NevTheSweeper wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:22 pm
I worked for a London council for 18 years as a humble roadsweeper, later as a refuse collector. I have seen at the sharp end when the first government cuts came. So what's your f***ing point?
OK, let's start with a few basics. District councils are, in many cases, a historical hangover from the days when being in Lindsay or Kesteven (or wherever) meant something. Where they exist as an intermediate stage between parish and county, they're talking shops. They create massive work duplication, and have very few executive powers. Want a new park bench? Ask your parish council. Want a new park? Ask the county.
Abolishing district councils was expressly forbidden by the Cameron government, despite being in the eyes of the Local Government Association (LGA) the most effective way to save LAs money. It was ruled out because a) loads of ex-councillors running to the press, and b) the government wanted to actually hurt LAs, so removing the easy saving option guaranteed that actual public facing services would be cut. Among them waste disposal, and believe me when I say I commiserate with you on that.
In some areas, splitting councils up does make sense. I've worked for Cheshire Shared Services (HR, IT etc for both Cheshire East, and Cheshire West and Chester), and Cumbria (up to its split into Cumberland and Westmorland). In both cases, the splits made sense. Cumberland (Allerdale, Copeland, Carlisle) is broadly industrial, urban, and Labour. Westmorland (Eden, South Lakes, Furness) is broadly rural, touristy, and Tory. When they were one body, whichever party was in power was notorious for not giving a shit about the half of the county with the wrong affiliation. Sometimes a densely urban area in an otherwise rural setting (e.g. Telford and Shropshire, or Leicester and Leicestershire), the town has very different needs to the countryside. But generally, one body can provide the representation, oversight and scrutiny, while streamlining the decision making process.
Regional assemblies, with substantial decision making powers and budgets, were a pet project of the late John Prescott. They were scuppered though, in a referendum. Painted as yet another wasteful layer of government, and a talking shop for failed politicians by one D. Cummings, who led the campaign against them. They could work, although they run the risk of being dominated by a faction. A bit like how North West Tonight (other regional news programmes are available) rarely strays from Manchester and Liverpool. Either way though, I'm not quite sure how replacing district oversight with regional makes any sort of improvement, let alone difference. It comes down to where decisions can be made, and where the money is. You can vote for or against whatever you like, but without a budget you're not doing anything.
Shared services do save money, and can work very well when providing a statutory level of provision (i.e. where regardless of politics, a given service level has to be provided). In terms of back office functions (as it is in Cheshire), there's a certain amount of "do 18.5 hours for CEC, then 18.5 for CWaC, because they're each paying half your salary", but generally you got on with the job in front of you (and besides, in ICT, most services use the same software anyway, so what you do for one council you replicate for the other).
100 %
