This the first blog on the subject of a Unitary Suffolk.
Its basic aim is to create an easy to use forum to promote a single Unitary Authority for Suffolk.
Why?
Suffolk should not be split to please either the Labour Government or the various councils wishes - Officers and Councillors! If we split Suffolk, the County as a single structure will cease to exist
Why a single Suffolk Unitary?
In short, it's the simplest & cheapest option and will involve the least upheaval and cost. By integrating the 7 district and borough councils into the County Council (and vice versa), there could be the following savings and eficiencies;
- at least one layer of 'expensive' officers can be removed,
- service integration (and some centralisation),
- local delivery with existing district & borough offices,
- better public understanding, one councillor, one point of contact,
- reduction in number of councillors (from 380 to say 150),
- A single authority would have greater clout with Westminster, EEDA and Europe,
- Emergency planning would remain county-wide,
- Integration of IT and back-office functions,
These are only a few of the obvious advantages - what others can you think of?
What disadvantages are there apart from the size - a single authority covering 700,000 Suffolk residents?
We have been told the 'Status Quo' is NOT an option. If we are being forced to change, lets all agree that a Unitary Suffolk, incorporating the best bits of what went before, is our best option.
Are you listening Boundary Committee?
Please feel free to comment.
Here's to a Unitary Suffolk!
.
17 comments:
Presumably if Suffolk became a unitary council Andrea Hill would need another pay rise to recognise the extra work she was taking on(!)
Seriously though, why would we want to hand over all council services to the same bunch of jokers who think they can arrogantly push through a £70,000 pay rise for a fat cat bureaucrat while cutting vital services?
Dear 'anonymous' (07/04 @ 0908),
Thanks for commenting!
You obviously missed the first of the points made;
"at least one layer of 'expensive' officers can be removed"
Perhaps Ms. Hill could then justify her alledged "Fat Cat" salary, cut some waste and continue to invest in "vital services".
Here's to a Unitary Suffolk!
Who says Ms Hill is on 220K? I've never started a new job at the top of a salary scale.
If you create a West Suffolk unitary then it will look to Bury as a capital. Ipswich will naturally look to itself. What sense of place would there be for the amorphous East Suffolk? Capital would be where?
The Hippocratic Oath begins first do no harm. If only the Government would listen...
Hello another 'anonymous' (07/04 @ 2034),
Most sensible people understand that Ms. Hill will not start at the top end of the salary scale. However, her total package will probably be in the region of £250k, if not more. Money well spent if our Council tax rises are less than inflation!
Agree about West Suffolk (Bury) and Ipswich but there is always Woodbridge for the East? However, better a Unitary Suffolk with Ipswich at its centre!
Ask New Labour about the Hyppocratic Oath! IF this change happens, it's because Brown forced it on us. Suffolk and the Districts & Boroughs are under the weather. The different parts are not working as one. IF we are forced to change then we must make the best of it.
However, when all this is over and Brown has bottled it again, we may be left with the Status Quo. The eight authorities will then need to talk to each other and agree a cooperation and cost-cutting strategy for the future. Looking at recent media articles, this does not bode well!
Heres to a Unitary Suffolk!
.
A unitary Suffolk is a recipe for disaster, as it assumes that the issues, challenges and problems (as well as opportunities) facing each area are the same, and they are not. Urban areas like Lowestoft and Ipswich face terrible deprivation, for example.
The Tory rural councillors don't understand the issues of the urban areas, which is why places like Ipswich were so keen to get out of the grips of the county.
Part of sleepy Suffolk, managed by a few rural types who look down on the urban areas? NO WAY.
RS
.
Dear 'RS',
A Unitary Suffolk assumes no such thing.
Those rural Councillors you refer to (of all colours) are probably very well aware of the urban issues within the County as well as the corresponding rural problems.
It is quite sad you have such a poor view of the wonderful rural expanse of our County and especially the people who live in it.
Suffolk needs to be united so we can all benefit and share this wonderful County together!
Heres to a Unitary Suffolk!
.
SCC is already far too big to be effective in lots of areas. They have failed me and my family on several occasions due to lack of local knowledge, inflexibility, lack of internal communication, failing to answer questions and just not caring! I cannot see how absorbing all of the district and borough councils into one humungous bulk could ever be effective it will just increase the inefficiency and confusion! It would also be extremely costly to merge, not just in money terms but in terms of providing effective services to the taxpayers.
Smaller unitary councils, whether it's just East and West, or East, West and Ipswich will be large enough to be efficient and small enough to remain effective.
There is already a considerable amount of partnership working between existing councils in the East or West, so merging 2 or 3 together is a natural step further than many of the existing relationships.
West Suffolk is largely a mix of market towns and rural areas, East Suffolk has a different character with a large coastal area, and Ipswich is a large urban area and different again. We will still all be part of Suffolk and will never loose our identity.
2 or 3 unitary authorities will meet and exceed the efficiencies and savings that are being put forward as arguments for one unitary Suffolk:
- at least one layer of 'expensive' officers can be removed: Hmm, SCC seems to have more layers than many district councils!
- service integration (and some centralisation): to provide more efficient services, but not making them so large they become cumbersome.
- local delivery with existing district & borough offices: this already happens in the districts & will be far more effective when you're talking about services delivered by SCC
- better public understanding, one councillor, one point of contact: that will still be the case
- reduction in number of councillors (from 380 to say 150): imagine Full Council meetings with 150 Councillors – so impractical, 50 is far more manageable and not that different to how it is now.
- A single authority would have greater clout with Westminster, EEDA and Europe: doubtful – three authorities are three strong voices, not one that cannot fully reflect the needs and feelings of three very different areas.
- Emergency planning would remain county-wide: like it is now you mean? So no change there.
- Integration of IT and back-office functions: having experienced some of the CSD IT functions – that could well mean more expense and less efficiency.
There is a good case for a Unitary Suffolk and you make it well. I would, however, prefer 3 Unitary Councils in Suffolk:- East: West: & Greater Ipswich.
Each Unitary Council would represent about 240,000 people and consist of 50 or so councillors. I have some difficulty in relating your suggestion of 150 councillors with the need for members to have local knowledge of issues under discussion.
I'm currently a borough councillor representing a ward in Bury and I also have a day job. I can't live off a councillors allowance and given that I'm a lone parent with a teenage daughter in full-time education, can give only 18 hours a week on average to my 3,500 electors plus general borough issues.
You may portray my stance as selfish but I think that Independents like me offer a 'safety valve' for local democracy. At county level, only Richard Kemp was elected as Independent. At SEBC, I am one of 3 Independent Members. Not enough IMO but at least someone can stand up and disagree with the stifling orthodoxy of the political parties.
When the Boundary Committee come to look at Suffolk in detail they may conclude that 4 Unitaries are needed. Fitting towns like Sudbury, Hadleigh, Stowmarket, Needham Market and Woodbridge into the 3 'moulds' won't be easy; especially if there is widespread resistence. So we may end up with a South Central Suffolk as well.
The one certainty is that returning to the pre-1974 East/West split is a non-runner. The 2 largest towns - Ipswich and Lowestoft - are in the eastern half, and Yartoft is just an unnatural perversion. It creates more problems than it solves, both in Norfolk and Suffolk.
The following e-mail has just been sent to Graham Dines at the EADT;
"Dear Mr. Dines,
Thank you for highlighting the Unitary Suffolk campaign in your paper today and publishing the blog URL.
However, you are quite incorrect in your assertion that the blog has been censored.
This is not true and an appropriate apology would be appreciated.
Please make another attempt at blogging; if you fail again please reply to this E-mail and your message will be published in its entirety.
Thanks again for the publicity!!
Here's to a Unitary Suffolk!"
Looking forward to his post!!
.
There is some merit in an East/West split because I believe that one authority representing 700,000 (soon to be 3/4 million?) people is just too big. However For those who don't live along the A14 corridor Bury St Edmunds is totally remote with no reasonable access by road or rail. How will those from the southwest of our county who need to get there actually manage? Already many are forced to go there for the courts and hospital and the journey is an interminable nightmare.
I don't think it matters who the blogger is and if the anons stick to the subject in hand and don't stray into verbalabuseland after a few too many glasses of the falling over juice, that's not very important either.
I am clearly identifiable to most Bury bloggers in my previous comment on this post and my literary style is familiar to many readers of the Bury Free Press.
Whatever the outcome of the unitary debate, as a professional I will work with whatever shape emerges, whether I agree with it or not.
A single unitary has the advantage of eliminating waste and duplication, but suffers from the accusation that it is too remote. Is it feasible to expect Lowestoft and Haverhill to have to look to Ipswich for their local government spending - even if area offices are established, there will still be a feeling of remoteness.
The county council has not helped itself by holding the vast majority of its committee meetings in Ipswich. Why can't development control meet in Bury or Stowmarket if dealing with controversial matters local to those towns? Why not take debates on middle school policy to Saxmundham or Newmarket?
I support three unitaries - East, West and Greater Ipswich. I don't believe Yartoft will work - do the people of Lowestoft want to live in Norfolk, served by Norfolk police; will the folk of Great Yarmouth be happy to be transported into Suffolk? No. The concept is flawed.
Dear 'Graham Dines',
You do sound rather reluctant with your first comment however your second remark - eliminating waste and duplication - is the whole emphasis of a Unitary Suffolk.
A Unitary Suffolk would start again, with the opportunity of picking the best parts of the 8 authorities that went before.
Ipswich will remain the County Town and the seven districts/boroughs could be the local satellites for a Unitary Suffolk.
A local face/presence for the County is what's missing at the moment. As you say, all local issues should be dealt with and discussed at a local level - no arguement there.
Here's to a Unitary Suffolk!
P.S. Still no apology for your censorship slur!!
.
As you didn't publish my response to Graham Dines' comment, can I assume that you didn't receive it?
David,
Sorry your comment didn't get through - I really don't know why!
Honestly, nothing to do with me!!
Please try again.
Thanks!
Here's to a Unitary Suffolk!
.
There is little evidence and certainly no proof that large organisations are more cost-effective than small ones. In 'Parkinson's Law', first published in 1957, this is summarised as 'Expenditure Rises To Meet Income'.
There is no suggestion by the advocates of 'One Suffolk' that the price to the customer - the Council Tax - would reduce if this option was adopted.
So we can assume that the differences between the economies of scale part of the debate is so minor as to be irrelevant. This leaves the accountability argument as the main focus.
With a projected population of 720,000 by 2010 (and growing by 5,000 a year) the 'Local4Suffolk' option would result in four council - East, West, Greater Ipswich, South Central - each serving 180,000 people. Assuming that 75% are registerd voters and that there are 45 or so council seats, that produces a ratio of 3,000 elecors to 1 councillor.
Currently in SEBC the ratio is about 1,800 to 1 and although some councillors work longer hours than others, I need to limit my time to 18 hours a week. I have a day job of 30 hours, so my working week is 48 hours - the same as my father in the 50's - when he worked as an electrical engineer in a Trafford Park factory.
Working exposes me to a different set of values to that of my rich or retired colleagues on the borough council. Fellow workers are quick to point out inconsistences in policy eminating from the twin ivory towers of Angel Hill and Western Way, and are hard to defend.
If it is accepted that councillors should be part-time, it follows that workloads must be reasonable. This leads inevitably to support for Local4Suffolk as the most viable option.
If, however, full-time councillors is acceptable - and a full-time wage to match - the One Suffolk alternative, so admired by this blog owner, is ideal.
But that's not what you want, is it?
Dear David,
Why can’t a Unitary Suffolk cut costs and reduce the Council Tax? Surely the message to Government – local, regional, national and even European – is that taxes are too high, especially the Council Tax? So, in answer to your suggestion, NO; economies of scale are a very significant part of the debate!
Don’t quite get the point regarding councillor numbers, the hours you work and the regard for your rich and retired colleagues. However, perhaps you were leading me to your final two points which do start to reveal the true problem.
Many councillors across the County, Districts and Boroughs have almost full-time jobs as portfolio holders, cabinet members etc. How much longer can we expect the ‘rich and retired’ to fill these positions out of a sense of public duty? These people are increasingly difficult to find and even more reticent to stick their head above the parapet to be shot at by a cynical media and dismissed by an apathetic public.
So, perhaps full-time, well-paid and elected councillors are what a Unitary Suffolk will need?
Here’s to a Unitary Suffolk!
.
Post a Comment