Forum Topic

'Super council' or Thin End of the Wedge?

The thin end of the wedge? If some of our Council services can be done in K&C why not Swansea or Doncaster? H&F already has contracted out some help desk services to Rochdale so why not everything else. Might save some money but do we really want our services run by people who don't even know the area let alone care about it?

Ellen Kearney ● 5300d7 Comments

Here's a letter from the Opposition Leaders in the three councils. It was published on Friday, 29th October 2010:Dear EditorLabour Councillors in Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham are all in favour of any genuine efficiencies and we continue to be determined to root out waste. We note with interest the many innovative back office mergers that have been implemented across the public sector in recent years.We believe major long-term changes, like this, should be above party politics and not be driven by one party’s political agenda. This merger would result in services being provided to a population equivalent to the size of Glasgow. Large Councils are not necessarily more efficient and indeed, there have been many high profile failures when councils have merged services before. We believe that there must be cross-party involvement and wide public support for these proposals.Sadly, the Conservatives in all three boroughs have been highly secretive about this scheme. Indeed, they would not allow their officials to consult or brief any Opposition Councillors in any of the three local authorities prior to the announcement and have failed to provide any detailed information since. We also have the following concerns:- The Conservatives are not ruling out using this merger as a mechanism for even more front line service cuts, stealth taxes and loss of vital jobs, or as an excuse to further to undermine local democracy or sell off more essential community buildings such as youth clubs, schools, libraries and homes.- The Conservatives have not explained how local residents will keep their ability to hold their own council to account on important matters of local concern.- The Conservatives have not explained how any newly elected administration would be able to secede from any part of this if political control changes at the local elections in 2014.- The Conservatives have not explained why these particular local authorities should merge services. Indeed, we would suggest that there are other possible combinations that are more geographically, socially and economically suited. Already, there appears to be different messages coming from the three Conservative authorities. This confusion does not bode well for the project’s success given it is only just getting started. We call on the Conservatives to take a more open, inclusive and transparent approach to these merger plans.Yours sincerelyCllr. Judith BlakemanLeader of the OppositionThe Royal Borough of Kensington and ChelseaCllr. Stephen CowanLeader of the OppositionThe London Borough of Hammersmith and FulhamCllr. Paul DimoldenbergLeader of the OppositionThe City of Westminster

Stephen Cowan ● 5273d

'I cannot see any possible objection.'Loss of democratic accountabilityDemoralisation of staffSuccessive failures of other government reorganisations to deliver promised cost savingsThe implicit assumption that all three boroughs will be run by the same political parties.

Karen Cooper ● 5294d

It makes perfect sense: three adjacent boroughs to join forces and achieve economies of scale.  So long as it is intelligently done, I cannot see any possible objection.  But, as always, the devil is in the detail....

George Ross ● 5294d

Seems to me that the basic problem with local Government is that many of the lower paid positions were long ago contracted out and relatively few people in that pay bracket work for Councils. Now you have quite top heavy organisations and the spurious rationale that public sector pay needed to match private sector (whilst ignoring the far better benefits and working hours) has meant that many of these people are grossly over paid. The main driver of these mergers seems to be to cut this layer of staff. Don't know what the situation is like in H&F but in my own borough the pension deficit is massive and reducing head count amongst the higher paid staff would make a substantial difference to future liabilities.

Andy Jones ● 5296d

Also have a look at this item from the BBC which gives an insite into the 'public service' culture we are having foisted on us:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11609489

Karen Cooper ● 5298d

A sensible view of what is simply yet another bureaucratic reorganisation is given by Patrick Butler on the following link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2010/oct/25/council-mergers-doomed-to-failIt is also not true to say that not many Council employeers live locally. They have had first hand experience of the impact  that the previous cuts by this administration have had. They have therefore tended to vote solidly against them so it is very much in the Conservative's political interest to cut the number of Council staff. This is probably a bigger driver of the changes than the supposed financial benefits.

Karen Cooper ● 5298d

Quite a large proportion of my recent interactions with the local authority (not H&F) have been with people from the southern hemisphere. Very pleasant and competent but I always get the impression that they are passing through and have little real affinity with the area. I flatter myself that I have a reasonably large circle of friends and aquaintances in the local area and yet I don't know one person who works at the Council apart from Councillors. On this basis there seems to be reason to think that service quality may be less affected by mergers than you might think.

Andy Jones ● 5298d