Angela Rayner's Plans to get rid of Councils - What will that SAVE?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner wants to get rid of Councils and replace them with a Unitary Authority under a Mayor.

For Lincolnshire that would be 8 separate Councils gone.

It will either add yet another level of bureaucracy and or a lot of unemployment.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0xz4938z9o

[enfieldspares]

6 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

For Lincolnshire that would be 8 separate Councils gone.

Good. As the are if East Lindsey is anything to go by they'll not be missed. And will be abolishing them remove a level of bureaucracy will it not? 

[Yellow Bear]

6 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

And will be abolishing them remove a level of bureaucracy, it will not. 

small modification but will cost a lot more in more useless civil service jobs!!

[ditchman]

Angela is thinking out of her box again..........

[enfieldspares]

Alas what it also do by removing that tier is remove the out of proportion important local influence that local Green Party councillors have. So we will be saying goodbye to the number in my own District Council and, for that, I welcome that unintended consequence of these proposals.

[Westley]

1 silly mayor is enough  !   😄

[old man]

45 minutes ago, Westley said:

1 silly mayor is enough  !   😄

Species confusion?

[oowee]

43 minutes ago, old man said:

Species confusion?

🤣

3 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

Good. As the are if East Lindsey is anything to go by they'll not be missed. And will be abolishing them remove a level of bureaucracy will it not? 

I reckon.

[Westley]

1 hour ago, old man said:

Species confusion?

It was a play on 'Mare'  !😁

[12gauge82]

They'll be saying good bye to reform getting an opportunity to smash them in the local elections and the embarrassment of the public showing how much they dislike starmer and Labour. 

[old man]

4 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

They'll be saying good bye to reform getting an opportunity to smash them in the local elections and the embarrassment of the public showing how much they dislike starmer and Labour. 

How astute.

[vmaxphil]

Aren't they looking to cancel a lot of council elections in may due to "realignment" 

[Penelope]

12 hours ago, old man said:

Species confusion?

[12gauge82]

12 minutes ago, vmaxphil said:

Aren't they looking to cancel a lot of council elections in may due to "realignment" 

Exactly, how stupid does Labour think the public are!

[Vince Green]

I would put forward the suggestion that a disproportionatly high number of  councils are run by the Lib Dems. Just under a quarter of all councils are run by the lib dems. However, they still have a big minority on many other councils even though they dont have overall control.

They, and not the Conservatives, are the party of opposition on many, even most , Labour councils.

So it's a good way of freezing out the Lib Dems and neutralising their political influence.

Not very sophisticated but she is not very sophisticated is she?

Another step on the road to Soviet style labour control. 

Edited December 17 by Vince Green

[welsh1]

The worrying thing is the pushing of mayors, labour are all for 20mph and lots of congestion charging, ulez etc, they have shown it works in London with their pet mayor, and to an extent with manchester as well. If the mayors are given powers to generate revenue and they are labour then you better be ready for congestion charging and 20mph.

[Vince Green]

2 hours ago, welsh1 said:

The worrying thing is the pushing of mayors, labour are all for 20mph and lots of congestion charging, ulez etc, they have shown it works in London with their pet mayor, and to an extent with manchester as well. If the mayors are given powers to generate revenue and they are labour then you better be ready for congestion charging and 20mph.

They are not mayors they are stooges.

 

 

[100milesaway]

Another indication  how scared they are of reform.

From Auntie 

[Mungler]

Labour know they will get hammered at the local elections, and I mean wiped out / not a seat as everyone issues a protest vote for the lib dens and reform.

Change is coming over the horizon one way or another.

Incidentally, there is something I really don’t like about Ed Davey - he is a pantomime clown who will stop at nothing to get on the telly. 

[100milesaway]

Confusion reigns, how come there are endless debates in parliament on things that get shelved or they run out of time, and something as serious as this get passed in the blink of an eye without debate.

From Auntie 

[Penelope]

5 hours ago, Mungler said:

Labour know they will get hammered at the local elections, and I mean wiped out / not a seat as everyone issues a protest vote for the lib dens and reform.

Change is coming over the horizon one way or another.

Incidentally, there is something I really don’t like about Ed Davey - he is a pantomime clown who will stop at nothing to get on the telly. 

His election campaign was like a six formers outwards bounds week.

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, 100milesaway said:

Confusion reigns, how come there are endless debates in parliament on things that get shelved or they run out of time, and something as serious as this get passed in the blink of an eye without debate.

From Auntie 

I think there is a procedural reason for this.  The ones that are 'stopped' are often 'Private Members Bills' and MPs are allowed to "Object" and stop them dead.  Rules here;

https://guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/articles/NmenXnPz/objecting-to-a-private-bill

You can prevent a private bill from passing without debate through second reading, report stage and third reading: You can call “object” when the Clerk reads the title of the bill immediately after Prayers. This prevents the bill from making any progress that day.

However that doesn't apply to Gov't bills.

In fact this "Object" procedure is often used by 'rogue' MPs seemingly just to cause disruption, but claimed to be because there has been insufficient debate.  A Tory (Sir Christopher Chope) is notorious for stopping other Private Members Bills regularly using this technique.

[Vince Green]

Just now, Penelope said:

His election campaign was like a six formers outwards bounds week.

When you have nothing to say you need to do something 

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, The lady is a liability in the UK now, A sting in the tail for the Waspi ladies 

[old man]

7 hours ago, Mungler said:

Labour know they will get hammered at the local elections, and I mean wiped out / not a seat as everyone issues a protest vote for the lib dens and reform.

Change is coming over the horizon one way or another.

Incidentally, there is something I really don’t like about Ed Davey - he is a pantomime clown who will stop at nothing to get on the telly. 

That sir is a bit unkind to clowns?

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I think there is a procedural reason for this.  The ones that are 'stopped' are often 'Private Members Bills' and MPs are allowed to "Object" and stop them dead.  Rules here;

https://guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/articles/NmenXnPz/objecting-to-a-private-bill

You can prevent a private bill from passing without debate through second reading, report stage and third reading: You can call “object” when the Clerk reads the title of the bill immediately after Prayers. This prevents the bill from making any progress that day.

However that doesn't apply to Gov't bills.

In fact this "Object" procedure is often used by 'rogue' MPs seemingly just to cause disruption, but claimed to be because there has been insufficient debate.  A Tory (Sir Christopher Chope) is notorious for stopping other Private Members Bills regularly using this technique.

The way ti's is going it will need more than prayers to sort out?