Row over merging Lancashire councils deepens

First published in Hyndburn
Last updated

THE row over proposals to merge six East Lancashire councils into an single all-purpose authority has deepened, splitting local politicians across party lines.

Last month Blackburn with Darwen Tory group leader Mike Lee proposed a Pennine super-unitary to save cash.

His blueprint to merging Burnley, Hyndburn, Blackburn with Darwen, Ribble Valley, Pendle and Rossendale a single council splitting Lancashire county council in two has angered senior Conservative colleagues.

Tory county leader Geoff Driver said the plan was not an option.

Last week Hyndburn Labour MP Graham Jones gave Coun Lee his full support in Parliament telling ministers: “This is really important because there’s an opportunity to make great savings.”

He argued the best way to provide services was merging all East Lancashire’s councils because of the ‘savage’ cuts imposed by the government.

The borough’s Tory leader Peter Britcliffe condemned Coun Lee’s scheme as a backward step.

He said: “I am violently opposed to any such plans. Bigger is not better in local government in terms of how the council can relate to their areas. I hope that this will remain on the back shelves.”

Coun Lee, who is writing to local government secretary Eric Pickles seeking backing, has won the approval of Blackburn’s Labour MP Jack Straw.

He said: “I think there is a very strong case for one or two unitary authorities in East Lancashire.”

Blackburn with Darwen council’s leader Kate Hollern supported the blueprint as ‘a good idea’ but her Burnley Labour counterpart Julie Cooper said it would be ‘deeply unpopular’ in her borough.

When Coun Lee revealed his plan at a meeting of Blackburn with Darwen council discussing £30 million spending cuts, Labour’s Dave Harling branded it ‘a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale’.

Coun Driver, facing Lancashire county elections in May, said: “The Government has made it clear, that local government reorganisation is simply not on their agenda.”

Burnley Liberal Democrat MP Gordon Birtwistle said: “I think this would be sensible. It could save millions.”

Local government minister Brandon Lewis said such restructuring would be “expensive and disruptive”.

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:24pm Sun 24 Feb 13

mavrick says...

This was vehemently opposed last time it was proposed.The career politicians would have a field day, It is not about saving money as much as giving super powers to the few. This was muted by politicians in the past who only wished to break up Lancashire county council because they thought they could get away with it. Unfortunately for them they up against the formidable force of one Louis Ellman who simply wiped the floor with them. I noticed Jack has voiced his opinion and Eric Pickles thinks it could be a good idea. If there are good reasons to oppose this move, Jack and Eric are two of them.
This was vehemently opposed last time it was proposed.The career politicians would have a field day, It is not about saving money as much as giving super powers to the few. This was muted by politicians in the past who only wished to break up Lancashire county council because they thought they could get away with it. Unfortunately for them they up against the formidable force of one Louis Ellman who simply wiped the floor with them. I noticed Jack has voiced his opinion and Eric Pickles thinks it could be a good idea. If there are good reasons to oppose this move, Jack and Eric are two of them. mavrick
  • Score: 1

8:12pm Sun 24 Feb 13

limey redneck says...

as far as i can tell eric pickles is nothing but a moron & idiot.he wont lift afinger to stop the rape of SMITHILLS COACHING HOUSE & SURROUNDING GREENBELT LAND on the outskirts of BOLTON.he is probably taking kickbacks.
as far as i can tell eric pickles is nothing but a moron & idiot.he wont lift afinger to stop the rape of SMITHILLS COACHING HOUSE & SURROUNDING GREENBELT LAND on the outskirts of BOLTON.he is probably taking kickbacks. limey redneck
  • Score: 3

8:19pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Kevin, Colne says...

My recollection of the last reorganisation of local government in Lancashire is that it came about as a result of a general review prompted by national pressure from the 'Big Six' or 'Big Seven' former county boroughs in the Shire-counties where resentment at the loss of unitary status had been simmering since 1974. This came to a head after metropolitan districts were granted unitary status following the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils in 1986. It seemed anomalous that South Shields as South Tyneside should have unitary status but not Nottingham or Bristol.

At the time in Lancashire there were four former county borough councils - Blackpool, Blackburn, Burnley and Preston - and all of them made bids for unitary status. Two of the bids were accepted the other two were rejected. Some years later Preston was awarded a consolation prize of City status, but in local government terms this was largely symbolic.

It's true that bigger is not always better and the argument about whether there should be a single or two tier system is as old as the hills, notwithstanding the tension between organisational units of a size to optimise efficiency and the need to have units that provide effective democratic representation.

Here in Pendle we have a three-tier system: County, Borough and Town or Parish Councils. Thus a move to a unitary authority based on East Lancashire or part thereof would paradoxically be making the upper tier smaller not bigger.

If Lancashire County Council services in our neck of the woods are organised on a divisional basis covering the East then the reorganisation involved might not be as great as imagined.

I think that the idea is worth looking at. The real difficulty is always the politics because heads and hearts can be pulling in different directions.
My recollection of the last reorganisation of local government in Lancashire is that it came about as a result of a general review prompted by national pressure from the 'Big Six' or 'Big Seven' former county boroughs in the Shire-counties where resentment at the loss of unitary status had been simmering since 1974. This came to a head after metropolitan districts were granted unitary status following the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils in 1986. It seemed anomalous that South Shields as South Tyneside should have unitary status but not Nottingham or Bristol. At the time in Lancashire there were four former county borough councils - Blackpool, Blackburn, Burnley and Preston - and all of them made bids for unitary status. Two of the bids were accepted the other two were rejected. Some years later Preston was awarded a consolation prize of City status, but in local government terms this was largely symbolic. It's true that bigger is not always better and the argument about whether there should be a single or two tier system is as old as the hills, notwithstanding the tension between organisational units of a size to optimise efficiency and the need to have units that provide effective democratic representation. Here in Pendle we have a three-tier system: County, Borough and Town or Parish Councils. Thus a move to a unitary authority based on East Lancashire or part thereof would paradoxically be making the upper tier smaller not bigger. If Lancashire County Council services in our neck of the woods are organised on a divisional basis covering the East then the reorganisation involved might not be as great as imagined. I think that the idea is worth looking at. The real difficulty is always the politics because heads and hearts can be pulling in different directions. Kevin, Colne
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Sun 24 Feb 13

happycyclist says...

Kevin, Colne wrote:
My recollection of the last reorganisation of local government in Lancashire is that it came about as a result of a general review prompted by national pressure from the 'Big Six' or 'Big Seven' former county boroughs in the Shire-counties where resentment at the loss of unitary status had been simmering since 1974. This came to a head after metropolitan districts were granted unitary status following the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils in 1986. It seemed anomalous that South Shields as South Tyneside should have unitary status but not Nottingham or Bristol.

At the time in Lancashire there were four former county borough councils - Blackpool, Blackburn, Burnley and Preston - and all of them made bids for unitary status. Two of the bids were accepted the other two were rejected. Some years later Preston was awarded a consolation prize of City status, but in local government terms this was largely symbolic.

It's true that bigger is not always better and the argument about whether there should be a single or two tier system is as old as the hills, notwithstanding the tension between organisational units of a size to optimise efficiency and the need to have units that provide effective democratic representation.

Here in Pendle we have a three-tier system: County, Borough and Town or Parish Councils. Thus a move to a unitary authority based on East Lancashire or part thereof would paradoxically be making the upper tier smaller not bigger.

If Lancashire County Council services in our neck of the woods are organised on a divisional basis covering the East then the reorganisation involved might not be as great as imagined.

I think that the idea is worth looking at. The real difficulty is always the politics because heads and hearts can be pulling in different directions.
You're wasted on here. They should give you a column in the LT.
[quote][p][bold]Kevin, Colne[/bold] wrote: My recollection of the last reorganisation of local government in Lancashire is that it came about as a result of a general review prompted by national pressure from the 'Big Six' or 'Big Seven' former county boroughs in the Shire-counties where resentment at the loss of unitary status had been simmering since 1974. This came to a head after metropolitan districts were granted unitary status following the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils in 1986. It seemed anomalous that South Shields as South Tyneside should have unitary status but not Nottingham or Bristol. At the time in Lancashire there were four former county borough councils - Blackpool, Blackburn, Burnley and Preston - and all of them made bids for unitary status. Two of the bids were accepted the other two were rejected. Some years later Preston was awarded a consolation prize of City status, but in local government terms this was largely symbolic. It's true that bigger is not always better and the argument about whether there should be a single or two tier system is as old as the hills, notwithstanding the tension between organisational units of a size to optimise efficiency and the need to have units that provide effective democratic representation. Here in Pendle we have a three-tier system: County, Borough and Town or Parish Councils. Thus a move to a unitary authority based on East Lancashire or part thereof would paradoxically be making the upper tier smaller not bigger. If Lancashire County Council services in our neck of the woods are organised on a divisional basis covering the East then the reorganisation involved might not be as great as imagined. I think that the idea is worth looking at. The real difficulty is always the politics because heads and hearts can be pulling in different directions.[/p][/quote]You're wasted on here. They should give you a column in the LT. happycyclist
  • Score: 0

8:41pm Sun 24 Feb 13

clickhere says...

Kevin, Colne wrote:
My recollection of the last reorganisation of local government in Lancashire is that it came about as a result of a general review prompted by national pressure from the 'Big Six' or 'Big Seven' former county boroughs in the Shire-counties where resentment at the loss of unitary status had been simmering since 1974. This came to a head after metropolitan districts were granted unitary status following the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils in 1986. It seemed anomalous that South Shields as South Tyneside should have unitary status but not Nottingham or Bristol.

At the time in Lancashire there were four former county borough councils - Blackpool, Blackburn, Burnley and Preston - and all of them made bids for unitary status. Two of the bids were accepted the other two were rejected. Some years later Preston was awarded a consolation prize of City status, but in local government terms this was largely symbolic.

It's true that bigger is not always better and the argument about whether there should be a single or two tier system is as old as the hills, notwithstanding the tension between organisational units of a size to optimise efficiency and the need to have units that provide effective democratic representation.

Here in Pendle we have a three-tier system: County, Borough and Town or Parish Councils. Thus a move to a unitary authority based on East Lancashire or part thereof would paradoxically be making the upper tier smaller not bigger.

If Lancashire County Council services in our neck of the woods are organised on a divisional basis covering the East then the reorganisation involved might not be as great as imagined.

I think that the idea is worth looking at. The real difficulty is always the politics because heads and hearts can be pulling in different directions.
A thoughtful contribution.
[quote][p][bold]Kevin, Colne[/bold] wrote: My recollection of the last reorganisation of local government in Lancashire is that it came about as a result of a general review prompted by national pressure from the 'Big Six' or 'Big Seven' former county boroughs in the Shire-counties where resentment at the loss of unitary status had been simmering since 1974. This came to a head after metropolitan districts were granted unitary status following the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils in 1986. It seemed anomalous that South Shields as South Tyneside should have unitary status but not Nottingham or Bristol. At the time in Lancashire there were four former county borough councils - Blackpool, Blackburn, Burnley and Preston - and all of them made bids for unitary status. Two of the bids were accepted the other two were rejected. Some years later Preston was awarded a consolation prize of City status, but in local government terms this was largely symbolic. It's true that bigger is not always better and the argument about whether there should be a single or two tier system is as old as the hills, notwithstanding the tension between organisational units of a size to optimise efficiency and the need to have units that provide effective democratic representation. Here in Pendle we have a three-tier system: County, Borough and Town or Parish Councils. Thus a move to a unitary authority based on East Lancashire or part thereof would paradoxically be making the upper tier smaller not bigger. If Lancashire County Council services in our neck of the woods are organised on a divisional basis covering the East then the reorganisation involved might not be as great as imagined. I think that the idea is worth looking at. The real difficulty is always the politics because heads and hearts can be pulling in different directions.[/p][/quote]A thoughtful contribution. clickhere
  • Score: 1

10:20pm Sun 24 Feb 13

mavrick says...

Kevin, Colne wrote:
My recollection of the last reorganisation of local government in Lancashire is that it came about as a result of a general review prompted by national pressure from the 'Big Six' or 'Big Seven' former county boroughs in the Shire-counties where resentment at the loss of unitary status had been simmering since 1974. This came to a head after metropolitan districts were granted unitary status following the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils in 1986. It seemed anomalous that South Shields as South Tyneside should have unitary status but not Nottingham or Bristol.

At the time in Lancashire there were four former county borough councils - Blackpool, Blackburn, Burnley and Preston - and all of them made bids for unitary status. Two of the bids were accepted the other two were rejected. Some years later Preston was awarded a consolation prize of City status, but in local government terms this was largely symbolic.

It's true that bigger is not always better and the argument about whether there should be a single or two tier system is as old as the hills, notwithstanding the tension between organisational units of a size to optimise efficiency and the need to have units that provide effective democratic representation.

Here in Pendle we have a three-tier system: County, Borough and Town or Parish Councils. Thus a move to a unitary authority based on East Lancashire or part thereof would paradoxically be making the upper tier smaller not bigger.

If Lancashire County Council services in our neck of the woods are organised on a divisional basis covering the East then the reorganisation involved might not be as great as imagined.

I think that the idea is worth looking at. The real difficulty is always the politics because heads and hearts can be pulling in different directions.
Whilst you are correct in what you say, I would point out that local councils around the time of unitary authorities were being considered, were actively running campaigns to stay local even if it meant a two tier system staying in place. The Town and parish councils were re-established to offer a few crumbs to people who felt disenfranchised from local politics. Whilst it may appear attractive to revisit this idea in these times of austerity. I would urge people to look back at the good times and review the arguments for no change from that period. You only have to look at the unitary authorities and ask are things better or better value for money, or even more accountable? No I don't think so either. It will be interesting to see how many ex MPs and MEPs will push for this rather than get a proper job?
[quote][p][bold]Kevin, Colne[/bold] wrote: My recollection of the last reorganisation of local government in Lancashire is that it came about as a result of a general review prompted by national pressure from the 'Big Six' or 'Big Seven' former county boroughs in the Shire-counties where resentment at the loss of unitary status had been simmering since 1974. This came to a head after metropolitan districts were granted unitary status following the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils in 1986. It seemed anomalous that South Shields as South Tyneside should have unitary status but not Nottingham or Bristol. At the time in Lancashire there were four former county borough councils - Blackpool, Blackburn, Burnley and Preston - and all of them made bids for unitary status. Two of the bids were accepted the other two were rejected. Some years later Preston was awarded a consolation prize of City status, but in local government terms this was largely symbolic. It's true that bigger is not always better and the argument about whether there should be a single or two tier system is as old as the hills, notwithstanding the tension between organisational units of a size to optimise efficiency and the need to have units that provide effective democratic representation. Here in Pendle we have a three-tier system: County, Borough and Town or Parish Councils. Thus a move to a unitary authority based on East Lancashire or part thereof would paradoxically be making the upper tier smaller not bigger. If Lancashire County Council services in our neck of the woods are organised on a divisional basis covering the East then the reorganisation involved might not be as great as imagined. I think that the idea is worth looking at. The real difficulty is always the politics because heads and hearts can be pulling in different directions.[/p][/quote]Whilst you are correct in what you say, I would point out that local councils around the time of unitary authorities were being considered, were actively running campaigns to stay local even if it meant a two tier system staying in place. The Town and parish councils were re-established to offer a few crumbs to people who felt disenfranchised from local politics. Whilst it may appear attractive to revisit this idea in these times of austerity. I would urge people to look back at the good times and review the arguments for no change from that period. You only have to look at the unitary authorities and ask are things better or better value for money, or even more accountable? No I don't think so either. It will be interesting to see how many ex MPs and MEPs will push for this rather than get a proper job? mavrick
  • Score: 1

10:37pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Venomp says...

Yes Hyndburn should join the unitary authority
Yes Hyndburn should join the unitary authority Venomp
  • Score: 0

10:48pm Sun 24 Feb 13

s_smith says...

Local government is by its very nature inefficient and only of concern to perhaps only a third of the local population, given electoral turn-outs.

Across Lancashire the amount spent on duplicate roles, duplicate contracts,duplicate operations must be astounding. Lets take a simple operation like emptying the bins and recycling....

A while back in my career in finance I worked for a reasonably small local authority and we had other small neighbouring authorities all doing their thing, all slightly different according to either the whims of the local politico's or the officers tasked with making the best of a bad lot.

Now to my commercial mind, bigger IS more efficient to a large degree as it allows better co-ordination and better use of resources. A large waste and recycling contract with centralised processing facilities is going to be much more efficient than each town having its own, allowing wastes to be processed on a much larger scale; kind of like a hub and spoke system of the airlines. Heck, I have subsequently worked for a large retail business who did just that with the waste generated from their business.

If we want to reduce the costs of local government, its operations need to be organised on a large scale like a business. That means covering your essential operations (such as those duplicated by numerous local authorities) from centralised locations as large as they can efficiently be and then feeding them out to the local areas.

Of course there are matters which ARE local, such as planning issues, but again the need to discuss Mrs Blogg' new extension does not compare with the more strategic need to encourage growth, employment and infrastructure - something which small local authorities cannot sometimes deal with effectively due to the short-termism of local politicians.

To prove a point, take Haslingden Road out to Guide; no clear plan since the motorway opened, just develop everything around it and forget about the local infrastructure. Now the tax payer will inevitably foot the bill for the road improvements that are required to cope with the traffic down there. Local ineptitude over a semi-regional employment zone has caused other local issues. Had a more strategic view been taken, perhaps things would have been different and I wouldn't have had to queue just to get on to the motorway to go to work every morning.

I say cut local government down to a single regional council for things like roads, schools, libraries, bins, strategic planning, or indeed anything that doesnt really need a local variation, local senior management, local political involvement etc, which are organised from a regional "distribution centre" and run from local offices - think of them as your large supermarket stores. And for the little things, the things that DO have an impact locally and do have wide variations across fairly small areas, then there can be district or town councils.

We cannot expect our local politicians to support this - after all they would be voting to lose their jobs and positions of (deluded) power. Who would do a thing like that?
Local government is by its very nature inefficient and only of concern to perhaps only a third of the local population, given electoral turn-outs. Across Lancashire the amount spent on duplicate roles, duplicate contracts,duplicate operations must be astounding. Lets take a simple operation like emptying the bins and recycling.... A while back in my career in finance I worked for a reasonably small local authority and we had other small neighbouring authorities all doing their thing, all slightly different according to either the whims of the local politico's or the officers tasked with making the best of a bad lot. Now to my commercial mind, bigger IS more efficient to a large degree as it allows better co-ordination and better use of resources. A large waste and recycling contract with centralised processing facilities is going to be much more efficient than each town having its own, allowing wastes to be processed on a much larger scale; kind of like a hub and spoke system of the airlines. Heck, I have subsequently worked for a large retail business who did just that with the waste generated from their business. If we want to reduce the costs of local government, its operations need to be organised on a large scale like a business. That means covering your essential operations (such as those duplicated by numerous local authorities) from centralised locations as large as they can efficiently be and then feeding them out to the local areas. Of course there are matters which ARE local, such as planning issues, but again the need to discuss Mrs Blogg' new extension does not compare with the more strategic need to encourage growth, employment and infrastructure - something which small local authorities cannot sometimes deal with effectively due to the short-termism of local politicians. To prove a point, take Haslingden Road out to Guide; no clear plan since the motorway opened, just develop everything around it and forget about the local infrastructure. Now the tax payer will inevitably foot the bill for the road improvements that are required to cope with the traffic down there. Local ineptitude over a semi-regional employment zone has caused other local issues. Had a more strategic view been taken, perhaps things would have been different and I wouldn't have had to queue just to get on to the motorway to go to work every morning. I say cut local government down to a single regional council for things like roads, schools, libraries, bins, strategic planning, or indeed anything that doesnt really need a local variation, local senior management, local political involvement etc, which are organised from a regional "distribution centre" and run from local offices - think of them as your large supermarket stores. And for the little things, the things that DO have an impact locally and do have wide variations across fairly small areas, then there can be district or town councils. We cannot expect our local politicians to support this - after all they would be voting to lose their jobs and positions of (deluded) power. Who would do a thing like that? s_smith
  • Score: 1

11:19pm Sun 24 Feb 13

retsofad says...

You need to look a people numbers not £'s When Pendle and Burnley wanted to become a unitary some 6/7yrs ago it was turned down by government. Burnley & Pendle have some 180,000 + residents start adding in Hyndburn Ribble Valley Rosendale Blackburn Darwin the numbers could be well over 1/2 million people being controlled by a few egg heads "I'm only in it for the money." The voice of the people would be lost forever. Wasn't it a Tory Prime minister who said Small in beautiful. What we should do is Get rid of County and bring everything back to the Boroughs governing ourselves. This is why Scotland, Wales want independence
You need to look a people numbers not £'s When Pendle and Burnley wanted to become a unitary some 6/7yrs ago it was turned down by government. Burnley & Pendle have some 180,000 + residents start adding in Hyndburn Ribble Valley Rosendale Blackburn Darwin the numbers could be well over 1/2 million people being controlled by a few egg heads "I'm only in it for the money." The voice of the people would be lost forever. Wasn't it a Tory Prime minister who said Small in beautiful. What we should do is Get rid of County and bring everything back to the Boroughs governing ourselves. This is why Scotland, Wales want independence retsofad
  • Score: 1

3:59am Mon 25 Feb 13

mavrick says...

s_smith wrote:
Local government is by its very nature inefficient and only of concern to perhaps only a third of the local population, given electoral turn-outs.

Across Lancashire the amount spent on duplicate roles, duplicate contracts,duplicate operations must be astounding. Lets take a simple operation like emptying the bins and recycling....

A while back in my career in finance I worked for a reasonably small local authority and we had other small neighbouring authorities all doing their thing, all slightly different according to either the whims of the local politico's or the officers tasked with making the best of a bad lot.

Now to my commercial mind, bigger IS more efficient to a large degree as it allows better co-ordination and better use of resources. A large waste and recycling contract with centralised processing facilities is going to be much more efficient than each town having its own, allowing wastes to be processed on a much larger scale; kind of like a hub and spoke system of the airlines. Heck, I have subsequently worked for a large retail business who did just that with the waste generated from their business.

If we want to reduce the costs of local government, its operations need to be organised on a large scale like a business. That means covering your essential operations (such as those duplicated by numerous local authorities) from centralised locations as large as they can efficiently be and then feeding them out to the local areas.

Of course there are matters which ARE local, such as planning issues, but again the need to discuss Mrs Blogg' new extension does not compare with the more strategic need to encourage growth, employment and infrastructure - something which small local authorities cannot sometimes deal with effectively due to the short-termism of local politicians.

To prove a point, take Haslingden Road out to Guide; no clear plan since the motorway opened, just develop everything around it and forget about the local infrastructure. Now the tax payer will inevitably foot the bill for the road improvements that are required to cope with the traffic down there. Local ineptitude over a semi-regional employment zone has caused other local issues. Had a more strategic view been taken, perhaps things would have been different and I wouldn't have had to queue just to get on to the motorway to go to work every morning.

I say cut local government down to a single regional council for things like roads, schools, libraries, bins, strategic planning, or indeed anything that doesnt really need a local variation, local senior management, local political involvement etc, which are organised from a regional "distribution centre" and run from local offices - think of them as your large supermarket stores. And for the little things, the things that DO have an impact locally and do have wide variations across fairly small areas, then there can be district or town councils.

We cannot expect our local politicians to support this - after all they would be voting to lose their jobs and positions of (deluded) power. Who would do a thing like that?
It seems you know the cost of every thing and the value of nothing. Accountants should never be allowed to run anything, Who got us all into the financial mess?
[quote][p][bold]s_smith[/bold] wrote: Local government is by its very nature inefficient and only of concern to perhaps only a third of the local population, given electoral turn-outs. Across Lancashire the amount spent on duplicate roles, duplicate contracts,duplicate operations must be astounding. Lets take a simple operation like emptying the bins and recycling.... A while back in my career in finance I worked for a reasonably small local authority and we had other small neighbouring authorities all doing their thing, all slightly different according to either the whims of the local politico's or the officers tasked with making the best of a bad lot. Now to my commercial mind, bigger IS more efficient to a large degree as it allows better co-ordination and better use of resources. A large waste and recycling contract with centralised processing facilities is going to be much more efficient than each town having its own, allowing wastes to be processed on a much larger scale; kind of like a hub and spoke system of the airlines. Heck, I have subsequently worked for a large retail business who did just that with the waste generated from their business. If we want to reduce the costs of local government, its operations need to be organised on a large scale like a business. That means covering your essential operations (such as those duplicated by numerous local authorities) from centralised locations as large as they can efficiently be and then feeding them out to the local areas. Of course there are matters which ARE local, such as planning issues, but again the need to discuss Mrs Blogg' new extension does not compare with the more strategic need to encourage growth, employment and infrastructure - something which small local authorities cannot sometimes deal with effectively due to the short-termism of local politicians. To prove a point, take Haslingden Road out to Guide; no clear plan since the motorway opened, just develop everything around it and forget about the local infrastructure. Now the tax payer will inevitably foot the bill for the road improvements that are required to cope with the traffic down there. Local ineptitude over a semi-regional employment zone has caused other local issues. Had a more strategic view been taken, perhaps things would have been different and I wouldn't have had to queue just to get on to the motorway to go to work every morning. I say cut local government down to a single regional council for things like roads, schools, libraries, bins, strategic planning, or indeed anything that doesnt really need a local variation, local senior management, local political involvement etc, which are organised from a regional "distribution centre" and run from local offices - think of them as your large supermarket stores. And for the little things, the things that DO have an impact locally and do have wide variations across fairly small areas, then there can be district or town councils. We cannot expect our local politicians to support this - after all they would be voting to lose their jobs and positions of (deluded) power. Who would do a thing like that?[/p][/quote]It seems you know the cost of every thing and the value of nothing. Accountants should never be allowed to run anything, Who got us all into the financial mess? mavrick
  • Score: -1

7:19am Mon 25 Feb 13

leelancs says...

Great post Kevin. Each of the six boroughs and the County Council have a chief exec, director of finance, director of HR, etc, etc. One of each would create savings. Each borough has numerous councillors and five of the six have county councillors. I don't get the sense this makes things more democratic so in my opinion the numbers can significantly reduce? Each borough individually is too small to achieve economies of scale (especially in this economic climate) and real efficiencies but a larger unitary authority should able to. I have stated previously that in my view an East Lancs authority would be small enough to be responsive but large enough to have clout and influence.
Great post Kevin. Each of the six boroughs and the County Council have a chief exec, director of finance, director of HR, etc, etc. One of each would create savings. Each borough has numerous councillors and five of the six have county councillors. I don't get the sense this makes things more democratic so in my opinion the numbers can significantly reduce? Each borough individually is too small to achieve economies of scale (especially in this economic climate) and real efficiencies but a larger unitary authority should able to. I have stated previously that in my view an East Lancs authority would be small enough to be responsive but large enough to have clout and influence. leelancs
  • Score: 3

10:59am Mon 25 Feb 13

Sir Bill Taylor says...

Councillor Mike Lee is right to resurrect this issue. Goodness only knows why he's a Tory!
We have John Redcliffe-Maud, aka Baron Redcliffe-Maud to thank for the 1974 reorganisation of local government & it's boundary implications. Many bits of the previous Lancashire, the county Palatinate were moved into the now Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Cumbria. In 1974 we were left with the truncated 1.4 million population county of Lancashire. This was amended in 1998 when the hugely successful Unitary councils based on Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen were formed. Way back in 1981 was a first time I advocated moving towards unitary authorities for East Lancs. The 1998 move can be seen as a halfway house on the way to the full transition.
In the early 2000 I advocated the second transitional step which was to establish an authority of around half a million population for East Lancs. I was booed by a handful of Ribble Valley residents at a meeting with John Prescott held at Blackburn Rovers. For me to be more of the bête noire than the then Deputy Prime Minister seems quite an accolade now!
The problem with any political change is that current political leaders, there because they are in political power at that moment, have a vested interest in the political status quo remaining exactly that!
In terms of service delivery, financial efficiency and democracy generally unitary authorities just make common sense.
The problem is common sense is not always commonly held!
So, let's have the debate that Michael Lee has resurrected.
I don't believe that IF we have unitary local government is the issue, the argument should be more about WHEN will we have it.
Removing layers of bureaucracy and stripping out top-heavy council management has never made more sense, especially in this austere time of Con-Dem driven frugality.
We need big minded local politicians convincing national politicians that the time is right!
Councillor Mike Lee is right to resurrect this issue. Goodness only knows why he's a Tory! We have John Redcliffe-Maud, aka Baron Redcliffe-Maud to thank for the 1974 reorganisation of local government & it's boundary implications. Many bits of the previous Lancashire, the county Palatinate were moved into the now Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Cumbria. In 1974 we were left with the truncated 1.4 million population county of Lancashire. This was amended in 1998 when the hugely successful Unitary councils based on Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen were formed. Way back in 1981 was a first time I advocated moving towards unitary authorities for East Lancs. The 1998 move can be seen as a halfway house on the way to the full transition. In the early 2000 I advocated the second transitional step which was to establish an authority of around half a million population for East Lancs. I was booed by a handful of Ribble Valley residents at a meeting with John Prescott held at Blackburn Rovers. For me to be more of the bête noire than the then Deputy Prime Minister seems quite an accolade now! The problem with any political change is that current political leaders, there because they are in political power at that moment, have a vested interest in the political status quo remaining exactly that! In terms of service delivery, financial efficiency and democracy generally unitary authorities just make common sense. The problem is common sense is not always commonly held! So, let's have the debate that Michael Lee has resurrected. I don't believe that IF we have unitary local government is the issue, the argument should be more about WHEN will we have it. Removing layers of bureaucracy and stripping out top-heavy council management has never made more sense, especially in this austere time of Con-Dem driven frugality. We need big minded local politicians convincing national politicians that the time is right! Sir Bill Taylor
  • Score: 0

11:05am Mon 25 Feb 13

Shirley Bassey says...

leelancs wrote:
Great post Kevin. Each of the six boroughs and the County Council have a chief exec, director of finance, director of HR, etc, etc. One of each would create savings. Each borough has numerous councillors and five of the six have county councillors. I don't get the sense this makes things more democratic so in my opinion the numbers can significantly reduce? Each borough individually is too small to achieve economies of scale (especially in this economic climate) and real efficiencies but a larger unitary authority should able to. I have stated previously that in my view an East Lancs authority would be small enough to be responsive but large enough to have clout and influence.
Of course Geoff Driver would say Local Government reorganisation isn't on Government's agenda, if it was, the county council would be broken up and he'd lose his £40k a year income and his lapdog Phil Halsall would lose his £200k a year salary. We don't need 14 or 15 chief executives and Leaders across Lancashire, carve the county up into three or four areas, the savings not just in East Lancs would be massive. It might not be on Government's agenda but with the way Pickles is slashing budgets, there won't be any other option.
[quote][p][bold]leelancs[/bold] wrote: Great post Kevin. Each of the six boroughs and the County Council have a chief exec, director of finance, director of HR, etc, etc. One of each would create savings. Each borough has numerous councillors and five of the six have county councillors. I don't get the sense this makes things more democratic so in my opinion the numbers can significantly reduce? Each borough individually is too small to achieve economies of scale (especially in this economic climate) and real efficiencies but a larger unitary authority should able to. I have stated previously that in my view an East Lancs authority would be small enough to be responsive but large enough to have clout and influence.[/p][/quote]Of course Geoff Driver would say Local Government reorganisation isn't on Government's agenda, if it was, the county council would be broken up and he'd lose his £40k a year income and his lapdog Phil Halsall would lose his £200k a year salary. We don't need 14 or 15 chief executives and Leaders across Lancashire, carve the county up into three or four areas, the savings not just in East Lancs would be massive. It might not be on Government's agenda but with the way Pickles is slashing budgets, there won't be any other option. Shirley Bassey
  • Score: 2

11:05am Mon 25 Feb 13

Izanears says...

The borough’s Tory leader Peter Britcliffe condemned Coun Lee’s scheme as a backward step.

He said: “I am violently opposed to any such plans. Bigger is not better in local government in terms of how the council can relate to their areas. I hope that this will remain on the back shelves.”

Bigger only works in exceptional circumstances and it would be of no benefit to Pendle. You have only to look at the way Lancashire County treat Pendle. The area is in state of managed decline. Image what it would be like if we were under a bigger authority. As for saving money by only having one HR dept. etc etc. All that will happen is that the number of staff will double even treble in those departments.
And as to economies of scale when it comes to buying consumables and the like, well, for a start a big warehouse will be set up with an exec, manager, supervisors, FLT and other arehouse operatives, a feet of vans etc etc, so any savings made will be more than wiped out.
Wev'e seen the problems big hospitals and schools have caused, just for once let's say small is beautiful..
The borough’s Tory leader Peter Britcliffe condemned Coun Lee’s scheme as a backward step. He said: “I am violently opposed to any such plans. Bigger is not better in local government in terms of how the council can relate to their areas. I hope that this will remain on the back shelves.” Bigger only works in exceptional circumstances and it would be of no benefit to Pendle. You have only to look at the way Lancashire County treat Pendle. The area is in state of managed decline. Image what it would be like if we were under a bigger authority. As for saving money by only having one HR dept. etc etc. All that will happen is that the number of staff will double even treble in those departments. And as to economies of scale when it comes to buying consumables and the like, well, for a start a big warehouse will be set up with an exec, manager, supervisors, FLT and other arehouse operatives, a feet of vans etc etc, so any savings made will be more than wiped out. Wev'e seen the problems big hospitals and schools have caused, just for once let's say small is beautiful.. Izanears
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Mon 25 Feb 13

mattscott21 says...

I think this is inevitable, it is good to see local MPs across the political divide promoting this, and ultimately it will need them to act together if this is going to happen within a reasonable timeframe. I share concerns about local areas losing their voice, but the problem is East Lancashire is suffering because of the current fragmented structures. It’s all about achieving the right balance between local accountability and being able to act strategically to attract investment into the area. This would be a massive boost for the two tier districts like Pendle and Burnley, which are currently being ‘run’ from Preston. It would bring decision making closer to home and would also reduce confusion for residents and local businesses.
I think this is inevitable, it is good to see local MPs across the political divide promoting this, and ultimately it will need them to act together if this is going to happen within a reasonable timeframe. I share concerns about local areas losing their voice, but the problem is East Lancashire is suffering because of the current fragmented structures. It’s all about achieving the right balance between local accountability and being able to act strategically to attract investment into the area. This would be a massive boost for the two tier districts like Pendle and Burnley, which are currently being ‘run’ from Preston. It would bring decision making closer to home and would also reduce confusion for residents and local businesses. mattscott21
  • Score: 1

1:02pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Jo_Tom says...

Izanears wrote:
The borough’s Tory leader Peter Britcliffe condemned Coun Lee’s scheme as a backward step. He said: “I am violently opposed to any such plans. Bigger is not better in local government in terms of how the council can relate to their areas. I hope that this will remain on the back shelves.” Bigger only works in exceptional circumstances and it would be of no benefit to Pendle. You have only to look at the way Lancashire County treat Pendle. The area is in state of managed decline. Image what it would be like if we were under a bigger authority. As for saving money by only having one HR dept. etc etc. All that will happen is that the number of staff will double even treble in those departments. And as to economies of scale when it comes to buying consumables and the like, well, for a start a big warehouse will be set up with an exec, manager, supervisors, FLT and other arehouse operatives, a feet of vans etc etc, so any savings made will be more than wiped out. Wev'e seen the problems big hospitals and schools have caused, just for once let's say small is beautiful..
Surely the services that LCC currently provide would be more localised with one or two unitary council's in East Lancs with councillors who actually live in the area having a say on decisions rather than a small number of county councillors battling to be heard in Preston. By linking up with other council's who have the same issues - low paid jobs, poor houses etc - there would be better opportunity to fight for cash. LCC's priority is Preston, a unitary in East Lancs would stop that. As for doubling or trebling departments, what planet are you on? Council's are already making people redundant not creating loads of new jobs and if the budgets keep getting cut there'll be no staff left at Pendle anyway! and as for a warehouse what exactly would be kept in it?? council's get their supplies from local businesses. The Tory's are squeezing life out of labour areas and whilst Government have said they don't want unitaries they're leaving no other options. Small is beautiful but not when you're fighting for money against the likes of Manchester and Liverpool or even Preston.
[quote][p][bold]Izanears[/bold] wrote: The borough’s Tory leader Peter Britcliffe condemned Coun Lee’s scheme as a backward step. He said: “I am violently opposed to any such plans. Bigger is not better in local government in terms of how the council can relate to their areas. I hope that this will remain on the back shelves.” Bigger only works in exceptional circumstances and it would be of no benefit to Pendle. You have only to look at the way Lancashire County treat Pendle. The area is in state of managed decline. Image what it would be like if we were under a bigger authority. As for saving money by only having one HR dept. etc etc. All that will happen is that the number of staff will double even treble in those departments. And as to economies of scale when it comes to buying consumables and the like, well, for a start a big warehouse will be set up with an exec, manager, supervisors, FLT and other arehouse operatives, a feet of vans etc etc, so any savings made will be more than wiped out. Wev'e seen the problems big hospitals and schools have caused, just for once let's say small is beautiful..[/p][/quote]Surely the services that LCC currently provide would be more localised with one or two unitary council's in East Lancs with councillors who actually live in the area having a say on decisions rather than a small number of county councillors battling to be heard in Preston. By linking up with other council's who have the same issues - low paid jobs, poor houses etc - there would be better opportunity to fight for cash. LCC's priority is Preston, a unitary in East Lancs would stop that. As for doubling or trebling departments, what planet are you on? Council's are already making people redundant not creating loads of new jobs and if the budgets keep getting cut there'll be no staff left at Pendle anyway! and as for a warehouse what exactly would be kept in it?? council's get their supplies from local businesses. The Tory's are squeezing life out of labour areas and whilst Government have said they don't want unitaries they're leaving no other options. Small is beautiful but not when you're fighting for money against the likes of Manchester and Liverpool or even Preston. Jo_Tom
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Mon 25 Feb 13

rilistic says...

You don't realise it but for the reasons you give we should have a unitary LCC. Geoff Driver and his people are doing a much better job than what Sir Bill describes as the 'hugely successful unitaries of Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen'. Cutting services and making people redundant doesn't sound like 'hugely successful' to me whereas LCC are increasing services and cutting council tax - that sounds more like 'hugely successful'. Mike Lee just wants to annex the other Districts in East Lancs and the leader of Burnley has spotted that. What does the leader of Rossendale think - she is ominously silent.
You don't realise it but for the reasons you give we should have a unitary LCC. Geoff Driver and his people are doing a much better job than what Sir Bill describes as the 'hugely successful unitaries of Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen'. Cutting services and making people redundant doesn't sound like 'hugely successful' to me whereas LCC are increasing services and cutting council tax - that sounds more like 'hugely successful'. Mike Lee just wants to annex the other Districts in East Lancs and the leader of Burnley has spotted that. What does the leader of Rossendale think - she is ominously silent. rilistic
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Sir Bill Taylor says...

MMmmnn...so, wonders who Nihilistic is or who they work for...
How do you judge LCC to be increasing services? Would be pleased to understand. Is this checked out with the schools, young or old people, social services clients, pot hole dodging car drivers...
I thought LCC had made many redundant? Thousands?
At a pinch a Unitary LCC would be better than 2/3 tiers...but does anyone in Lytham St Anne's want the same as somes in East Lancs former cotton communities? Oops not Nihilistic ...Rile-istic!
MMmmnn...so, wonders who Nihilistic is or who they work for... How do you judge LCC to be increasing services? Would be pleased to understand. Is this checked out with the schools, young or old people, social services clients, pot hole dodging car drivers... I thought LCC had made many redundant? Thousands? At a pinch a Unitary LCC would be better than 2/3 tiers...but does anyone in Lytham St Anne's want the same as somes in East Lancs former cotton communities? Oops not Nihilistic ...Rile-istic! Sir Bill Taylor
  • Score: -2

2:37pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Stop Backenders says...

Why don’t you all fight it out in a boxing ring the last person standing wins
One say in this matter you have all got too big for your own boots The amount of money you lot have wasted is a disgrace it’s you lot that as caused most of the redundancies in these towns. You can all scratch each other’s eyes out until the cows come home.
Typical selfish councillors worried about their jobs and expenses and joining the rest of the people in the real world with no expenses or fancy ipads to get to work.
I say get rid of you all and let some fresh blood in who won’t waste billions of pounds of money on stupid projects like, bus lanes and painting the road with every obstacle what you can think off they cause more traffic congestion and pollution and the death of most of the towns because nobody can get in.
Look, what Blackburn and Darwin Council has done to Blackburn all that money wasted on their crazy road layout, it’s a town centre not London and if people cannot get in because of all the obstacles, you have put in the way, No one will want to shop there anymore.
That is why all these places are going under because the money is wasted on stupid projects instead of diverting that money and investing it on things that will help these communities.
Just look at the number of young people that could have benefited and trained up with a proper apprentice course and on the right wage and I do not mean a shelf stacker at Morrison’s.
All that Money squandered on these projects would have paid their wages for years and put other people into jobs.
Therefore, instead of fighting like school girls for top dog why not put it to the public vote for them to decide instead of sitting around some table foot kissing for some one else’s vote
Why don’t you all fight it out in a boxing ring the last person standing wins One say in this matter you have all got too big for your own boots The amount of money you lot have wasted is a disgrace it’s you lot that as caused most of the redundancies in these towns. You can all scratch each other’s eyes out until the cows come home. Typical selfish councillors worried about their jobs and expenses and joining the rest of the people in the real world with no expenses or fancy ipads to get to work. I say get rid of you all and let some fresh blood in who won’t waste billions of pounds of money on stupid projects like, bus lanes and painting the road with every obstacle what you can think off they cause more traffic congestion and pollution and the death of most of the towns because nobody can get in. Look, what Blackburn and Darwin Council has done to Blackburn all that money wasted on their crazy road layout, it’s a town centre not London and if people cannot get in because of all the obstacles, you have put in the way, No one will want to shop there anymore. That is why all these places are going under because the money is wasted on stupid projects instead of diverting that money and investing it on things that will help these communities. Just look at the number of young people that could have benefited and trained up with a proper apprentice course and on the right wage and I do not mean a shelf stacker at Morrison’s. All that Money squandered on these projects would have paid their wages for years and put other people into jobs. Therefore, instead of fighting like school girls for top dog why not put it to the public vote for them to decide instead of sitting around some table foot kissing for some one else’s vote Stop Backenders
  • Score: 6

3:00pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Jo_Tom says...

Stop Backenders wrote:
Why don’t you all fight it out in a boxing ring the last person standing wins One say in this matter you have all got too big for your own boots The amount of money you lot have wasted is a disgrace it’s you lot that as caused most of the redundancies in these towns. You can all scratch each other’s eyes out until the cows come home. Typical selfish councillors worried about their jobs and expenses and joining the rest of the people in the real world with no expenses or fancy ipads to get to work. I say get rid of you all and let some fresh blood in who won’t waste billions of pounds of money on stupid projects like, bus lanes and painting the road with every obstacle what you can think off they cause more traffic congestion and pollution and the death of most of the towns because nobody can get in. Look, what Blackburn and Darwin Council has done to Blackburn all that money wasted on their crazy road layout, it’s a town centre not London and if people cannot get in because of all the obstacles, you have put in the way, No one will want to shop there anymore. That is why all these places are going under because the money is wasted on stupid projects instead of diverting that money and investing it on things that will help these communities. Just look at the number of young people that could have benefited and trained up with a proper apprentice course and on the right wage and I do not mean a shelf stacker at Morrison’s. All that Money squandered on these projects would have paid their wages for years and put other people into jobs. Therefore, instead of fighting like school girls for top dog why not put it to the public vote for them to decide instead of sitting around some table foot kissing for some one else’s vote
It is put to the public vote, that's what local council elections are for. If you think you can do a better job by all means please share your manifesto and put yourself up for election.
[quote][p][bold]Stop Backenders[/bold] wrote: Why don’t you all fight it out in a boxing ring the last person standing wins One say in this matter you have all got too big for your own boots The amount of money you lot have wasted is a disgrace it’s you lot that as caused most of the redundancies in these towns. You can all scratch each other’s eyes out until the cows come home. Typical selfish councillors worried about their jobs and expenses and joining the rest of the people in the real world with no expenses or fancy ipads to get to work. I say get rid of you all and let some fresh blood in who won’t waste billions of pounds of money on stupid projects like, bus lanes and painting the road with every obstacle what you can think off they cause more traffic congestion and pollution and the death of most of the towns because nobody can get in. Look, what Blackburn and Darwin Council has done to Blackburn all that money wasted on their crazy road layout, it’s a town centre not London and if people cannot get in because of all the obstacles, you have put in the way, No one will want to shop there anymore. That is why all these places are going under because the money is wasted on stupid projects instead of diverting that money and investing it on things that will help these communities. Just look at the number of young people that could have benefited and trained up with a proper apprentice course and on the right wage and I do not mean a shelf stacker at Morrison’s. All that Money squandered on these projects would have paid their wages for years and put other people into jobs. Therefore, instead of fighting like school girls for top dog why not put it to the public vote for them to decide instead of sitting around some table foot kissing for some one else’s vote[/p][/quote]It is put to the public vote, that's what local council elections are for. If you think you can do a better job by all means please share your manifesto and put yourself up for election. Jo_Tom
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Sir Bill Taylor says...

Dear Mr B Ender...sorry don't know your name or real identity but I can only guess with such courageous ways you have stood for local office. I would welcome anyone who has imaginative ideas & drive to get in there & implement change for improvement.
Joking apart I think you'd be surprised at the time & energy consuming, family & career depriving years many local elected members put in/deny themselves. In terms of their career/salary progression & pension opportunities this could add up to many 100s of 1000s of £s.
I have little to do with the Council now but I'm sure the current incumbents would be pleased to know you thought their endeavours reached across great land masses & oceans to Darwin, the capital city of the Northern Territory, Australia.
How we view & treat our young people is in my opinion a fair barometer of a civilised & fair Society. At Blackburn College, for example, where I have the honour of serving as its Chairman, we accomodate, train or educate some 15,000 learners from youngsters of 14 or so right through to an 84 yo who got got himself a 1st Class Honours last year before going on the take a teaching course.
If you'd like to engage your skills, track record & energy we are always looking for top people, please write to me c/o the College. We'll invite you in.
Dear Mr B Ender...sorry don't know your name or real identity but I can only guess with such courageous ways you have stood for local office. I would welcome anyone who has imaginative ideas & drive to get in there & implement change for improvement. Joking apart I think you'd be surprised at the time & energy consuming, family & career depriving years many local elected members put in/deny themselves. In terms of their career/salary progression & pension opportunities this could add up to many 100s of 1000s of £s. I have little to do with the Council now but I'm sure the current incumbents would be pleased to know you thought their endeavours reached across great land masses & oceans to Darwin, the capital city of the Northern Territory, Australia. How we view & treat our young people is in my opinion a fair barometer of a civilised & fair Society. At Blackburn College, for example, where I have the honour of serving as its Chairman, we accomodate, train or educate some 15,000 learners from youngsters of 14 or so right through to an 84 yo who got got himself a 1st Class Honours last year before going on the take a teaching course. If you'd like to engage your skills, track record & energy we are always looking for top people, please write to me c/o the College. We'll invite you in. Sir Bill Taylor
  • Score: -8

3:21pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Stop Backenders says...

Jo_Tom wrote:
Stop Backenders wrote:
Why don’t you all fight it out in a boxing ring the last person standing wins One say in this matter you have all got too big for your own boots The amount of money you lot have wasted is a disgrace it’s you lot that as caused most of the redundancies in these towns. You can all scratch each other’s eyes out until the cows come home. Typical selfish councillors worried about their jobs and expenses and joining the rest of the people in the real world with no expenses or fancy ipads to get to work. I say get rid of you all and let some fresh blood in who won’t waste billions of pounds of money on stupid projects like, bus lanes and painting the road with every obstacle what you can think off they cause more traffic congestion and pollution and the death of most of the towns because nobody can get in. Look, what Blackburn and Darwin Council has done to Blackburn all that money wasted on their crazy road layout, it’s a town centre not London and if people cannot get in because of all the obstacles, you have put in the way, No one will want to shop there anymore. That is why all these places are going under because the money is wasted on stupid projects instead of diverting that money and investing it on things that will help these communities. Just look at the number of young people that could have benefited and trained up with a proper apprentice course and on the right wage and I do not mean a shelf stacker at Morrison’s. All that Money squandered on these projects would have paid their wages for years and put other people into jobs. Therefore, instead of fighting like school girls for top dog why not put it to the public vote for them to decide instead of sitting around some table foot kissing for some one else’s vote
It is put to the public vote, that's what local council elections are for. If you think you can do a better job by all means please share your manifesto and put yourself up for election.
One word listen to the people what they want how many times do you councillors over rule peoples objections about your big ideals and some of you say you havent any control over these big plans., well if you are all not men enough to make a stand and not pass these big plans what are you there for get of your dog leads that the big powers have you on and do something
[quote][p][bold]Jo_Tom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stop Backenders[/bold] wrote: Why don’t you all fight it out in a boxing ring the last person standing wins One say in this matter you have all got too big for your own boots The amount of money you lot have wasted is a disgrace it’s you lot that as caused most of the redundancies in these towns. You can all scratch each other’s eyes out until the cows come home. Typical selfish councillors worried about their jobs and expenses and joining the rest of the people in the real world with no expenses or fancy ipads to get to work. I say get rid of you all and let some fresh blood in who won’t waste billions of pounds of money on stupid projects like, bus lanes and painting the road with every obstacle what you can think off they cause more traffic congestion and pollution and the death of most of the towns because nobody can get in. Look, what Blackburn and Darwin Council has done to Blackburn all that money wasted on their crazy road layout, it’s a town centre not London and if people cannot get in because of all the obstacles, you have put in the way, No one will want to shop there anymore. That is why all these places are going under because the money is wasted on stupid projects instead of diverting that money and investing it on things that will help these communities. Just look at the number of young people that could have benefited and trained up with a proper apprentice course and on the right wage and I do not mean a shelf stacker at Morrison’s. All that Money squandered on these projects would have paid their wages for years and put other people into jobs. Therefore, instead of fighting like school girls for top dog why not put it to the public vote for them to decide instead of sitting around some table foot kissing for some one else’s vote[/p][/quote]It is put to the public vote, that's what local council elections are for. If you think you can do a better job by all means please share your manifesto and put yourself up for election.[/p][/quote]One word listen to the people what they want how many times do you councillors over rule peoples objections about your big ideals and some of you say you havent any control over these big plans., well if you are all not men enough to make a stand and not pass these big plans what are you there for get of your dog leads that the big powers have you on and do something Stop Backenders
  • Score: 7

4:20pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Stop Backenders says...

Sir Bill Taylor wrote:
Dear Mr B Ender...sorry don't know your name or real identity but I can only guess with such courageous ways you have stood for local office. I would welcome anyone who has imaginative ideas & drive to get in there & implement change for improvement.
Joking apart I think you'd be surprised at the time & energy consuming, family & career depriving years many local elected members put in/deny themselves. In terms of their career/salary progression & pension opportunities this could add up to many 100s of 1000s of £s.
I have little to do with the Council now but I'm sure the current incumbents would be pleased to know you thought their endeavours reached across great land masses & oceans to Darwin, the capital city of the Northern Territory, Australia.
How we view & treat our young people is in my opinion a fair barometer of a civilised & fair Society. At Blackburn College, for example, where I have the honour of serving as its Chairman, we accomodate, train or educate some 15,000 learners from youngsters of 14 or so right through to an 84 yo who got got himself a 1st Class Honours last year before going on the take a teaching course.
If you'd like to engage your skills, track record & energy we are always looking for top people, please write to me c/o the College. We'll invite you in.
Well pardon me sir, I do agree the students have worked dam hard to get their degrees where are most of them now working on the minimum wage so what good has all that work done, get in the real world.
You sit on your posh chairman’s chair with your big wage and pension thrown in do you teach these 15,000 students sir. Who will more than likely end up as a new meaning for the term apprentice, stocking Morrison’s shelves or some other form of cheap labour even though they do posses work skills with no money left after paying out for food, rent, and transport to work, and you can forget about the dentist, medicine and Cloths on £110.00 per week?
How does that compare with your wage or company pension?
Do you get paid for being the chairman or do you do it for free?
Your fancy words do not mean anything to me except that you look down on people
[quote][p][bold]Sir Bill Taylor[/bold] wrote: Dear Mr B Ender...sorry don't know your name or real identity but I can only guess with such courageous ways you have stood for local office. I would welcome anyone who has imaginative ideas & drive to get in there & implement change for improvement. Joking apart I think you'd be surprised at the time & energy consuming, family & career depriving years many local elected members put in/deny themselves. In terms of their career/salary progression & pension opportunities this could add up to many 100s of 1000s of £s. I have little to do with the Council now but I'm sure the current incumbents would be pleased to know you thought their endeavours reached across great land masses & oceans to Darwin, the capital city of the Northern Territory, Australia. How we view & treat our young people is in my opinion a fair barometer of a civilised & fair Society. At Blackburn College, for example, where I have the honour of serving as its Chairman, we accomodate, train or educate some 15,000 learners from youngsters of 14 or so right through to an 84 yo who got got himself a 1st Class Honours last year before going on the take a teaching course. If you'd like to engage your skills, track record & energy we are always looking for top people, please write to me c/o the College. We'll invite you in.[/p][/quote]Well pardon me sir, I do agree the students have worked dam hard to get their degrees where are most of them now working on the minimum wage so what good has all that work done, get in the real world. You sit on your posh chairman’s chair with your big wage and pension thrown in do you teach these 15,000 students sir. Who will more than likely end up as a new meaning for the term apprentice, stocking Morrison’s shelves or some other form of cheap labour even though they do posses work skills with no money left after paying out for food, rent, and transport to work, and you can forget about the dentist, medicine and Cloths on £110.00 per week? How does that compare with your wage or company pension? Do you get paid for being the chairman or do you do it for free? Your fancy words do not mean anything to me except that you look down on people Stop Backenders
  • Score: 7

5:04pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Stop Backenders says...

To the councillors’ in this cat fight
Yes, I do know a lot of hard work goes into becoming an elected councillor and the family time lost due to this. It is not what I am arguing?
It is the fact of all the billions of money wasted on stupid schemes and not listening to the people views about the money wasted on them.
All the people of Blackburn and Darwin could put objections in concerning a development what would the outcome over ruled again?
I will show respect when you listen about peoples objections, respect their views, and stand up to the government for once.
To the councillors’ in this cat fight Yes, I do know a lot of hard work goes into becoming an elected councillor and the family time lost due to this. It is not what I am arguing? It is the fact of all the billions of money wasted on stupid schemes and not listening to the people views about the money wasted on them. All the people of Blackburn and Darwin could put objections in concerning a development what would the outcome over ruled again? I will show respect when you listen about peoples objections, respect their views, and stand up to the government for once. Stop Backenders
  • Score: 5

5:24pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Sir Bill Taylor says...

Dear B Ender...You present no evidence to support your case, not even sure what it is? The evidence I have seen is that people who successfully graduate from B'burn (a few years ago we had 30+ graduating with 1st Class Hons, 85 last year) earn several, about 4 or 5 £k pa more, than their non grad peers. Our education seeking folk will help lift the economic base of East Lancs & enrich their & their family's lives. We should support & encourage them.
From what I can remember any member of the public can address both the Council's Executive Committee & the full Council...take whatever your case is there...let's hear what happened when you went along.
A big posh chair for the Chair???MMmmnn...not my way. Looking down on people, if you knew me or my pretty humble beginnings, you'd know that won't stick. The only people I have little time for are a) those who whinge & moan without trying to help or offer alternative solutions & b) those who squander the opportunities that have either come their way or they have created.
Do I teach all 15,000 students at the College? Of course I do (not)! Though I have taught in communities, schools & universities across the region.
Recompense for my, what day, day & a half a week spent with others trying to make things better, for which I have invited you to apply! Will You? I can assure you, like in many other public roles over the last few years, it has not increased one penny piece.
Dear B Ender...You present no evidence to support your case, not even sure what it is? The evidence I have seen is that people who successfully graduate from B'burn (a few years ago we had 30+ graduating with 1st Class Hons, 85 last year) earn several, about 4 or 5 £k pa more, than their non grad peers. Our education seeking folk will help lift the economic base of East Lancs & enrich their & their family's lives. We should support & encourage them. From what I can remember any member of the public can address both the Council's Executive Committee & the full Council...take whatever your case is there...let's hear what happened when you went along. A big posh chair for the Chair???MMmmnn...not my way. Looking down on people, if you knew me or my pretty humble beginnings, you'd know that won't stick. The only people I have little time for are a) those who whinge & moan without trying to help or offer alternative solutions & b) those who squander the opportunities that have either come their way or they have created. Do I teach all 15,000 students at the College? Of course I do (not)! Though I have taught in communities, schools & universities across the region. Recompense for my, what day, day & a half a week spent with others trying to make things better, for which I have invited you to apply! Will You? I can assure you, like in many other public roles over the last few years, it has not increased one penny piece. Sir Bill Taylor
  • Score: -8

6:02pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Stop Backenders says...

Im knocking your past thires many a great man come from a humble backgroung I will give them credit for that even you.
The point is look how you respond to some one without answering the right answer about the people working for nothing and the money wasted on stupid schemes and I wiil stick to my guns on that .If you want to ignore the fact about these people working for nothing coming out of college thats up to you.
Im knocking your past thires many a great man come from a humble backgroung I will give them credit for that even you. The point is look how you respond to some one without answering the right answer about the people working for nothing and the money wasted on stupid schemes and I wiil stick to my guns on that .If you want to ignore the fact about these people working for nothing coming out of college thats up to you. Stop Backenders
  • Score: 2

6:06pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Sir Bill Taylor says...

I don't know of any that is the fault of anything I am involved in...If there is...please specify...
I don't know of any that is the fault of anything I am involved in...If there is...please specify... Sir Bill Taylor
  • Score: -4

6:13pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Stop Backenders says...

limey redneck wrote:
as far as i can tell eric pickles is nothing but a moron & idiot.he wont lift afinger to stop the rape of SMITHILLS COACHING HOUSE & SURROUNDING GREENBELT LAND on the outskirts of BOLTON.he is probably taking kickbacks.
Do,nt upset them they do not like other peoples views?
[quote][p][bold]limey redneck[/bold] wrote: as far as i can tell eric pickles is nothing but a moron & idiot.he wont lift afinger to stop the rape of SMITHILLS COACHING HOUSE & SURROUNDING GREENBELT LAND on the outskirts of BOLTON.he is probably taking kickbacks.[/p][/quote]Do,nt upset them they do not like other peoples views? Stop Backenders
  • Score: 3

6:49pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Stop Backenders says...

Sir Bill Taylor wrote:
I don't know of any that is the fault of anything I am involved in...If there is...please specify...
Did I accuse you no, Tell me this could you live of £110.00 per week and pay your bills, board, electric, shopping, Travel expenses dental fees, they call this the new apprentice wage even for stacking shelves at Morrison’s . That is what the students are doing after leaving college with their skills that they have studied not earning thousands of pounds like you seem to think or ignore for it is an insult to them all.
What would you have done when you were young lad and went for a job in a super market and they said you need a 1-year course on stacking shelves as an apprentice so they can pay you the minimum wage? Underneath I know what your response would be?
My point is money is squandered in its millions if not more on wasteful projects by the councils all of them, that could put these people on a proper wage instead of knocking them and insulting their intelligence.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Bill Taylor[/bold] wrote: I don't know of any that is the fault of anything I am involved in...If there is...please specify...[/p][/quote]Did I accuse you no, Tell me this could you live of £110.00 per week and pay your bills, board, electric, shopping, Travel expenses dental fees, they call this the new apprentice wage even for stacking shelves at Morrison’s . That is what the students are doing after leaving college with their skills that they have studied not earning thousands of pounds like you seem to think or ignore for it is an insult to them all. What would you have done when you were young lad and went for a job in a super market and they said you need a 1-year course on stacking shelves as an apprentice so they can pay you the minimum wage? Underneath I know what your response would be? My point is money is squandered in its millions if not more on wasteful projects by the councils all of them, that could put these people on a proper wage instead of knocking them and insulting their intelligence. Stop Backenders
  • Score: 4

7:00pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Stop Backenders says...

Sir Bill Taylor wrote:
I don't know of any that is the fault of anything I am involved in...If there is...please specify...
right im going now need some air before I go mad I will speak my mind thats how I am so if you want to take offence thats upto you.
speak to you later
[quote][p][bold]Sir Bill Taylor[/bold] wrote: I don't know of any that is the fault of anything I am involved in...If there is...please specify...[/p][/quote]right im going now need some air before I go mad I will speak my mind thats how I am so if you want to take offence thats upto you. speak to you later Stop Backenders
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Sir Bill Taylor says...

If there are things that aren't right, please be specific & don't generalise...we should ensure that all youngsters get the best possible start in life...
If you live in BwithD I am pretty sure there are ways to meet Councillors or the MPs to put this over...write to me via the College...
If there are things that aren't right, please be specific & don't generalise...we should ensure that all youngsters get the best possible start in life... If you live in BwithD I am pretty sure there are ways to meet Councillors or the MPs to put this over...write to me via the College... Sir Bill Taylor
  • Score: -4

9:28am Wed 27 Feb 13

rilistic says...

You certainly don't like criticism or answering questions do you Sir Bill. But then you were always like that. You ask SBs what evidence he has to support his assertions but what evidence do you have to support your grossly inaccurate statements about LCC? (By the way, I work for BwD so I know all about the fiasco there!)
You certainly don't like criticism or answering questions do you Sir Bill. But then you were always like that. You ask SBs what evidence he has to support his assertions but what evidence do you have to support your grossly inaccurate statements about LCC? (By the way, I work for BwD so I know all about the fiasco there!) rilistic
  • Score: 8

9:48am Wed 27 Feb 13

Sir Bill Taylor says...

What are the questions? And what can I do?
Can you specify about LCC?
I don't know any detail about BwithD? Are they not faced with 40% + cuts? Is that the fiasco?
What are the questions? And what can I do? Can you specify about LCC? I don't know any detail about BwithD? Are they not faced with 40% + cuts? Is that the fiasco? Sir Bill Taylor
  • Score: -8

9:20pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Elegant1 says...

The real problem as I see it is that we are lumbered with an inept wasteful government. There blinkered view is that we can afford to to lash out money in Aide to all and sundry. If Air-miles Dave would stay in this country long enough, to learn what is wrong with the economy, he might just realise that charity begins at home!
When 4.5 million men returned after WW2 and were, for all intent an purpose, unemployed and many unemployable. They needed to be put to work on capital projects. Money was, and had to be borrowed, to facillitate this. This was done and GB rose from the ashes!
Growth is the only way out of this mire! Growth will produce the climate of provision. This is what was required then and is required now.
The Tory mind is unable to grasp the lessons of history. Never was and never will!
The real problem as I see it is that we are lumbered with an inept wasteful government. There blinkered view is that we can afford to to lash out money in Aide to all and sundry. If Air-miles Dave would stay in this country long enough, to learn what is wrong with the economy, he might just realise that charity begins at home! When 4.5 million men returned after WW2 and were, for all intent an purpose, unemployed and many unemployable. They needed to be put to work on capital projects. Money was, and had to be borrowed, to facillitate this. This was done and GB rose from the ashes! Growth is the only way out of this mire! Growth will produce the climate of provision. This is what was required then and is required now. The Tory mind is unable to grasp the lessons of history. Never was and never will! Elegant1
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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