Thursday 10 February 2011

Council merger - the row begins

Cllr Greenhalgh (right) with leaders of K&C, Westminster and Secretary of State for Local Gov Eric Pickles (left)

Councillor Stephen Greenhalgh, Leader of H&F Council, says the proposed merger of services and management of his own, Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster councils is good for taxpayers and right for the economic times in which we live.

But Andy Slaughter, our MP, says the merger is "phoney" and will simply lead to more cuts. He also says it's undemocratic because nobody in any of the three areas actually voted for it, which will remove democratic accountability for how those services are being run.

Here's Cllr Greenhalgh:


“Our taxpayers expect us to squeeze every pound and penny to reduce unnecessary costs. We are not creating one ‘super council’, we are creating three slimmer councils with combined resources and expertise. Our residents should not notice the difference except in areas such as adult social care where there will be a marked improvement because we are able to fully integrate health and social care.”
The Conservatives website also adds:
"A ‘Sovereignty Guarantee’ has been signed by the three councils to safeguard local autonomy, responsiveness and identity. Each of the councils will retain their own councillors and decision making processes. Services key to local areas, such as housing management, licensing and planning will be not be combined".

But here's Andy Slaughter MP:
"If these proposals are to achieve economies of scale by sharing or merging administrative functions then that it is simply good practice which all councils should be doing at a time of financial stringency and the only remarkable fact is that these self-opinionated council leaders are making a huge fuss about something that should be normal good practice.
However the defensive tone of their statement and the Ruritanian-style “sovereignty guarantee” suggests that something much more worrying is happening here, as indeed it is. By concentrating sensitive and important decision-making functions such as adult social services and children services in one borough they are denying access to hundreds of thousands of people in West London, they are abandoning localism and they are seeking to bind the hands of future administrations who may well have different views particularly if they are of different political persuasions.
Once again this lies entirely contrary to the govt’s rhetoric on devolution of power and it is something for which they have no mandate. It is already the case that elected opposition councillors and members of parliament from different parties are routinely denied information for political purposes and these steps are likely to increase the culture of secrecy that exists within these town halls".
So what do you think?

5 comments:

  1. For what it's worth, I don't really care much about local government plumbing arrangements and my guess is that it doesn't motivate many voters. To that extent, I think M. Slaughter's point that the voters weren't consulted is slightly feeble; incidentally, neither were London voters consulted about other matters with major financial implications, such as the Olympic bid for one. But provided it saves money without too many tears, the change seems sensible.

    He may be on stronger ground when he points out the risks should one of the constituent councils embark on a major policy change in isolation and I guess the flexibility of the administration will be put to the test. One might point out, however, that given how much local government activity is both funded and dictated by central government, it is questionable whether any such policy changes are ever more than cosmetic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it is a good idea. This is the equivalent of a company with multiple cost centres combing their procurement departments. The result is always better purchasing power, decreased costs and increased profits for the shareholders. In this case the shareholder is the public purse. Companies manage to this all the time without affecting services.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Slaughter's sensationalist language results in force over reason, bluster over truth. While incessantly attempting to portray the Tories as some kind of extreme fascist state his rhetoric is not supported by the facts - as the above posters have indicated.

    I had to look up his rather obscure and esoteric "Ruritanian" reference to understand it fully. I suggest most people would need to do so. This is the definition:

    "Of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a mythical place of high, typically comic-opera romance."

    Slaughter evidently delights in opposing the council, but his pantomime approach does him a profound disservice. That he berates the council leaders as "self-opinionated" only serves to highlight his own vehement hypocrisy. There is nothing particularly "defensive" about the tone of their statement - it simply seeks to reassure and explain. As for his "culture of secrecy" comment, he again displays his impeccable hypocrite's credentials - as a man who voted very strongly against having the Iraq Inquiry, thereby adopting an anti-transparency stance on one of the last Labour government's biggest betrayals. (And, incidentally, as a man who displayed a total lack of transparency and honesty in his dealings with me when I went to him with a constituency matter - writing letters about me without my knowledge or consent.)

    The effective streamlining of services is something I doubt Slaughter could be capable of (even his parliamentary office was incompetent in its dealings with me and took months to deal with a simple matter). I don't trust the Tories, but I certainly don't trust Labour and in particular Slaughter. The legacy of profligate spending under Slaughter's time at the council speaks for itself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I saw Andy yesterday and he has a huge burden and I believe he is scared to go all the way?
    I believe in complete transparency and that this merger is wrong.
    I am not a politician, but the day has come where the only answer is the strength behind him to make it all the way, he wavers unfortunately. He must be prepared to take a risk and do as he says!
    Andy please do this and I believe you will get so much support we shall win over in the end!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I saw Andy yesterday and he has a huge burden and I believe he is scared to go all the way?
    I believe in complete transparency and that this merger is wrong.
    I am not a politician, but the day has come where the only answer is the strength behind him to make it all the way, he wavers unfortunately. He must be prepared to take a risk and do as he says!
    Andy please do this and I believe you will get so much support we shall win over in the end!
    15 February 2011 12:16

    ReplyDelete