Call for more powers to local councils., As if we didn't have enough to worry about! Options

[On the edge]

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.

[Andy Capp]

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.

[Cognosco]

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.

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!

[Andy Capp]

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!

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'.

[Cognosco]

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'.

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!

[blackdog]

... as Simon states our local clique won't tolerate any one standing for the major parties who is not in the club!

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.

[Simon Kirby]

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.

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:

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

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