Starmer’s chronicles

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Escapee

I suspect that the hastily mentioned council mergers are just an excuse to delay elections next year. Starmer knows he's going to get a kicking but he also knows the electorate has a very poor memory.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...r-nigel-farage

If it makes for more cost effective local government I'm all for it. I can't imagine Starmer with his big majority is losing sleep over council elections.

---------- Post added at 01:11 ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

How did you come to that conclusion? Johnson won the election due to his stance on Brexit.

Both Johnson and Corbyn agreed to implement Brexit so clearly that wasn't the reason. Johnson won because he wasn't Corbyn.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Damien

The reforms are pretty radical I am surprised it's not reported on more: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30n72j4nrqo



The Mayors would also have the power to override planning decisions allowing them to consider the entire region rather than what might be a very NIMBY council.



And this makes sense although it would take a while to implement as presumably you need to wait for the private contracts to expire.

I do actually think it's a good thing, my local council resisted when they were told to combine with another local authority. I am aware that redundancies have been announced in my local council and although I feel that there needs to be a shake up, I wonder if some union action will be on the horizon.

I think the timing and focus on this has much to do with the huge losses that are expected for Labour in the 2025 elections.

---------- Post added at 07:14 ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If it makes for more cost effective local government I'm all for it. I can't imagine Starmer with his big majority is losing sleep over council elections.

Big losses will be a smack in the face to Starmer, otherwise why would he bother engineering the timing of this.

These elections are a chance for voters, including Labour ones to show their approval or not.

Originally Posted by Escapee

I do actually think it's a good thing, my local council resisted when they were told to combine with another local authority. I am aware that redundancies have been announced in my local council and although I feel that there needs to be a shake up, I wonder if some union action will be on the horizon.

I think the timing and focus on this has much to do with the huge losses that are expected for Labour in the 2025 elections.

There are council elections nearly every year and it would have taken time for those proposals to be put together. I don't think they've been rushed out.

2025 will be bad for Labour but it's on a cycle that was kind to the Tories last time out so the damage to them will be somewhat limited. It's likely a bad night for Labour and the Tories who lose a ton of seats to Reform.

I think the elections will go ahead but hopefully these changes are already passed and set in motion otherwise you'll get more resistance. It might mean the election is pointless and you need another one very soon but it will be easier politically.

Originally Posted by Escapee

I do actually think it's a good thing, my local council resisted when they were told to combine with another local authority. I am aware that redundancies have been announced in my local council and although I feel that there needs to be a shake up, I wonder if some union action will be on the horizon.

I think the timing and focus on this has much to do with the huge losses that are expected for Labour in the 2025 elections.

---------- Post added at 07:14 ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 ----------



Big losses will be a smack in the face to Starmer, otherwise why would he bother engineering the timing of this.

These elections are a chance for voters, including Labour ones to show their approval or not.

The shire county councils that will disappear are mostly Tory. Starmer is delaying council elections, giving Tories longer in their county hall, and replacing them with unitary authorities in areas where they will likely still be Tory.

Originally Posted by Damien

The reforms are pretty radical I am surprised it's not reported on more: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30n72j4nrqo

This is a radical shake-up if you still live in a part of the country that somehow still has the local government set up that was implemented in 1974 (or something akin to it), but all of Wales, all of Scotland and most of England’s major towns and cities moved to unitary local authorities years ago and I’d be interested to hear what % of the population any of this actually applies to now. I suspect the noise being generated around this is due to the media and senior business types living in the shires and commuting into the major cities to work still being more familiar with two-tier local government than most of us.

Unitary local authorities are themselves imperfect of course, but metro-mayors have been a useful innovation that corrects for that where strategic oversight is needed (transport infrastructure in places like Merseyside, Manchester and London for example).

Originally Posted by Chris

This is a radical shake-up if you still live in a part of the country that somehow still has the local government set up that was implemented in 1974 (or something akin to it), but all of Wales, all of Scotland and most of England’s major towns and cities moved to unitary local authorities years ago and I’d be interested to hear what % of the population any of this actually applies to now.

The article says about 50% of England has a Mayor now so the other 50% will likely be impacted by this.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Chris

The shire county councils that will disappear are mostly Tory. Starmer is delaying council elections, giving Tories longer in their county hall, and replacing them with unitary authorities in areas where they will likely still be Tory.

They have played around a lot with the local boundaries in my area of South Wales in my lifetime. One part of Cwmbran that wasn't a Labour voting area was placed in Monmouthshire so it didn't pose any danger to Torfaen's Labour hold in the local council elections.

I'm not sure, but I did hear some talk about it being moved back into Torfaen as Monmouthshire now has a Labour council and Labour MP.

Even from a local council area view, the street I live in is oddly tagged onto another area that doesn't make sense.

This has clearly been coming for a long time but Labour have decided to bite the bullet (and lose even more votes) by rejecting any compensation for the WASPI women:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr36842nd6o

Campaigners have reacted with fury to what it calls the government's "unjustified" rejection of compensation for women hit by changes to the state pension age.

They say 3.6 million women born in the 1950s were not properly informed of the rise in state pension age to bring them into line with men.

Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall apologised for a 28-month delay in sending letters, but has rejected any kind of financial payouts.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

This has clearly been coming for a long time but Labour have decided to bite the bullet (and lose even more votes) by rejecting any compensation for the WASPI women:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr36842nd6o

100% an unpopular decision, I wonder if it’s a case of there being not enough money left in the pot after the last lot emptied the economy in to their mates’ pockets.

[Pierre]

They don't care about any demographic that probably didn't vote for them.

It would have cost billions so I don't think it was ever likely to happen, especially with the amount of notice they had that the state pension age was being made equal between men and women.

[Kursk]

The Chair of the WASPI Campaign said :

"This is a bizarre and totally unjustified move which will leave everyone asking what the point of an ombudsman is if ministers can simply ignore their decisions."

She has a point. Get rid of Ombudsmen; Police Commissioners; the Labour Cabinet; Ministers heating bills; the £100m that the foreign secretary gave to Syria; all other overseas aid and dish the dosh to the WASPIs.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Kursk

The Chair of the WASPI Campaign said :

"This is a bizarre and totally unjustified move which will leave everyone asking what the point of an ombudsman is if ministers can simply ignore their decisions."

She has a point. Get rid of Ombudsmen; Police Commissioners; the Labour Cabinet; Ministers heating bills; the £100m that the foreign secretary gave to Syria; all other overseas aid and dish the dosh to the WASPIs.

That's not going to come to 10 billion, maybe going after the tax avoiders would put a dent in it though...

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Kursk

The Chair of the WASPI Campaign said :

"This is a bizarre and totally unjustified move which will leave everyone asking what the point of an ombudsman is if ministers can simply ignore their decisions."

She has a point. Get rid of Ombudsmen; Police Commissioners; the Labour Cabinet; Ministers heating bills; the £100m that the foreign secretary gave to Syria; all other overseas aid and dish the dosh to the WASPIs.

How can money given to Syria be then also given to anyone else?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

How can money given to Syria be then also given to anyone else?

I bet Rachael reeves could steal it back especially if it's going to elderly Syrians

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

How can money given to Syria be then also given to anyone else?

Good point. Are you questioning the foreign secretary's priorities?