributed. Local government as we knew it has had its day, a busted flush.

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 2 2014, 04:26 PM

Lets face it local politicians are only really toy politicians and interfering busybodies. The only exception so far is RUP who looks as though he may have the will to make a difference.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 2 2014, 05:58 PM

I agree, it's hard to see how this has anything at all to do with Whitehall. The problem as I see it is that politicians have forgotten that they are there to serve the public interest and hold the council to account. What we have is the exact opposite where politicians believe the public owe them deference, and that their role is to protect the council's abuse from public scrutiny. The council machine encourages this, shepherding their councillors, fluffing their pride with the promise of a turn in the bi-corn hat if they're good little lambs, and scaring them with stories of a ravening public.

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 2 2014, 10:12 PM

You want Planning decisions for W Berks influenced by Councillors from Windsor/Maidenhead etc? Really?

Posted by: blackdog Dec 2 2014, 11:14 PM

What we have is a council dominated by a small clique of 'executive members' who have, with the encouragement of Whitehall, usurped the old committee based council system. Most councillor have virtually nothing to do apart from turn up at a few meetings to vote the way they are told. Reading has had the good sense to kick out this oligarchic system and revert to the old, far more democratic, system.

Not that it does them that good because Whitehall tells them how much they can spend on what - if they have real control over 10% of the council's activities I'd be astounded.

Posted by: blackdog Dec 2 2014, 11:18 PM

They wouldn't be - planning decisions are decided by council officers and Whitehall inspectors - councillors have almost no influence whatsoever. If a council planning committee goes against the officers recommendation odds are that the inspectors will overturn the decision on appeal.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 3 2014, 01:44 PM

All Councillors can do is organise protests or petitions and scrutinise officer effort. They have no real power other than to raise the profile of any particular issue, acting as a go-between with the officers and the public. I don't see anything wrong with that other than they don't always do it.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 3 2014, 03:59 PM

Surely another complete waste of time, unless they are able to alter an outcome which it appears they are not able to do?
Still it gives the impression that they have a purpose I suppose and keeps the little club going!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 3 2014, 05:05 PM

In truth I have very little experience of WBC, and what experience I do have corresponds with what you say so I don't disagree. My comment was directed largely at NTC where I have a better understanding than most, and where the victimisation is particularly bad if you challenge that clique - Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera made a brave stand but took some serious hostility for his efforts and has taken the only credible decision left and resigned from the Council.

At WBC I'm not convinced that a democratic committee-council is any better than an executive or even mayoral system. In principle it sounds better because you have greater oversight, but in practice I don't see the elected councillors challenging any abuse of power. You get the odd bit of grand-standing in the local paper, but the clique that control the local parties won't allow anyone to stand for election who has the slightest inclination to challenge the comfort of the establishment.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 3 2014, 05:20 PM

I'm not sure it is exactly like that. Councillors are in effect the elected peer to speak on constituents' behalf and perhaps sell the officers decisions too. If it were a limited company, you could say the constituents are the shareholders, the councillors are non-exec directors and the council officers are the executive directors/officers.

Councillors can only be as powerful as legislation and protocol will permit. They do have a value, but expectations are probably higher than they deserve to be.

I blame the 'shareholders'.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 3 2014, 06:04 PM

The few that now bother to vote! Still given very little choice as Simon states our local clique won't tolerate any one standing for the major parties who is not in the club!

Posted by: blackdog Dec 3 2014, 06:58 PM

Why should a party promote someone whose views contradict theirs?

It's a basic failure of party dominated politics - but the fault is the electorate's, we vote for parties far more than we vote for individuals.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 3 2014, 07:15 PM

In fact the question for the Newbury Liberal Democrats is why won't they select a member who does stand for the party values of defending the rights and liberties of the little man against state abuse. It may be different for the Conservative Party that is supposed to be the home of the reactionary establishment-apologist, but not the Lib Dems, this is the stuff that Lib Dems are expected to promote:


Now tell me with a straight face that those of the values of the Liberal Democrat administration at NTC.

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 3 2014, 09:23 PM

He has? I missed that....

Posted by: MontyPython Dec 3 2014, 10:06 PM

I thought he had only stood down as deputy leader. Is there to be an election for a replacement?

Posted by: On the edge Dec 3 2014, 10:27 PM

I'm with Simon K on this. The party constitution is surely the 'boiler plate' conditions that are supposed to tell the voter what their candidates will do. If they don't, and they patently haven't, then it's actually mis selling. Exactly what power companies and banks have been fined millions for doing. So it isn't the elector at fault here, it's the party leaders who haven't acted to stop the abuse.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 3 2014, 10:40 PM

The 'shareholders' keep voting for the same non-execs though, which is where the party system fails democracy, I feel.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 3 2014, 10:45 PM

Let's eliminate this pointless charade then. If we did have national agencies dealing with everything and it was still thought necessary to have a go between, that could more easily, economically and effectively be achieved by giving the local MP a couple of paid professionals to help. I have to say,our MP's present assistant is very helpful and effective doing just that.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 3 2014, 11:16 PM

How would someone become an MP though, unless they are wealthy. If this is a rogue council, is it right to change things nationally? Broadly speaking the poor performance of the council is an inference; we don't always see what 'good' they might do. I know some people who are happy about some of the councillors' work.

Simon's treatment might be a one off and I think it is a little unfair to blame Parkgate on NTC when it is clear (to me) WBC are at fault and have washed their hands of the issue.

Posted by: Lolly Dec 4 2014, 10:22 AM

I think you'll find that only applicants/developers have the right of appeal.

Posted by: Lolly Dec 4 2014, 10:49 AM

Hot off the press....

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/in-this-weeks-newbury-weekly-news-110

"In this week’s Newbury Weekly News, Newbury Town Council has been accused of failing to disclose the loss of public money, and of failing to uphold the basic principles of public office.

Its former deputy leader Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera made the claims in a letter of resignation last week.

The council has admitted it missed out on the chance to claim back up to £50,000 of legal expenses in its ongoing dispute with Parkway developer Costain and put the fault down to ‘human error’."

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 4 2014, 12:50 PM

That is what blackdog was referring to.

Posted by: Lolly Dec 4 2014, 09:53 PM

Maybe, but my point is that Councillors en masse can overrule officers recommendation for refusal of an application, and Joe Public has no right of appeal. So they do have some power.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 4 2014, 10:08 PM

True, but essentially it's just a power to delay until the developer lodges the appeal.

Posted by: blackdog Dec 4 2014, 10:49 PM

Exactly - and if an officer's recommendation to approve an application is ignored by a planning committee it is pretty much inevitable that the applicant will appeal and the odds are pretty good that they will win the appeal.

Only the applicant can appeal via the planning inspector (a huge bias towards developers). However, anyone can appeal through the courts with a legal challenge - which has to be an appeal against the process through which the decision was reached. Needless to say councils main interest is avoiding such expensive appeals, so they employ professional planning officers to ensure that the correct process is followed. Which makes any instance where councillors overide officers vulnerable to appeal through the courts.

We might as well give up having planning committees.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 4 2014, 11:00 PM

I agree, and I've made the point several times before. Councillors have almost nothing useful to bring to the party. Councils should have development guides that mandate the quality and vibe, and then every planning decision should be a technical decision taken by professional planners, and if the application meets the planning guide and is sustainable then it passes. No need at all for elected amateurs in that process.

And when I say councils, there's no good reason to have the planning function under the control of local government at all. It would be much better off under a national agency. We could have a Development Agency in the same way that the HSE look after industrial health and safety and the Environment Agency look after the natural environment.

The tricky bit is to get a really good design guide, and that might well need some local knowledge, but a national agency could probably knock up a pretty good one just by having a poke about with an eye for local vernacular and character.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 5 2014, 12:36 PM

That idea works well in China, Russia, etc...

Posted by: On the edge Dec 5 2014, 03:33 PM

Yeah, it's very similar to what we have right now, only difference was that party members (vis Councillors) who didn't follow the party manifesto got set to a gulag....having seen the LibDem web site shame we haven't followed suit!

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 5 2014, 04:16 PM

This rabble ought to be sent somewhere I reckon they could give any communist party a run for their money when it comes to running a closed dictatorship organisation.

Still I suppose they don't send someone to a Gulag, they just declare you vexatious and ensure you are unable to have any dealings with their little secretive club.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 5 2014, 07:17 PM

You'll like this:

After being turned down for my allotment I wrote to the Council complaining that I was being victimised. The Council said they wouldn't investigate my complaint unless I supplied specific evidence, so I wrote to the Council asking for the e-mails, notes, and minutes relating to my eviction. I get this reply this evening:



It's hard work, it really is.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 5 2014, 07:55 PM

Post what information you require and let one of us put in a FOI for you!

Posted by: Lolly Dec 5 2014, 08:03 PM

Try submitting a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act. There may be a nominal charge, but you might get the information that way.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 5 2014, 09:36 PM

Careful with that. Multiple requests starts to engage other reasons to refuse the request as vexatious. Thanks for your support though.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 5 2014, 09:43 PM

There has to be a public interest in regard to this. Where are the national press?