Boundary reorganisation
Home › Forums › Wrexham.com Forums › Wrexham Forum › Boundary reorganisation
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 18, 2015 at 1:41 am #95836
Born AcornParticipantThis seems crazy, as no doubt the new authorities would be Unitary ones. Sure some money would be saved, but these would be political behemoths – the new one for us would cover more people than Iceland, which has a central government and 74 municipalities…
June 18, 2015 at 7:11 am #95837
CVA01ParticipantIn this country we seem obsessed with efficiency but have translated that as meaning fewer and larger units of administration. In doing so we haven’t stopped to ask ourselves what each level of administration can or should be doing. Lots of things, like open space and even some aspects of local planning and perhaps even mamaging or at least comissioning primary school provision and local health care provision (e.g GP surgeries or health centres) could be carried out by town and community councils. I hear some of you laughing loudly, but it isn’t such a crazy idea. ‘They’re too small’ I also hear some of you saying. Maybe, but there are ways around that which doesnt require abolition, merger or services to be provided by the next tier up, or by central government.
To draw another comparison with Europe. The German State of Schleswig-Holstein has a population similar to Wales. The state parliament probably has more autonomy than the Welsh Government also. But, just like Wales some decisions are taken by central (in this case federal) government.
S-H is divided into 11 rural districts (serving an average of 255,000) people and 4 urban districts (serving an average of 154,000 people) – in all Germans states except Hamburg, Bremen and Berlin, large towns over a certain size can become urban districts. The rural districts are further divided into municipalities that are responsible for a wide range of local services. In several German states, including S-H many small municipalities have the right to exist but are grouped into local federations with neighbouring municipalities so that it is cost effective to provide services. Essentially they benifit from economies of scale whilst retaining some local idenity and autonomy. France has a similar arrangement for its commmunes.
So as in Wales, in S-H there are 4 levels of administration (excluding municipal federations) – Federal government (in Wales this = Westminster), State (in Wales, the Assembly), district (in Wales, counties and county boroughs) and municipalities (in Wales community councils). But the lower 3 all have more power than their Welsh counterparts. The structure in S-H is genrally the same accross Germany. And if you have ever been to Germany you will know they have better services than we do. And a better, locally delivered, health care system.
Securing devolution for Wales was a step in the right direction in terms of power being decentralised within the UK. But whilst Wales now has more control over its own affairs, power has yet to be decentralised within Wales. If these changes go through, as I am sure they will, Wales will become more not less centralised.
June 18, 2015 at 8:02 am #95838
99DylanJonesParticipantThere are clearly lots of models and pros and cons for each- the key driver for success is not the size or number of layers but the quality of leadership- this appears to be one of the biggest issues as there are many problems the different layers– we have leaders that can’t ensure our children and young people get good quality education, social care , health etc.
It is the failings of key services which has meant the public have list confidence in what is being delivered.
It is vital that those in leadership in Public Services that are delivering on target take on leadership in other areas as well to ensure EVERYONE get the quality services we are entitled to.June 18, 2015 at 11:22 am #95846
weaselParticipantHUH….I expect its just a ploy to import even more immigrants…..
June 19, 2015 at 7:37 am #95887
bobo the clownParticipantNot before time. They ought never have undone Clwyd in the first place. All that’s happened since is overlapping of services often too small to then be efficient. Oh …. plus the incessant growth of vanity of the likes of Mark Pritchard.
I’m just relieved someone didn’t decide to have one authority across North Wales. I suppose we should be grateful for Betsi for something.
For what it’s worth the Council “civilians”, even at the very top levels, have been preparing for this for a good while, but the Councillors themselves have been instructing them they must not. I suppose they are concerned about their very lucrative lifestyles.
June 19, 2015 at 7:54 am #95888
CVA01Participant[quote quote=95887]Not before time. They ought never have undone Clwyd in the first place. All that’s happened since is overlapping of services often too small to then be efficient. Oh …. plus the incessant growth of vanity of the likes of Mark Pritchard.
I’m just relieved someone didn’t decide to have one authority across North Wales. I suppose we should be grateful for Betsi for something.
For what it’s worth the Council “civilians”, even at the very top levels, have been preparing for this for a good while, but the Councillors themselves have been instructing them they must not. I suppose they are concerned about their very lucrative lifestyles.
[/quote]
But what is being proposed isn’t a new Clwyd, even if the boundaries end up being similar. Clwyd was a two tier county comprised of a county council that delivered county wide/strategic services such as education, highways, strategic planning. Below that there were 6 district councils that provided services like bin collections, local planning etc.
The post 1974 counties such as Clwyd and their districts may not have been perfect, but it recognised that some services should be delivered on a county wide basis whereas others were more local in nature. What are likely to get is one large council delivering both typesof services. But the risl is local services are no longer local.
June 19, 2015 at 8:21 am #95894
FerretParticipantCVA01. You just saved me the trouble of saying the same thing. Whatever our views on the incumbents we should all be concerned about the loss of local voice.
June 21, 2015 at 10:54 am #95973
The MonitorParticipantFrankly, the whole exercise is a mishmash of ill thought out ideas with little or no thought to consequences.
The most significant revelation that has come from this exercise is that there is a total lack of consideration given to democracy and the democratic process.
This action should not be happening without A REFERENDUM OF THE WHOLE ELECTORATE in Wales.June 21, 2015 at 12:56 pm #95980
CVA01ParticipantBut referendums are only held when politicians want the electorate to endorse a government policy and think they’ll win. If they think they’ll lose – no referendum.
June 21, 2015 at 6:55 pm #95989
99DylanJonesParticipantAs stated before it does not matter what shape the boundaries eventually take it is about ensuring good leadership something that cannot be said for the current incumbents at both local and Welsh Government leave We all appreciate that some of the blame rest with Westminster and their budget cuts but you don’t need to have looked far to see massive waste of resources within the current administrations – something that would have been tackled if their was currently good leadership.
I am also unsure why people are rising issues of loss of democracy when this does not exist at the moment in Wrexham — 10 Executive members rule the roost- the other 42 democratically elected Members have no say or power. The 10 are also always hiding behind data gathered by the many faceless consultants so this protects their back when something is wrong as they just say they had been advised. -
AuthorPosts
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.