https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... devolution
Ludicrous headline here. And a not much better article.
Catastrophic dangers await Burnham’s push for English devolution
Phillip Inman
How can a danger be catastrophic? Either the catastrophe happens, or it doesn't. If It doesn't happen, it's not catastrophic. Is there a danger with devolution? Of course, but it can be popular and effective. Nobody is "ignoring the risk".
The prime minister’s devolution push will be messy because Whitehall’s ingrained anxiety about handing over money and power will lead to piecemeal deals, starting with a deal for Cornwall that will lack the much-promised driving force of a newly minted mayor.
The argument here seems to be that deals should all be the same. I live in Herefordshire, a pretty effective unitary council run by (in fairness to them) the Tories. Nobody wants the same level of devolution as to London or Greater Manchester, or what you might get to somewhere with a much bigger population, like Kent. The fact that a deal, if there even is one with Herefordshire, would be negotiated with the county is a strength not a weakness.
Mayors seem to be the preferred mode of fast track devolution, and Cornwall doesn't have one. But so what? It's a county with a much stronger identity than most, with some local issues around tourism and second homes that are distinct from nearly everyone else. Why should it move at the speed of Herefordshire if it wants to go faster?
And there is every prospect that it will be slow now that the reappointed housing secretary Angela Rayner’s reorganisation of local government, creating hundreds of unitary authorities where counties and districts once ruled, is mired in judicial reviews
This sounds like an extremely good reason to get rid of lots of these bodies.
There are claims that plans to divide some existing county councils into three, four or even five unitary authorities is politically motivated and that Labour has become seduced by the prospect of retaining a presence in local government through gerrymandering.
Misleading summary. The district councils are being abolished, some of them historically controlled by Labour. They're giving up these to have presumably a smaller chance of controlling much larger councils. And how many counties are being divided into 5 councils exactly? Essex is one, I know. Currently there are 12 district councils, plus a county council.
Surely these councils and combined authorities, many of which are also embryonic, will struggle to become public institutions with verve, drive, knowledge and experience, able to make good decisions in time for the next election in 2029.
Yeah, let's not do anything that looks beyond the next election.
It is, to use a well-worn cliche, just re-arranging deckchairs. And it is not just because the same people will be taking up the same roles in new offices (and yes, there will need to be five head offices instead of one in Essex).
Again misleading- there are currently 13 HQs (the 12 district and 1 county).
The public will rightly be sceptical when so many councils under the current system have fallen for the idea that they can raise themselves up if only they borrow lots of money and “invest it” in new stuff. A new high street with hotels and leisure facilities was Woking borough council’s dream until it crashed, £2bn in debt.
That happened under the current system. How many councils is "so many" anyway? And is it re-arranging deckchairs or a massive change? I think we should be told.
