Jump to content
observer

Dole?

Recommended Posts

So you think Obs, that because the North East voted with a vast majority against it, that we're not having Regionalisation. Ha, Ha, Ha,:lol:

We are getting it alright, just won't be getting the chance to vote on it!

The process of Regionalisation has carried on as planned, it's just that it's being done in such a manner as to not be as obvious as it would have been if it was expected to be popular.

 

Warrington ( the town we are all becoming soooo proud of just lately! :wink: ) with our bussom buddies Halton and St Helens :wink: have become the 'Mid Mersey' - sub region of the North West Region. It's just not widely realised by the public yet, s'pose we'll be made more aware of this fact once we've developed our 'Sense of pride in our regional identity'

That's what we're being paid to do at the moment isn't it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not getting "regionalisation" and certainly not "devolution". What your refering to, is the creation of "city regions"; which is yet more of the aimless drift created by the dogs breakfast left by the failiure to provide English Regions, whilst scrapping County Councils. We were told that "Unitary District" Authorities would be the template for basic service delivery, but now we hear of "joint" initiatives between Halton and Warrington for example; which are merely (like the NHS Trust amalgamations) an excuse for cost cutting and the withdrawal of service provision locally. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things may not be quite so straight forward as they seem Obs. :wink:

 

Gordon Brown pledged to scrap regional assemblies by 2010, and then diverted some of the powers the assemblies were supposed to have to the Regional Development Agencies.

But, he has carried on the process of 'Regionalisation' as set out according to the EU's agenda.

Originally we should have had (in each Region} a development committee to deal with structual / economic development and an elected committee dealing more with social / community stuff.

 

Note the emergence of the Homes and Communities programmes and especially their objective to set up 'community councils' :wink:

 

More importantly check out the funding sources!!! :D

 

Then check out the EU's 'vision' for the regions, in which you will see direct similarities to our local forward plans.

You will also note the origin of a few key words / phrases that have recently appeared in govt and council documents.

 

Recent EU funding has been to develop in us a positive Regional identity probably so that in a few years we'll vote for regional governance, which will already be in place and we'll all be so used to it by then there won't be any reason to vote against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no doubt that "regionalisation" is EU driven, as most of their aid is dished out on a regional basis, they no doubt also wish to undermine any sense of national identity, by creating a Europe of regions. :shock: But that's not where I'm coming from; Regional Governance was the logical "strategic" option in a devolutionary process (and I include Scotland as a "region" NOT a "nation"); which would leave Unitary Districts as the service deliverer. :? The whole point being, the devolution of power DOWNWARDS, to the lowest optimum level of democratic accountability - something the EU has undermined, as it sucks ever more power and control towards it's self. :twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I see where you are coming from, you want increased power for unitary authorities but you do not want the European set-up.

As Europe is funding the recently begun changes I think it is more likely that they are moving somewhat more towards their goals of regionalisation than any ideals of devolution you have. :cry:

 

I believe we will gradually be merged with Halton and St Helens into the 'Mid Mersey' unitary authority. This will be both moving in the direction of the Euro plan and also satisfying some of the expectations of 'devolution' under British overall governance.

By merging, it will also make it easier for Warrington, St Helens, and Halton to satisfy the criteria for getting their hands on a load more cash! :wink:

 

I do not share your enthusiasm for the idea of more power to our local authorities. I think they have had far too much power already and abused it, I think central govt has been throwing money down the drain giving it to local councils without checking it is being used properly for the purpose it was given. I think we have a pack of meglamaniacs running the town and dread the idea of them getting even more power! :evil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: If only, we had anybody "running" the Town - local power, policy options etc have been neutralised over recent years - over 80% of local budgets are spoken for by statutory service provision, options for "local" revenue or policy initiatives are minimal, many historic services have been Quangoised or privatised - hence public apathy with local Government which is seen as irrelevent to them. :roll: The pressures for "big" local Government will be coming from Brussels and Whitehall, who view local administration as outposts of their empire, rather than independent democratic units. :cry: There are two requirements for "local" Governance: one is "strategic", which argues for a regional arrangement, the other "local", which argues for a Unitary District service delivery unit. :? The idea that "local" power is somehow abused, is put about by a "centralist" political agenda; which won't accept the checks and balances placed on their power by it's devolution. :shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea a of a local authority having more power to decide and deal with local issues and thus be able to deliver an agenda more in line with what local people need and want sounds just great.

But from past experience of how those in power in Warrington actually use and abuse any power they have it's obvious the dream of devolution would in reality be an absolute night-mare. :shock:

So until such a time as there may be people in power in this town who were competent in exercising power I am happy with centralisation, in fact I would argue the point for stronger reins on local spending.

It's no wonder the economy is in such a state when both central govt and the EU are handing out money without checking it is being spent properly.!

Warrington is about to undergo some dramatic changes, not ones that the majority of people will appreciate I fear. However the detrimental effect to our quality of life is not even being considered.

What is so annoying is that the money is being allocated to improve life for us all and if directed wisely could have made a real improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What 'democratic system' Obs, are you talking about? :?

 

We don't really have one do we? not nationally and certainly not locally.

After the 'farce' which was our last local election we now have a local council of which how many members were actually properly elected is anybodies guess. Is that a truly democratic system?

 

Even when councillors are properly elected, once in power do they honour their pre-election promises? and do we have any means of getting rid of them if they don't? No.

So is that a truly democratic system?

 

When major decisions about issues which will have drastic effects on us all are made behind closed doors, and when plans are set and infrastructure put in place without the public being even aware of what 's going on - until it actually hits them in the face.

Could that be a truly, ethical democratic system?

 

Obs, considering the so called 'democratic system' we have, I can't understand why you should even ask if I have faith in it!

What planet do you think I've dropped down from?

:roll::roll: :roll: :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidently- not this one! :wink: Be interested to know what "properly elected" means? :? I've no doubt the democratic system we have is far from perfect, but as Churchill said, it's the least worst option we have! :wink: Or would you prefer some benign Dictator in Brussels - which appears to be becoming the case? :shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is far too much time between elections for councillors. After all they only follow the party line for the majority of the time so there should be a way of getting shut before the next election.

 

Look at Cllr Earl and his love of all things Pikey. If the opportunity to kick him out had arisen for his constituents just after he had shown support for the pikey camp at Brook House, do you think he would still be a councillor now?

 

Trouble is, by the next election that will be at the back of peoples minds and not at the front where it should be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obs, I regard 'properly elected' as being where everyone entitled to vote actually receives a polling card enabling them to do so! :wink:

and where the votes are recorded by people who can count efficiently enough to ensure that the candidate with the most votes is the one who takes office! :wink:

 

Churchill did say " Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the others"

Some of the others may have improved somewhat since his days, don't you think?

 

You seem very anti-European but at least they have proportional representation which is more truly democratic than our system.

 

Baz J, I agree we should be able to get rid of those we have no faith in, so how about a system whereby the electorate. by petition of signatories larger in number than an elected members majority, can force a re-election! :lol:

 

Paul, if there's anyone worth voting for maybe people will turn out to vote :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sha, your obviously not aquainted with electoral law: the receipt or production of a "polling card" is not a requirement to entitlement to vote; your name and address on the electoral register is. :roll::wink: So do you want another go at "proper"?! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do know that Obs I have once voted myself without a polling card, but I had to make two trips to the polling station because the first time I didn't have sufficient proof of ID with me. I think I had to go back with a birth certificate.

 

Some people did complain after the last local election that they hadn't received a polling card and so couldn't vote, yes they were mistaken but it still prevented them from voting. This was what I was refering to. :lol:

 

The last local election was a shambles, at least one count was proved wrong. I think there should have been a recount of all the wards, how do we know any of them were counted correctly.:x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be a law that any politicians that lie to the electorate to get elected should be jailed for life if found out. With no parole

 

Can't see there being many that would object to that law except the politicians themselves!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So England with a population of 50million, would have a "parliament" equal in powers to Scotland (pop 5million), Wales (pop 1million). :? A false Nationalism is the cause of the present nonesense with Scotland, who believe themselves to be a Nation; when in reality they are no more than a Region of the UK, with a smaller population than N/W England (7 million). :shock: Devolution was supposed to be about UK regionalisation; which Prescott failed to introduce; had he done so, we may have had free prescriptions, and free university places in the N/West by now. :roll:
Observer, even for you that is amazingly ignorant. Population density has nothing to do with being a nation or not. There's nothing false about Scotland "believing" it's a nation, it IS a nation. :roll::roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't object to that one Baz J! :lol::lol::lol:

 

But how would we deal with them when it's not a straightforward lie but the more usual political 'half truths'?

Or incidents of when they purposedly with-hold information so they can do what they know the public won't want, without the public even knowing?

 

Brilliant example of this is how they've been putting in place the infrastructure for the massive growth of Warrington.

These plans also include massive housing developments and thus will result in drastically increasing traffic congestion.

Will Warrington be worth living in I wonder?

Why is this all going ahead without the people of Warrington being made fully aware of it?

Perhaps because it's on all three main parties agendas! :x:x:x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a Nation until, following a failed buisiness venture in S/America, where it tried to set up a trading colony, failed miserably. :shock: This persuade their good and great, that Union with England was their best bet, and since 1701, we've been bailing them out ever since. :roll::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×