Poole residents asked for their views on proposals for new council ward boundaries

Bournemouth Echo: VIEWS: Poole Civic Centre VIEWS: Poole Civic Centre

RESIDENTS are being consulted on draft proposals for new council ward boundaries across Poole.

The 10-week public consultation is being held by the independent Local Government Boundary Commission for England, for people to give their views on new council wards, ward boundaries, and ward names across the borough.

Included in the draft recommendation are the proposals that Borough of Poole should continue to have 42 councillors but they should represent two six-member wards and 10 three-member wards across the area.

Max Caller CBE, Chair of the Commission, said: “We are publishing proposals for a new pattern of wards across Poole and we are keen to hear what local people think of the recommendations.

“Over the next 10 weeks, we are asking local people to tell us if they agree with the proposals, or if not, how they can be improved. Our review aims to deliver electoral equality for local voters.

“This means that each councillor represents a similar number of electors, so that everyone’s vote in council elections is worth roughly the same regardless of where you live.

“We also want to ensure that our proposals reflect the interests and identities of local communities across Poole and that the pattern of wards can help the council deliver effective local government to local people.”

Creekmoor ward councillor Judy Butt welcomes the proposed boundary changes. She said: “We are thrilled to bits.

“The Conservatives won their option. It takes in a few roads at the top of the ward.”

She added: “The fight isn’t over. It now goes out to consultation. We need to make sure our residents say, ‘Yes, this is what we want’.”

Members of the public can express their views through writing to The Review Officer (Poole), Local Government Boundary Commission for England, Layden House, 76 – 86 Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG or emailing Reviews@lgbce.org.uk For a list of the full recommendations and interactive maps, go to the website consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:35am Thu 17 Apr 14

Mad Karew says...

The Commission's favoured proposal is the obvious way to go - minimum change, minimum hassle and confusion, minimum extra cost for the Council.

Judy, thanks for coming up with the most sensible and pragmatic solution.
The Commission's favoured proposal is the obvious way to go - minimum change, minimum hassle and confusion, minimum extra cost for the Council. Judy, thanks for coming up with the most sensible and pragmatic solution. Mad Karew
  • Score: 2

8:36am Thu 17 Apr 14

Carolyn43 says...

Having looked at the proposals, there's not a lot of change.
.......
Ensuring that there are the same number of voters in each ward doesn't mean a lot, especially when it comes to "help the council deliver effective local government to local people." as councillors usually vote on party lines anyway.
Having looked at the proposals, there's not a lot of change. ....... Ensuring that there are the same number of voters in each ward doesn't mean a lot, especially when it comes to "help the council deliver effective local government to local people." as councillors usually vote on party lines anyway. Carolyn43
  • Score: 3

11:12am Thu 17 Apr 14

Ebb Tide says...

Hopefully the Commission has respected the wishes of the various communities - in view of the spirit and intention of the Localism Act.

If such hope is misplaced no doubt it will become obvious over the next month or so.

People in 'ivory towers' sometimes need help to understand the effects of what they sanction or propose to authorize. Surely, if necessary, such help will be given ! ???
Hopefully the Commission has respected the wishes of the various communities - in view of the spirit and intention of the Localism Act. If such hope is misplaced no doubt it will become obvious over the next month or so. People in 'ivory towers' sometimes need help to understand the effects of what they sanction or propose to authorize. Surely, if necessary, such help will be given ! ??? Ebb Tide
  • Score: 2

1:15pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Mad Karew says...

The proposal the LDs put forward consisted of wholesale rejigging, moving several thousand people from one ward to another, and was obviously political motivated gerrymandering in the hope of gaining another LD seat.

It's nice to see the Boundary Commission wasn't taken in and opted for the simpler solution. However, it's not over yet as there's another 12 weeks of consultation to come, so it all could go wrong yet.
The proposal the LDs put forward consisted of wholesale rejigging, moving several thousand people from one ward to another, and was obviously political motivated gerrymandering in the hope of gaining another LD seat. It's nice to see the Boundary Commission wasn't taken in and opted for the simpler solution. However, it's not over yet as there's another 12 weeks of consultation to come, so it all could go wrong yet. Mad Karew
  • Score: 3

1:49pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Ebb Tide says...

Mad Karew wrote:
The proposal the LDs put forward consisted of wholesale rejigging, moving several thousand people from one ward to another, and was obviously political motivated gerrymandering in the hope of gaining another LD seat.

It's nice to see the Boundary Commission wasn't taken in and opted for the simpler solution. However, it's not over yet as there's another 12 weeks of consultation to come, so it all could go wrong yet.
Consultation makes things "go wrong" ? Foe whom ? Presumably not those being consulted !!
[quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: The proposal the LDs put forward consisted of wholesale rejigging, moving several thousand people from one ward to another, and was obviously political motivated gerrymandering in the hope of gaining another LD seat. It's nice to see the Boundary Commission wasn't taken in and opted for the simpler solution. However, it's not over yet as there's another 12 weeks of consultation to come, so it all could go wrong yet.[/p][/quote]Consultation makes things "go wrong" ? Foe whom ? Presumably not those being consulted !! Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Thu 17 Apr 14

SuperSnooper says...

Of course the better option would have been a 30 decrease in the number PC councillors, probably cheaper to have kept boundaries the same just made wards two councillor rather than three.
Would have saved loads
Of course the better option would have been a 30 decrease in the number PC councillors, probably cheaper to have kept boundaries the same just made wards two councillor rather than three. Would have saved loads SuperSnooper
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Thu 17 Apr 14

SuperSnooper says...

Sorry I meant 30% decrease
Sorry I meant 30% decrease SuperSnooper
  • Score: -1

2:01pm Thu 17 Apr 14

SuperSnooper says...

The same could also apply to MP's,, although I suspect a 50% reduction is probably better.
Let's be honest these days councillors and MP's have very little constituents work to do, it's not common these days to approach your councillor or MP with issues, we are far better informned now as to the best way to resolve problems
The same could also apply to MP's,, although I suspect a 50% reduction is probably better. Let's be honest these days councillors and MP's have very little constituents work to do, it's not common these days to approach your councillor or MP with issues, we are far better informned now as to the best way to resolve problems SuperSnooper
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Having looked at the proposals, there's not a lot of change.
.......
Ensuring that there are the same number of voters in each ward doesn't mean a lot, especially when it comes to "help the council deliver effective local government to local people." as councillors usually vote on party lines anyway.
Apart from UKIP and Poole People of course who are free to vote however they see fit, in the best interest of their constituents.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Having looked at the proposals, there's not a lot of change. ....... Ensuring that there are the same number of voters in each ward doesn't mean a lot, especially when it comes to "help the council deliver effective local government to local people." as councillors usually vote on party lines anyway.[/p][/quote]Apart from UKIP and Poole People of course who are free to vote however they see fit, in the best interest of their constituents. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 3

6:19pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Mad Karew wrote:
The Commission's favoured proposal is the obvious way to go - minimum change, minimum hassle and confusion, minimum extra cost for the Council.

Judy, thanks for coming up with the most sensible and pragmatic solution.
With just over 12 months to the 2015 local and general elections I really cannot agree with you more on minimising any changes, I would actually prefer none until after 2015 but hey oh. Well done yet again to Judy Butt, bet that will have SS smashing her keyboard ;)
[quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: The Commission's favoured proposal is the obvious way to go - minimum change, minimum hassle and confusion, minimum extra cost for the Council. Judy, thanks for coming up with the most sensible and pragmatic solution.[/p][/quote]With just over 12 months to the 2015 local and general elections I really cannot agree with you more on minimising any changes, I would actually prefer none until after 2015 but hey oh. Well done yet again to Judy Butt, bet that will have SS smashing her keyboard ;) Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Thu 17 Apr 14

SuperSnooper says...

Oh,,,,, I have broken my keyboard.... Oops
Oh,,,,, I have broken my keyboard.... Oops SuperSnooper
  • Score: 2

9:38pm Thu 17 Apr 14

dogsoftheworld says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Mad Karew wrote:
The Commission's favoured proposal is the obvious way to go - minimum change, minimum hassle and confusion, minimum extra cost for the Council.

Judy, thanks for coming up with the most sensible and pragmatic solution.
With just over 12 months to the 2015 local and general elections I really cannot agree with you more on minimising any changes, I would actually prefer none until after 2015 but hey oh. Well done yet again to Judy Butt, bet that will have SS smashing her keyboard ;)
Quite right, the only plausible and feasible solution, jointly proposed by:
Cllr Peter Adams,
Cllr Ian Potter,
Cllr John Rampton,
Cllr Les Burden,
Cllr Judy Butt,
Michael Tomlinson (MDNP Consrvatives),
Alan Lewis (MDNP Conservatives),
David Newell (MDNP Conservatives),
and others.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: The Commission's favoured proposal is the obvious way to go - minimum change, minimum hassle and confusion, minimum extra cost for the Council. Judy, thanks for coming up with the most sensible and pragmatic solution.[/p][/quote]With just over 12 months to the 2015 local and general elections I really cannot agree with you more on minimising any changes, I would actually prefer none until after 2015 but hey oh. Well done yet again to Judy Butt, bet that will have SS smashing her keyboard ;)[/p][/quote]Quite right, the only plausible and feasible solution, jointly proposed by: Cllr Peter Adams, Cllr Ian Potter, Cllr John Rampton, Cllr Les Burden, Cllr Judy Butt, Michael Tomlinson (MDNP Consrvatives), Alan Lewis (MDNP Conservatives), David Newell (MDNP Conservatives), and others. dogsoftheworld
  • Score: 0

10:36pm Thu 17 Apr 14

SuperSnooper says...

dogsoftheworld wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Mad Karew wrote:
The Commission's favoured proposal is the obvious way to go - minimum change, minimum hassle and confusion, minimum extra cost for the Council.

Judy, thanks for coming up with the most sensible and pragmatic solution.
With just over 12 months to the 2015 local and general elections I really cannot agree with you more on minimising any changes, I would actually prefer none until after 2015 but hey oh. Well done yet again to Judy Butt, bet that will have SS smashing her keyboard ;)
Quite right, the only plausible and feasible solution, jointly proposed by:
Cllr Peter Adams,
Cllr Ian Potter,
Cllr John Rampton,
Cllr Les Burden,
Cllr Judy Butt,
Michael Tomlinson (MDNP Consrvatives),
Alan Lewis (MDNP Conservatives),
David Newell (MDNP Conservatives),
and others.
Dream on,,, it's not all about creekmoor,,, any decent polititions would be looking at reducing the cost of government and reducing the number of councillors that actually do very little...
Creekmoor does not matter,, never has,, it's a marginal that after Butts latest rants and appalling behavior has now been lost,, the liberals love her for it,,, I suppose some one has to...
America is I don't know how much bigger than us, with an economy we could only dream of,, but they manage with less polititions than us !!! Work that one out...
[quote][p][bold]dogsoftheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: The Commission's favoured proposal is the obvious way to go - minimum change, minimum hassle and confusion, minimum extra cost for the Council. Judy, thanks for coming up with the most sensible and pragmatic solution.[/p][/quote]With just over 12 months to the 2015 local and general elections I really cannot agree with you more on minimising any changes, I would actually prefer none until after 2015 but hey oh. Well done yet again to Judy Butt, bet that will have SS smashing her keyboard ;)[/p][/quote]Quite right, the only plausible and feasible solution, jointly proposed by: Cllr Peter Adams, Cllr Ian Potter, Cllr John Rampton, Cllr Les Burden, Cllr Judy Butt, Michael Tomlinson (MDNP Consrvatives), Alan Lewis (MDNP Conservatives), David Newell (MDNP Conservatives), and others.[/p][/quote]Dream on,,, it's not all about creekmoor,,, any decent polititions would be looking at reducing the cost of government and reducing the number of councillors that actually do very little... Creekmoor does not matter,, never has,, it's a marginal that after Butts latest rants and appalling behavior has now been lost,, the liberals love her for it,,, I suppose some one has to... America is I don't know how much bigger than us, with an economy we could only dream of,, but they manage with less polititions than us !!! Work that one out... SuperSnooper
  • Score: -2

8:04am Fri 18 Apr 14

Mad Karew says...

SuperSnooper wrote:
dogsoftheworld wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Mad Karew wrote:
The Commission's favoured proposal is the obvious way to go - minimum change, minimum hassle and confusion, minimum extra cost for the Council.

Judy, thanks for coming up with the most sensible and pragmatic solution.
With just over 12 months to the 2015 local and general elections I really cannot agree with you more on minimising any changes, I would actually prefer none until after 2015 but hey oh. Well done yet again to Judy Butt, bet that will have SS smashing her keyboard ;)
Quite right, the only plausible and feasible solution, jointly proposed by:
Cllr Peter Adams,
Cllr Ian Potter,
Cllr John Rampton,
Cllr Les Burden,
Cllr Judy Butt,
Michael Tomlinson (MDNP Consrvatives),
Alan Lewis (MDNP Conservatives),
David Newell (MDNP Conservatives),
and others.
Dream on,,, it's not all about creekmoor,,, any decent polititions would be looking at reducing the cost of government and reducing the number of councillors that actually do very little...
Creekmoor does not matter,, never has,, it's a marginal that after Butts latest rants and appalling behavior has now been lost,, the liberals love her for it,,, I suppose some one has to...
America is I don't know how much bigger than us, with an economy we could only dream of,, but they manage with less polititions than us !!! Work that one out...
Reducing the cost of local government is something that is preoccupying both local and national government in a big way.

The trouble is that reducing the number of elected representatives means more decisions taken by paid officials behind closed doors instead of in open forum. In an ideal world, every major Council decision would be taken by referendum, but the cost would be prohibitive and decision making would virtually stagnate because consultation takes time. By contrast, the most efficient model would be to have a small group of decision makers who can make decisions quickly and cheaply without consultation, but the public would have no input at all. So a balance has to be drawn somewhere; that is decided by the Boundary Commission and in Poole's case has just been reviewed in the last few months.

I couldn't find any direct comparison between US and UK in terms of population per local representative, but their system of local govt seems to be similar to ours, with a similarly wide range of conurbation types, population density, and styles of local govt to suit the area they serve. They trend much more heavily towards directly elected mayors, which in Poole was rejected by public referendum.
[quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dogsoftheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: The Commission's favoured proposal is the obvious way to go - minimum change, minimum hassle and confusion, minimum extra cost for the Council. Judy, thanks for coming up with the most sensible and pragmatic solution.[/p][/quote]With just over 12 months to the 2015 local and general elections I really cannot agree with you more on minimising any changes, I would actually prefer none until after 2015 but hey oh. Well done yet again to Judy Butt, bet that will have SS smashing her keyboard ;)[/p][/quote]Quite right, the only plausible and feasible solution, jointly proposed by: Cllr Peter Adams, Cllr Ian Potter, Cllr John Rampton, Cllr Les Burden, Cllr Judy Butt, Michael Tomlinson (MDNP Consrvatives), Alan Lewis (MDNP Conservatives), David Newell (MDNP Conservatives), and others.[/p][/quote]Dream on,,, it's not all about creekmoor,,, any decent polititions would be looking at reducing the cost of government and reducing the number of councillors that actually do very little... Creekmoor does not matter,, never has,, it's a marginal that after Butts latest rants and appalling behavior has now been lost,, the liberals love her for it,,, I suppose some one has to... America is I don't know how much bigger than us, with an economy we could only dream of,, but they manage with less polititions than us !!! Work that one out...[/p][/quote]Reducing the cost of local government is something that is preoccupying both local and national government in a big way. The trouble is that reducing the number of elected representatives means more decisions taken by paid officials behind closed doors instead of in open forum. In an ideal world, every major Council decision would be taken by referendum, but the cost would be prohibitive and decision making would virtually stagnate because consultation takes time. By contrast, the most efficient model would be to have a small group of decision makers who can make decisions quickly and cheaply without consultation, but the public would have no input at all. So a balance has to be drawn somewhere; that is decided by the Boundary Commission and in Poole's case has just been reviewed in the last few months. I couldn't find any direct comparison between US and UK in terms of population per local representative, but their system of local govt seems to be similar to ours, with a similarly wide range of conurbation types, population density, and styles of local govt to suit the area they serve. They trend much more heavily towards directly elected mayors, which in Poole was rejected by public referendum. Mad Karew
  • Score: 0

11:05am Fri 18 Apr 14

SuperSnooper says...

OK Leo,,,
Well spun out and the party line...
I have worked and advised on elections in many countries and without doubt we have the highest number of polititions, and most do very little as the way out system works is the few make all the decisions and the rest just make up the numbers,, with half the politions no one would notice any difference, because you would still have the same number of decision makers...

We have a ridiculously high cost of government in this country, but of course it's not in the interest of any politition to reduce the numbers.

Interestingly, if you look back on old reports when Atkinson first became leader of Poole she was on a cost cutting excersise and she proposed to also reduce the number of councillors,, she was told she couldn't do that, it's up the the boundary commission, and it would take several years, well here we now are several years later and the good old boundary commission is saying no change in numbers,,, what a waste of money.
OK Leo,,, Well spun out and the party line... I have worked and advised on elections in many countries and without doubt we have the highest number of polititions, and most do very little as the way out system works is the few make all the decisions and the rest just make up the numbers,, with half the politions no one would notice any difference, because you would still have the same number of decision makers... We have a ridiculously high cost of government in this country, but of course it's not in the interest of any politition to reduce the numbers. Interestingly, if you look back on old reports when Atkinson first became leader of Poole she was on a cost cutting excersise and she proposed to also reduce the number of councillors,, she was told she couldn't do that, it's up the the boundary commission, and it would take several years, well here we now are several years later and the good old boundary commission is saying no change in numbers,,, what a waste of money. SuperSnooper
  • Score: 0

11:41am Fri 18 Apr 14

Mad Karew says...

In fact the cost cutting has been ongoing since before Atkinson's time, enforced by a combination of reducing central government grant, CT freeze and increasing responsibilities which are not funded (or only for the first year or two). They were mainly back office at first but for the last couple of years have been hitting front line services.

Admittedly many of the cllrs do very little; either they are lazy or they are given little to do. (If you pay peanuts you get monkeys..........) I don't particularly agree with the Cabinet system which was imposed on us by Blair's govt and effectively disenfranchises most of the cllrs. It could now be changed under Localism but as it was originally imposed by public referendum it needs another one to change it at vast cost. And, of course, as you say the leading politicians have no motivation to change anything and lose their extra allowances.
In fact the cost cutting has been ongoing since before Atkinson's time, enforced by a combination of reducing central government grant, CT freeze and increasing responsibilities which are not funded (or only for the first year or two). They were mainly back office at first but for the last couple of years have been hitting front line services. Admittedly many of the cllrs do very little; either they are lazy or they are given little to do. (If you pay peanuts you get monkeys..........) I don't particularly agree with the Cabinet system which was imposed on us by Blair's govt and effectively disenfranchises most of the cllrs. It could now be changed under Localism but as it was originally imposed by public referendum it needs another one to change it at vast cost. And, of course, as you say the leading politicians have no motivation to change anything and lose their extra allowances. Mad Karew
  • Score: 1

12:22pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Jo__Go says...

Old PooperScooper can't let go, can he?

I'd dearly love to know what it is that triggered his hatred of Creekmoor, but I suppose most obsessions have very little rooted in reality.
Old PooperScooper can't let go, can he? I'd dearly love to know what it is that triggered his hatred of Creekmoor, but I suppose most obsessions have very little rooted in reality. Jo__Go
  • Score: 1

12:29pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Jo__Go says...

PooperScooper wrote:

"I have worked and advised on elections in many countries and without doubt we have the highest number of polititions"

You've worked and advised on elections in many countries ... and still can't spell 'politicians'?

Maybe just me, but seems a tad unlikely...
PooperScooper wrote: "I have worked and advised on elections in many countries and without doubt we have the highest number of polititions" You've worked and advised on elections in many countries ... and still can't spell 'politicians'? Maybe just me, but seems a tad unlikely... Jo__Go
  • Score: 1

1:08pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Ebb Tide says...

Mad Karew wrote:
SuperSnooper wrote:
dogsoftheworld wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Mad Karew wrote:
The Commission's favoured proposal is the obvious way to go - minimum change, minimum hassle and confusion, minimum extra cost for the Council.

Judy, thanks for coming up with the most sensible and pragmatic solution.
With just over 12 months to the 2015 local and general elections I really cannot agree with you more on minimising any changes, I would actually prefer none until after 2015 but hey oh. Well done yet again to Judy Butt, bet that will have SS smashing her keyboard ;)
Quite right, the only plausible and feasible solution, jointly proposed by:
Cllr Peter Adams,
Cllr Ian Potter,
Cllr John Rampton,
Cllr Les Burden,
Cllr Judy Butt,
Michael Tomlinson (MDNP Consrvatives),
Alan Lewis (MDNP Conservatives),
David Newell (MDNP Conservatives),
and others.
Dream on,,, it's not all about creekmoor,,, any decent polititions would be looking at reducing the cost of government and reducing the number of councillors that actually do very little...
Creekmoor does not matter,, never has,, it's a marginal that after Butts latest rants and appalling behavior has now been lost,, the liberals love her for it,,, I suppose some one has to...
America is I don't know how much bigger than us, with an economy we could only dream of,, but they manage with less polititions than us !!! Work that one out...
Reducing the cost of local government is something that is preoccupying both local and national government in a big way.

The trouble is that reducing the number of elected representatives means more decisions taken by paid officials behind closed doors instead of in open forum. In an ideal world, every major Council decision would be taken by referendum, but the cost would be prohibitive and decision making would virtually stagnate because consultation takes time. By contrast, the most efficient model would be to have a small group of decision makers who can make decisions quickly and cheaply without consultation, but the public would have no input at all. So a balance has to be drawn somewhere; that is decided by the Boundary Commission and in Poole's case has just been reviewed in the last few months.

I couldn't find any direct comparison between US and UK in terms of population per local representative, but their system of local govt seems to be similar to ours, with a similarly wide range of conurbation types, population density, and styles of local govt to suit the area they serve. They trend much more heavily towards directly elected mayors, which in Poole was rejected by public referendum.
What price the role of the Localism Act ? "Public Engagement" could be used to reduce the number of Councillors / clandestine decisions by Borough employees but such a possibility is being stifled (apparently by one political party) - WHY ?

Modern technology increases the chances of better communication and thence better understandings. Effective implementation of sustainable policies could then be more likely.
[quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dogsoftheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: The Commission's favoured proposal is the obvious way to go - minimum change, minimum hassle and confusion, minimum extra cost for the Council. Judy, thanks for coming up with the most sensible and pragmatic solution.[/p][/quote]With just over 12 months to the 2015 local and general elections I really cannot agree with you more on minimising any changes, I would actually prefer none until after 2015 but hey oh. Well done yet again to Judy Butt, bet that will have SS smashing her keyboard ;)[/p][/quote]Quite right, the only plausible and feasible solution, jointly proposed by: Cllr Peter Adams, Cllr Ian Potter, Cllr John Rampton, Cllr Les Burden, Cllr Judy Butt, Michael Tomlinson (MDNP Consrvatives), Alan Lewis (MDNP Conservatives), David Newell (MDNP Conservatives), and others.[/p][/quote]Dream on,,, it's not all about creekmoor,,, any decent polititions would be looking at reducing the cost of government and reducing the number of councillors that actually do very little... Creekmoor does not matter,, never has,, it's a marginal that after Butts latest rants and appalling behavior has now been lost,, the liberals love her for it,,, I suppose some one has to... America is I don't know how much bigger than us, with an economy we could only dream of,, but they manage with less polititions than us !!! Work that one out...[/p][/quote]Reducing the cost of local government is something that is preoccupying both local and national government in a big way. The trouble is that reducing the number of elected representatives means more decisions taken by paid officials behind closed doors instead of in open forum. In an ideal world, every major Council decision would be taken by referendum, but the cost would be prohibitive and decision making would virtually stagnate because consultation takes time. By contrast, the most efficient model would be to have a small group of decision makers who can make decisions quickly and cheaply without consultation, but the public would have no input at all. So a balance has to be drawn somewhere; that is decided by the Boundary Commission and in Poole's case has just been reviewed in the last few months. I couldn't find any direct comparison between US and UK in terms of population per local representative, but their system of local govt seems to be similar to ours, with a similarly wide range of conurbation types, population density, and styles of local govt to suit the area they serve. They trend much more heavily towards directly elected mayors, which in Poole was rejected by public referendum.[/p][/quote]What price the role of the Localism Act ? "Public Engagement" could be used to reduce the number of Councillors / clandestine decisions by Borough employees but such a possibility is being stifled (apparently by one political party) - WHY ? Modern technology increases the chances of better communication and thence better understandings. Effective implementation of sustainable policies could then be more likely. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Mad Karew says...

The Council's public engagement has been under review and that's one of proposals coming forward.

It takes time to go through the process because this also requires public eengagement and consultation.
The Council's public engagement has been under review and that's one of proposals coming forward. It takes time to go through the process because this also requires public eengagement and consultation. Mad Karew
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Fri 18 Apr 14

SuperSnooper says...

Jo__Go wrote:
PooperScooper wrote:

"I have worked and advised on elections in many countries and without doubt we have the highest number of polititions"

You've worked and advised on elections in many countries ... and still can't spell 'politicians'?

Maybe just me, but seems a tad unlikely...
Well in the old days,, but still now although to a lesser extent, we used to send people all around the world to help our chosen party with their election campaign, and sometimes just to moniter and help to ensure the democratic process is followed.
We used to be arrogant enough to believe that we did everything right, and better, than any other country, After 1989, when the wall came down there was a rush for democracy and we had a big hand in guiding a lot of these new countries. Governments are not supposed to interfere with other countries elections but it was always done years back and by many countries...
I have grown cynical with age and I don't now believe that we know how to her our own house in order, let alone advise others of how they should do things.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: PooperScooper wrote: "I have worked and advised on elections in many countries and without doubt we have the highest number of polititions" You've worked and advised on elections in many countries ... and still can't spell 'politicians'? Maybe just me, but seems a tad unlikely...[/p][/quote]Well in the old days,, but still now although to a lesser extent, we used to send people all around the world to help our chosen party with their election campaign, and sometimes just to moniter and help to ensure the democratic process is followed. We used to be arrogant enough to believe that we did everything right, and better, than any other country, After 1989, when the wall came down there was a rush for democracy and we had a big hand in guiding a lot of these new countries. Governments are not supposed to interfere with other countries elections but it was always done years back and by many countries... I have grown cynical with age and I don't now believe that we know how to her our own house in order, let alone advise others of how they should do things. SuperSnooper
  • Score: 1

6:13pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Ebb Tide says...

Mad Karew wrote:
The Council's public engagement has been under review and that's one of proposals coming forward.

It takes time to go through the process because this also requires public eengagement and consultation.
I wonder what the timetable is for reaching any sort of decision with "public engagement". Odds on that it will be another 'muddle along' exercise without any time targets intended to have any meaning.
[quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: The Council's public engagement has been under review and that's one of proposals coming forward. It takes time to go through the process because this also requires public eengagement and consultation.[/p][/quote]I wonder what the timetable is for reaching any sort of decision with "public engagement". Odds on that it will be another 'muddle along' exercise without any time targets intended to have any meaning. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

6:14pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Ebb Tide says...

Mad Karew wrote:
The Council's public engagement has been under review and that's one of proposals coming forward.

It takes time to go through the process because this also requires public eengagement and consultation.
I wonder what the timetable is for reaching any sort of decision with "public engagement". Odds on that it will be another 'muddle along' exercise without any time targets intended to have any meaning.
[quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: The Council's public engagement has been under review and that's one of proposals coming forward. It takes time to go through the process because this also requires public eengagement and consultation.[/p][/quote]I wonder what the timetable is for reaching any sort of decision with "public engagement". Odds on that it will be another 'muddle along' exercise without any time targets intended to have any meaning. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree