Is it me?

[HDQQ]

Local government needs streamlining and it needs to be consistent throughout the whole of the UK.  Currently we have traditional authorities which are 3 tier (county, district and town/parish councils) and 2 tier (unitary authority and town/parish) or some single tier (unitary authority only).

In my opinion all authorities should be no more than 2 tier (county or city and town/parish/neighbourhood)

Not sure about mayors, I don't have strong opinions either way. Police and crime commissioners should be abolished and the police should be run by the the county, city or if it's a larger force, jointly by the authorities they cover.

[cromwell]

Well maybe they will kick him out of office when the chance comes. Let's see.

And incidentally, the vast majority of local councillors everywhere are elected on turnouts even smaller than that.

Democracy is decided by those who vote, not those who don't. Because the latter didn't feel motivated to vote against him either or for anybody else. All Burnham's rivals won an even lower number of votes.

Funny how many post brexit discounted that. 

[srb7677]

On a turn out of 34%, anyway I'm talking now and the temporary? bike lanes that look like permanent and the long traffic queues as a result and oh we have congestion,really why's that?

Well maybe they will kick him out of office when the chance comes. Let's see.

And incidentally, the vast majority of local councillors everywhere are elected on turnouts even smaller than that.

Democracy is decided by those who vote, not those who don't. Because the latter didn't feel motivated to vote against him either or for anybody else. All Burnham's rivals won an even lower number of votes.

[cromwell]

The fact that he has been elected with an increased majority?

I don't think so.

You might well be guilty of the classical error it is all too easy to fall into. And that is assuming that because you and a lot of people you know think a certain way, you are representative of everyone. His increased majority the last time there was a vote suggests otherwise.

On a turn out of 34%, anyway I'm talking now and the temporary? bike lanes that look like permanent and the long traffic queues as a result and oh we have congestion,really why's that?

[srb7677]

You don't live in Mancland,that's cobblers.

The fact that he has been elected with an increased majority?

I don't think so.

You might well be guilty of the classical error it is all too easy to fall into. And that is assuming that because you and a lot of people you know think a certain way, you are representative of everyone. His increased majority the last time there was a vote suggests otherwise.

[cromwell]

I agree that doing the opposite of what people voted for is dubious. But how big was the majority against? And I was merely pointing out that having been granted a mayoralty anyway, the electorate keeps voting for the current incumbent.

And correct me if I  am wrong, but I have heard it said in the news that now they have a mayor a majority are glad, and would not vote to abolish the position, and locals seem to approve of Burnhams stance on busses, which contributed to him greatly increasing his majority last time. So he is a lot less unpopular than you would like him to be it seems.

You don't live in Mancland,that's cobblers.

[srb7677]

Great take on democracy Steve,the people were asked do you want a mayor,the electorate by a majority voted no.

Well you're getting one like it or not.

I agree that doing the opposite of what people voted for is dubious. But how big was the majority against? And I was merely pointing out that having been granted a mayoralty anyway, the electorate keeps voting for the current incumbent.

And correct me if I  am wrong, but I have heard it said in the news that now they have a mayor a majority are glad, and would not vote to abolish the position, and locals seem to approve of Burnhams stance on busses, which contributed to him greatly increasing his majority last time. So he is a lot less unpopular than you would like him to be it seems.

[cromwell]

Well his electorate seem to keep voting for him, so some of them must approve  of him.

Great take on democracy Steve,the people were asked do you want a mayor,the electorate by a majority voted no.

Well you're getting one like it or not.

[srb7677]

I beg to differ Steve,Burnham ain't popular with his bloody bike lanes and other stuff.

Well his electorate seem to keep voting for him, so some of them must approve  of him.

[srb7677]

There are further structural problems that hinder our economy, one of which is poor infrastructure investment over many decades in the North and also the Southwest. Also as an economy we produce far too little, and rely on financial and other services to fuel our economy. But much of the service industry is chronically low paid. 

And for a long time now the link between pay and inflation appears to have been broken. Rising prices are no longer kept pace with by commensurate pay increases, meaning that we are all getting gradually poorer, and the higher the rate of inflation the faster this is happening. Retirees have been shielded from this to some extent by the triple lock, but this has simply further added to the burden of taxation on an increasingly impoverished workforce. The government has in any case proven willing to abandon the triple lock when it suits, so that this year pensioners too are getting below inflation increases.

Yes, energy prices are helping to fuel the cost of living crisis. But that crisis has been allowed to develop for decades and the energy spike is more of the straw that is breaking the camel's back. The cost of living crisis has far deeper roots than that and appears to be a structurally ssystemic part of the current economic model.

I think our economy needs radical reform, reducing costs for workers and retirees alike, and rebalancing the economy to make work again the primary route to prosperity rather than property ownership. Ideally we need to get back to a society where property ownership is the result of prosperity deriving from hard work, and not itself the main route to wealth at the expense of productive workers.

[cromwell]

Mayors seem to work well and are popular where we have them

I beg to differ Steve,Burnham ain't popular with his bloody bike lanes and other stuff.

Also we had a local vote on do you want a mayor,the vote came out as no we don't.
So we have a mayor!

But the real reason we are where we are is extortionate housing costs and the reduction in affordable housing either to rent or buy. Whether buying or renting, the cost of a mortgage or rent is going through the roof, eating up ever larger chunks of people's incomes. This reduces their ability to spend. In essence, the property rich are growing ever fatter off the labours of those working, and investing their gains in yet more bricks and mortar which is forcing up house prices and rents still further. This is counter-productive investment insofar as the health of the economy is concerned, which is increasingly impoverishing the work force and sucking wealth out of the productive economy. 

I agree there should be more invested in affordable social housing.

On top of this we have the structural problem of an ageing population, resulting in a rising ratio of retirees compared to people of working age, which itself inevitably adds to the tax burden and is something societies need to learn to live with somehow. How we do so needs a thread  all of it's own really.

Well start one.

[srb7677]

I look around at where we are,forget which party you support,remainer or leaver but are we where we are because the executive and bureaucracy expanded and industry those that work and produced shrank.

Do we really need Mayors,police and crime commissioners,council chiefs paid more than the pm,council cabinets and all the other overbearing revenue devouring (non) entity's?

Certainly there is something to that in some sectors of the economy. Successive government reforms of the NHS, for example, since the 1980s seem to have resulted in a proliferation of pen pushers to the detriment of frontline staff. But it is not happening everywhere. In the last ten years my employer has slashed the number of managerial positions to cut costs, and this streamlining appears to be ongoing. 

Mayors seem to work well and are popular where we have them, but crime commisioners are simply wasteful and unnecessary. And those running things often tend to be overpaid, though this is a far vaster problem in the private sector than the public.

But the real reason we are where we are is extortionate housing costs and the reduction in affordable housing either to rent or buy. Whether buying or renting, the cost of a mortgage or rent is going through the roof, eating up ever larger chunks of people's incomes. This reduces their ability to spend. In essence, the property rich are growing ever fatter off the labours of those working, and investing their gains in yet more bricks and mortar which is forcing up house prices and rents still further. This is counter-productive investment insofar as the health of the economy is concerned, which is increasingly impoverishing the work force and sucking wealth out of the productive economy. 

On top of this we have the structural problem of an ageing population, resulting in a rising ratio of retirees compared to people of working age, which itself inevitably adds to the tax burden and is something societies need to learn to live with somehow. How we do so needs a thread  all of it's own really.

[Sheepy]

I look around at where we are,forget which party you support,remainer or leaver but are we where we are because the executive and bureaucracy expanded and industry those that work and produced shrank.

Do we really need Mayors,police and crime commissioners,council chiefs paid more than the pm,council cabinets and all the other overbearing revenue devouring (non) entity's?

In any other world, people would complain they were being scammed into the poor house, but not in politics it seems. 

[Good old]

I look around at where we are,forget which party you support,remainer or leaver but are we where we are because the executive and bureaucracy expanded and industry those that work and produced shrank.

Do we really need Mayors,police and crime commissioners,council chiefs paid more than the pm,council cabinets and all the other overbearing revenue devouring (non) entity's?

I don't think we do. All of these things are sold as access to more democracy which would be fine, but to what end.? And the end ,seems to be more governance, by more people, at more cost.

[Borchester]

I look around at where we are,forget which party you support,remainer or leaver but are we where we are because the executive and bureaucracy expanded and industry those that work and produced shrank.

Do we really need Mayors,police and crime commissioners,council chiefs paid more than the pm,council cabinets and all the other overbearing revenue devouring (non) entity's?

I can't see why not. Admittedly, payment of MPs and such was a lefty idea, the brothers and sisters being unable to see a public trough without sticking their snouts into it, but even such contemptible scum are unable to steal any real money.

London has a budget of around £650 millions and the mayor gets about £175,000. That means out of every £37, he gets a penny. Personally, I would not pay that to piss on Saddo Khan, but it has to be said that he does not cost overmuch.

These wandering around the building and turning off the lights economies are fun, but they don't achieve anything. If we really want to economise we should cut unemployment benefit. We have a vast army of layabouts who won't work and are encourage not to work by the sewer rats of the entitlement industry.