Government opens consultation on Liverpool City Region plans

St Helens Star: Under the vision, St Helens Council would join forces with Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral to create the new body. Under the vision, St Helens Council would join forces with Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral to create the new body.

IT is the big regional change that has provoked a storm of debate among Star readers who argue they didn’t have chance to have a say.

Now here’s their opportunity, as the Government is inviting feedback on the proposed creation of a combined Liverpool City Region authority that would be tasked with growing the economy and creating more jobs.

Under the vision, St Helens Council would join forces with Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral to create the new body.

Each council would retain its individual identity and deliver its own services, but the Liverpool City region authority would make strategic decisions on issues such as transport, housing, economic development and funding applications.

St Helens Council, which has formally backed the proposals, insists the move would not lead to the creation of a so called ‘super council’.

But it is controversial step, not least because of the minimal response from St Helens when an initial round of consultation took place over the summer.

The Green Party pointed out, in a story published by the Star a fortnight ago, that out of a potential 1.3 million responses across Merseyside and Halton just 168 people took part.

Eighteen came from St Helens, leading some Star readers to argue the proposals were not publicised wide enough.

Now a further statutory consultation period of eight weeks will give those wishing to have their say a chance to reply.

To find out more about the Government’s consultation and how to feedback comments, visit www.gov.uk/government/consultations The consultation closes on January 22, 2014.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:13am Wed 4 Dec 13

jumperr says...

A super council I thought we had one? or are these comments on these pages some how very near the mark?
A super council I thought we had one? or are these comments on these pages some how very near the mark? jumperr

10:28am Wed 4 Dec 13

Sankey says...

If there is a lot of opposition to the plans would the decision be reversed ?

Or is this another one of those local government consultations where the authorities go through the process but take no notice whatsoever of the feedback
If there is a lot of opposition to the plans would the decision be reversed ? Or is this another one of those local government consultations where the authorities go through the process but take no notice whatsoever of the feedback Sankey

11:34am Wed 4 Dec 13

suttonboy says...

If you follow that link above, the publication you need to search for is "Proposal to establish a combined authority for Greater Merseyside"
The important bit of this document is...

How to respond
8.
Your response must be received by 22 January 2014. It can be sent by email to collaborate@communit
ies.gsi.gov.uk or in writing to:
Kathy Billington
Department for Communities and Local Government
Local Democracy Division
Zone 3/J1 Eland House
Bressenden Place
London, SW1E 5DU
Please title your response ‘Response to proposal to establish a combined authority for Greater Merseyside’.

Don't let the council sneak this one under the radar. Have your say.
If you follow that link above, the publication you need to search for is "Proposal to establish a combined authority for Greater Merseyside" The important bit of this document is... How to respond 8. Your response must be received by 22 January 2014. It can be sent by email to collaborate@communit ies.gsi.gov.uk or in writing to: Kathy Billington Department for Communities and Local Government Local Democracy Division Zone 3/J1 Eland House Bressenden Place London, SW1E 5DU Please title your response ‘Response to proposal to establish a combined authority for Greater Merseyside’. Don't let the council sneak this one under the radar. Have your say. suttonboy

12:19pm Wed 4 Dec 13

mikeperry109 says...

suttonboy wrote:
If you follow that link above, the publication you need to search for is "Proposal to establish a combined authority for Greater Merseyside"
The important bit of this document is...

How to respond
8.
Your response must be received by 22 January 2014. It can be sent by email to collaborate@communit

ies.gsi.gov.uk or in writing to:
Kathy Billington
Department for Communities and Local Government
Local Democracy Division
Zone 3/J1 Eland House
Bressenden Place
London, SW1E 5DU
Please title your response ‘Response to proposal to establish a combined authority for Greater Merseyside’.

Don't let the council sneak this one under the radar. Have your say.
Good post, suttonboy. Perhaps we should demand a series of public meetings around the borough - I will be contacting Marie Rimmer, my ward councillor, to arrange one for the West Park Ward. Once we have all the information the people of St. Helens can make an informed decision.
[quote][p][bold]suttonboy[/bold] wrote: If you follow that link above, the publication you need to search for is "Proposal to establish a combined authority for Greater Merseyside" The important bit of this document is... How to respond 8. Your response must be received by 22 January 2014. It can be sent by email to collaborate@communit ies.gsi.gov.uk or in writing to: Kathy Billington Department for Communities and Local Government Local Democracy Division Zone 3/J1 Eland House Bressenden Place London, SW1E 5DU Please title your response ‘Response to proposal to establish a combined authority for Greater Merseyside’. Don't let the council sneak this one under the radar. Have your say.[/p][/quote]Good post, suttonboy. Perhaps we should demand a series of public meetings around the borough - I will be contacting Marie Rimmer, my ward councillor, to arrange one for the West Park Ward. Once we have all the information the people of St. Helens can make an informed decision. mikeperry109

1:46pm Wed 4 Dec 13

anthonywilson says...

There are several clear issues for me in all this:
1. Will the consultation make any difference and will the replies by used to inform the decision making process or just ignored?
2. When decisions are made at Liverpool City Region level (if it is established) what democratic checks and balances will be put in place to ensure that whoever sits round the table (Council leaders and the elected Mayor or Liverpool) any proposals/decisions made will have to come back to the individual Council Chambers for approval and ratification?
3. Will any of the decisions made be subject to scrutiny processes?
4. How much will it cost and will our Council tax go up to pay for the new set up?
5. Part of the St Helens Borough is just as geographically close to Manchester as it is to Liverpool and what processes will be put in place to ensure that any new Liverpool City Region Authority is also to work in co-operation rather than co-operation with other city regions such as Manchester and Cheshire/Warrington etc.

If the answer is "no difference", "none" or "no" or a "yes" to Point 4 and the above questions then I simply cannot see how this is a good move for St Helens.
There are several clear issues for me in all this: 1. Will the consultation make any difference and will the replies by used to inform the decision making process or just ignored? 2. When decisions are made at Liverpool City Region level (if it is established) what democratic checks and balances will be put in place to ensure that whoever sits round the table (Council leaders and the elected Mayor or Liverpool) any proposals/decisions made will have to come back to the individual Council Chambers for approval and ratification? 3. Will any of the decisions made be subject to scrutiny processes? 4. How much will it cost and will our Council tax go up to pay for the new set up? 5. Part of the St Helens Borough is just as geographically close to Manchester as it is to Liverpool and what processes will be put in place to ensure that any new Liverpool City Region Authority is also to work in co-operation rather than co-operation with other city regions such as Manchester and Cheshire/Warrington etc. If the answer is "no difference", "none" or "no" or a "yes" to Point 4 and the above questions then I simply cannot see how this is a good move for St Helens. anthonywilson

4:00pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Suttoner1 says...

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/consultati
ons/proposal-to-esta
blish-a-combined-aut
hority-for-greater-m
erseyside

The document provided is strongly biased towards a greater merseyside umbrella, administration.

Most of the paragraphs refer to greater merseyside as if it has already been decided that this change will take place.

I don't believe St.Helens has any intention of listening to the views of it's electorate, the council and the governments minds have been made up already.

Have a read of the pdf and see for youselves.
https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/consultati ons/proposal-to-esta blish-a-combined-aut hority-for-greater-m erseyside The document provided is strongly biased towards a greater merseyside umbrella, administration. Most of the paragraphs refer to greater merseyside as if it has already been decided that this change will take place. I don't believe St.Helens has any intention of listening to the views of it's electorate, the council and the governments minds have been made up already. Have a read of the pdf and see for youselves. Suttoner1

5:43pm Wed 4 Dec 13

mikeperry109 says...

anthonywilson wrote:
There are several clear issues for me in all this:
1. Will the consultation make any difference and will the replies by used to inform the decision making process or just ignored?
2. When decisions are made at Liverpool City Region level (if it is established) what democratic checks and balances will be put in place to ensure that whoever sits round the table (Council leaders and the elected Mayor or Liverpool) any proposals/decisions made will have to come back to the individual Council Chambers for approval and ratification?
3. Will any of the decisions made be subject to scrutiny processes?
4. How much will it cost and will our Council tax go up to pay for the new set up?
5. Part of the St Helens Borough is just as geographically close to Manchester as it is to Liverpool and what processes will be put in place to ensure that any new Liverpool City Region Authority is also to work in co-operation rather than co-operation with other city regions such as Manchester and Cheshire/Warrington etc.

If the answer is "no difference", "none" or "no" or a "yes" to Point 4 and the above questions then I simply cannot see how this is a good move for St Helens.
Had a quick scan through the document, Anthony, and it is evident that there will be an extra cost to each council, and decisions will be taken on a majority vote, which means that power will lie with people we did not vote for, and even if a decision is detrimental to St. Helens, we will have to accept it. There were less than 180 responses to the previous "consultation" out of millions of residents - you can bet that Grunewald will not be pushing for too many people to get involved with this one.
[quote][p][bold]anthonywilson[/bold] wrote: There are several clear issues for me in all this: 1. Will the consultation make any difference and will the replies by used to inform the decision making process or just ignored? 2. When decisions are made at Liverpool City Region level (if it is established) what democratic checks and balances will be put in place to ensure that whoever sits round the table (Council leaders and the elected Mayor or Liverpool) any proposals/decisions made will have to come back to the individual Council Chambers for approval and ratification? 3. Will any of the decisions made be subject to scrutiny processes? 4. How much will it cost and will our Council tax go up to pay for the new set up? 5. Part of the St Helens Borough is just as geographically close to Manchester as it is to Liverpool and what processes will be put in place to ensure that any new Liverpool City Region Authority is also to work in co-operation rather than co-operation with other city regions such as Manchester and Cheshire/Warrington etc. If the answer is "no difference", "none" or "no" or a "yes" to Point 4 and the above questions then I simply cannot see how this is a good move for St Helens.[/p][/quote]Had a quick scan through the document, Anthony, and it is evident that there will be an extra cost to each council, and decisions will be taken on a majority vote, which means that power will lie with people we did not vote for, and even if a decision is detrimental to St. Helens, we will have to accept it. There were less than 180 responses to the previous "consultation" out of millions of residents - you can bet that Grunewald will not be pushing for too many people to get involved with this one. mikeperry109

10:18am Thu 5 Dec 13

Bill Bradbury says...

Putting aside any party political scoring points and the issues raised by most comments which may be true or not, 40 years of familiarity with the word "consultation" means very little as usually the powers that be whether local, national Government or workplace consultation has rarely taken anything in that is contrary to "policy" or those who make the decisions.

What St.Helens will get will depend on the size of the budget and its allocation which may be to those who shout loudest or who, in coalition with others, decide that there is "something in it for them" and the constituets they represent.

When we see the size of "the pot" and what it is for then perhaps we can comment whether it is good or not. We will see.
Putting aside any party political scoring points and the issues raised by most comments which may be true or not, 40 years of familiarity with the word "consultation" means very little as usually the powers that be whether local, national Government or workplace consultation has rarely taken anything in that is contrary to "policy" or those who make the decisions. What St.Helens will get will depend on the size of the budget and its allocation which may be to those who shout loudest or who, in coalition with others, decide that there is "something in it for them" and the constituets they represent. When we see the size of "the pot" and what it is for then perhaps we can comment whether it is good or not. We will see. Bill Bradbury

11:05am Thu 5 Dec 13

mikeperry109 says...

Bill Bradbury wrote:
Putting aside any party political scoring points and the issues raised by most comments which may be true or not, 40 years of familiarity with the word "consultation" means very little as usually the powers that be whether local, national Government or workplace consultation has rarely taken anything in that is contrary to "policy" or those who make the decisions.

What St.Helens will get will depend on the size of the budget and its allocation which may be to those who shout loudest or who, in coalition with others, decide that there is "something in it for them" and the constituets they represent.

When we see the size of "the pot" and what it is for then perhaps we can comment whether it is good or not. We will see.
Are we just cynical, Bill, or are we simply informed by life's experiences? I have asked Marie for a public meeting and she has passe on my request to Carole Hudson. Is it just coincidence that the consultation is over the Xmas period?
[quote][p][bold]Bill Bradbury[/bold] wrote: Putting aside any party political scoring points and the issues raised by most comments which may be true or not, 40 years of familiarity with the word "consultation" means very little as usually the powers that be whether local, national Government or workplace consultation has rarely taken anything in that is contrary to "policy" or those who make the decisions. What St.Helens will get will depend on the size of the budget and its allocation which may be to those who shout loudest or who, in coalition with others, decide that there is "something in it for them" and the constituets they represent. When we see the size of "the pot" and what it is for then perhaps we can comment whether it is good or not. We will see.[/p][/quote]Are we just cynical, Bill, or are we simply informed by life's experiences? I have asked Marie for a public meeting and she has passe on my request to Carole Hudson. Is it just coincidence that the consultation is over the Xmas period? mikeperry109

2:05pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Bill Bradbury says...

Having read the 4 page document which appears to have been written in Sir Humphry Appleby speak of "Yes Minister" fame, I supose if all those who voted Ukip in a recent local election and whenever the national Referendum sees us to opt out, then as the "Plan" is based on EU money then we can forget it. We will be out of Europe.

It appears to be Health based and puts the question I raised earlier whether one goes for the big plan or spend the 140m euros on lots of smaller initiatives dear to whoever puts the best case. It looks like platting fog to me but I suppose those who are cleverer than I, the plan is simple.
Having read the 4 page document which appears to have been written in Sir Humphry Appleby speak of "Yes Minister" fame, I supose if all those who voted Ukip in a recent local election and whenever the national Referendum sees us to opt out, then as the "Plan" is based on EU money then we can forget it. We will be out of Europe. It appears to be Health based and puts the question I raised earlier whether one goes for the big plan or spend the 140m euros on lots of smaller initiatives dear to whoever puts the best case. It looks like platting fog to me but I suppose those who are cleverer than I, the plan is simple. Bill Bradbury

6:31pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Sankey says...

For every £3 we put in Europe we get £2 back so if we are out of Europe in theory there will be greater public expenditure. Without the regulation and financial drain of having to subside the poorer ecinomic countries we potentially with have higher growth as we trade with the growth areas of the world (not europe) so again more public expenditure.
For every £3 we put in Europe we get £2 back so if we are out of Europe in theory there will be greater public expenditure. Without the regulation and financial drain of having to subside the poorer ecinomic countries we potentially with have higher growth as we trade with the growth areas of the world (not europe) so again more public expenditure. Sankey

8:22pm Thu 5 Dec 13

mikeperry109 says...

Sankey wrote:
For every £3 we put in Europe we get £2 back so if we are out of Europe in theory there will be greater public expenditure. Without the regulation and financial drain of having to subside the poorer ecinomic countries we potentially with have higher growth as we trade with the growth areas of the world (not europe) so again more public expenditure.
I think you meant that there will be more money for public expenditure if we are not paying into the EU. Totally agree, though, we need to get out of the EU.
[quote][p][bold]Sankey[/bold] wrote: For every £3 we put in Europe we get £2 back so if we are out of Europe in theory there will be greater public expenditure. Without the regulation and financial drain of having to subside the poorer ecinomic countries we potentially with have higher growth as we trade with the growth areas of the world (not europe) so again more public expenditure.[/p][/quote]I think you meant that there will be more money for public expenditure if we are not paying into the EU. Totally agree, though, we need to get out of the EU. mikeperry109

8:38pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Stevo1969 says...

In laymens terms can this be stopped? What if anything are the other partys doing to oppose this? The council leader just likes to tell us how well we as a town are doing compared to others in this Liverpool City region, so why do we need them? Are other towns of similar size doing well without merging with other authorities they dont want to merge with?
In laymens terms can this be stopped? What if anything are the other partys doing to oppose this? The council leader just likes to tell us how well we as a town are doing compared to others in this Liverpool City region, so why do we need them? Are other towns of similar size doing well without merging with other authorities they dont want to merge with? Stevo1969

8:48pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Bill Bradbury says...

mikeperry109 wrote:
Sankey wrote: For every £3 we put in Europe we get £2 back so if we are out of Europe in theory there will be greater public expenditure. Without the regulation and financial drain of having to subside the poorer ecinomic countries we potentially with have higher growth as we trade with the growth areas of the world (not europe) so again more public expenditure.
I think you meant that there will be more money for public expenditure if we are not paying into the EU. Totally agree, though, we need to get out of the EU.
If you think that the money saved will wend its way forward to the NW you are living in a dreamworld. It will be squandered in lining somebody's pocket. As I wrote some time ago most of the develpment around St.Helens was EEC money.
I can't wait for this largesse when we foolishly opt out of Europe. We will end up blaming the French, Germans or anyone else which may be causing the UK problems. History says it was ever so.
[quote][p][bold]mikeperry109[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sankey[/bold] wrote: For every £3 we put in Europe we get £2 back so if we are out of Europe in theory there will be greater public expenditure. Without the regulation and financial drain of having to subside the poorer ecinomic countries we potentially with have higher growth as we trade with the growth areas of the world (not europe) so again more public expenditure.[/p][/quote]I think you meant that there will be more money for public expenditure if we are not paying into the EU. Totally agree, though, we need to get out of the EU.[/p][/quote]If you think that the money saved will wend its way forward to the NW you are living in a dreamworld. It will be squandered in lining somebody's pocket. As I wrote some time ago most of the develpment around St.Helens was EEC money. I can't wait for this largesse when we foolishly opt out of Europe. We will end up blaming the French, Germans or anyone else which may be causing the UK problems. History says it was ever so. Bill Bradbury

9:59pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Sankey says...

Why won't the money find its way to the north west bill ?

Other to silly class war reasons that I don't think even you believe in if truth be told. If Britain is more prosperous and retains once more control of its own borders and destiny then that will filter to the north west. If you look back to when we did not need EU charity it was due to enterprise and endeavour something we in Britain (and the north west) need to get back to.

And a decent education system would help no end in that if you would be so kind along with your union cronies
Why won't the money find its way to the north west bill ? Other to silly class war reasons that I don't think even you believe in if truth be told. If Britain is more prosperous and retains once more control of its own borders and destiny then that will filter to the north west. If you look back to when we did not need EU charity it was due to enterprise and endeavour something we in Britain (and the north west) need to get back to. And a decent education system would help no end in that if you would be so kind along with your union cronies Sankey

9:14am Fri 6 Dec 13

Bill Bradbury says...

Sankey, You are living in the past with a typical slur against teachers on what are turning out to be dubious figures on academic performance, not surprising as you believe everything the right wing press feeds you. Sweden adopted "Free schools" a Govian policy and where has that got them? A decline in their previous results.
Thanks for comfirming my opinion that people always look for someone to blame which in your case are teachers and the public sector. The day I see Tories giving anything to St.helens and the NW I will show my backside in a Poundland window. Not a pretty sight.
Sankey, You are living in the past with a typical slur against teachers on what are turning out to be dubious figures on academic performance, not surprising as you believe everything the right wing press feeds you. Sweden adopted "Free schools" a Govian policy and where has that got them? A decline in their previous results. Thanks for comfirming my opinion that people always look for someone to blame which in your case are teachers and the public sector. The day I see Tories giving anything to St.helens and the NW I will show my backside in a Poundland window. Not a pretty sight. Bill Bradbury

10:28am Fri 6 Dec 13

mikeperry109 says...

Bill Bradbury wrote:
Sankey, You are living in the past with a typical slur against teachers on what are turning out to be dubious figures on academic performance, not surprising as you believe everything the right wing press feeds you. Sweden adopted "Free schools" a Govian policy and where has that got them? A decline in their previous results.
Thanks for comfirming my opinion that people always look for someone to blame which in your case are teachers and the public sector. The day I see Tories giving anything to St.helens and the NW I will show my backside in a Poundland window. Not a pretty sight.
Well, Bill, you have plenty of pound shops to choose from in St. Helens.
Will hold you to that promise!
[quote][p][bold]Bill Bradbury[/bold] wrote: Sankey, You are living in the past with a typical slur against teachers on what are turning out to be dubious figures on academic performance, not surprising as you believe everything the right wing press feeds you. Sweden adopted "Free schools" a Govian policy and where has that got them? A decline in their previous results. Thanks for comfirming my opinion that people always look for someone to blame which in your case are teachers and the public sector. The day I see Tories giving anything to St.helens and the NW I will show my backside in a Poundland window. Not a pretty sight.[/p][/quote]Well, Bill, you have plenty of pound shops to choose from in St. Helens. Will hold you to that promise! mikeperry109

11:14am Fri 6 Dec 13

Bill Bradbury says...

Nice one Mike! Perhaps you can sell tickets?
Nice one Mike! Perhaps you can sell tickets? Bill Bradbury

11:52am Fri 6 Dec 13

Bill Bradbury says...

Sankey I forgot to mention that one of the central ideas of ther merger (so I read) is to reduce the emphasis on public sector for jobs and promote more private busnesses. I thought you would be happy with that in relation to your constant attack on the public sector. Perhaps you will be a convert on that point alone? No on second thoughts you would find something else to moan at.
Sankey I forgot to mention that one of the central ideas of ther merger (so I read) is to reduce the emphasis on public sector for jobs and promote more private busnesses. I thought you would be happy with that in relation to your constant attack on the public sector. Perhaps you will be a convert on that point alone? No on second thoughts you would find something else to moan at. Bill Bradbury

1:03pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Sankey says...

Bill Bradbury wrote:
Sankey I forgot to mention that one of the central ideas of ther merger (so I read) is to reduce the emphasis on public sector for jobs and promote more private busnesses. I thought you would be happy with that in relation to your constant attack on the public sector. Perhaps you will be a convert on that point alone? No on second thoughts you would find something else to moan at.
Good question.

On the one hand do I want to see local democracy go ?

No

On the ther hand what lccal democracy is there? The unthinking tribal voters vote labour whatever and the labour council and the councillor s mock the local public and the council never pays the slightest attention to public feedback and we have a bunch of councillor s looking after themselves their expenses and their next step up the ladder in an ultra safe seat.

So does it matter if power is removed from this lot ?

It's hard to see it does.

However if more power is vested centrally then it follows cost savings can be made in each of the six councils management that is self evident.
[quote][p][bold]Bill Bradbury[/bold] wrote: Sankey I forgot to mention that one of the central ideas of ther merger (so I read) is to reduce the emphasis on public sector for jobs and promote more private busnesses. I thought you would be happy with that in relation to your constant attack on the public sector. Perhaps you will be a convert on that point alone? No on second thoughts you would find something else to moan at.[/p][/quote]Good question. On the one hand do I want to see local democracy go ? No On the ther hand what lccal democracy is there? The unthinking tribal voters vote labour whatever and the labour council and the councillor s mock the local public and the council never pays the slightest attention to public feedback and we have a bunch of councillor s looking after themselves their expenses and their next step up the ladder in an ultra safe seat. So does it matter if power is removed from this lot ? It's hard to see it does. However if more power is vested centrally then it follows cost savings can be made in each of the six councils management that is self evident. Sankey

11:14pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Bill Bradbury says...

Sankey it seems to me that one of its central thrusts is transport. What will happen is anyone's guess.
Sankey it seems to me that one of its central thrusts is transport. What will happen is anyone's guess. Bill Bradbury

5:14pm Fri 13 Dec 13

domcoop says...

This needs to be stopped, and stopped now.

If you read the PDF, you will find that:-

* Most of the consultees came from the "local authority community". That's right, of the people consulted, MOST (IF NOT ALL) OF THE RESPONSES WERE FROM LABOUR COUNCILLORS SUPPORTING THE PROPOSALS!!

* If you read the "Draft Order" (I'm a lawyer so it makes more sense to me) they have BUILT IN MISSION CREEP into this. It says that the plan is that the Joe Anderson Combined Authority will be able to take over Highway Functions (and the Secretary of State will be able to transfer employees, building and staff of the local councils to the mega-council) and have what they call a "general power of competence". What this means is the power to do whatever they like so long as they can justify it.

* They will have unlimited "precepting powers". So your council tax will go up to pay for renting out swish offices in Liverpool, paying to buy worthless Beatles Memoribilia in Liverpool, paying for tourist attractions in Liverpool, paying for Vanity Projects like Trams that won't ever run, in Liverpool, paying for in - you've guessed it - Liverpool.

* There is no point in "planning" if it does not involve coercion. So for example, they have a "knowledge economy" plan. This means encouraging new businesses involving IT and computers to rent out office space in Liverpool (because the same office space was built at great public expense and lying empty). And the flip side of the coin is prohibiting new business in IT and computers to rent space in St Helens.

To the Liverpool Labour Party and their trade union supporters, this all makes perfect sense. They refer to a "Functional Liverpool City Region", where we are all one city anyway. In these circumstances, why would it matter if St Helens has no jobs. Liverpool can have the jobs, and people of St Helens can travel there (using Merseytravel, provided by the Liverpool City Region).

And if you take a look at any online forums from our friends at the foot of the East Lancs, you will see the Liverpool Labour party are up in arms. They are fuming at what they say is a "Betrayal" by the "Tories" in London. What is this Betrayal? It is calling the new council "Greater Merseyside Combined Authority". They all feel that it should be called simply "Liverpool Authority". They also want a Mayor of Liverpool, to rule over the whole thing.

They say that people who oppose this are living in the past. That is a nonsense. I love Liverpool. I shop there, it is important for my work, I go on nights out there.

But I do NOT live there. I do NOT want them making decisions that affect my life.

Last part of this post. Scrutiny arrangements. Knowsley Council have helpfully published what the arrangements will be to scrutinise this new super-council. It will consist of a panel of 20 Labour Councillors, all getting enhanced expenses, forming into "topical subgroups" (i.e. free lunches on Council Tax Payer's money, talking about nothing and then agreeing to what their party says).

The Knowsley documents says that they *MAY* consider putting a token Lib Dem and Conservative Councillor on one of these panels. That's right, 1 single Lib Dem, and 1 single Conservative. This would apparently reflect the political views of the City Region.

This is a proposal that even North Korea would think twice about implementing.

The history and culture of St Helens (and Southport and Northern Sefton, and parts of Knowsley too for that matter) is of Lancastrian tradition. These places are not just parts of Liverpool, in the way that, say Clapham is just a part of London. They have nothing to do with Liverpool, a different culture, a different heritage.

Its time to put a stop to this and bring back Lancashire!
This needs to be stopped, and stopped now. If you read the PDF, you will find that:- * Most of the consultees came from the "local authority community". That's right, of the people consulted, MOST (IF NOT ALL) OF THE RESPONSES WERE FROM LABOUR COUNCILLORS SUPPORTING THE PROPOSALS!! * If you read the "Draft Order" (I'm a lawyer so it makes more sense to me) they have BUILT IN MISSION CREEP into this. It says that the plan is that the Joe Anderson Combined Authority will be able to take over Highway Functions (and the Secretary of State will be able to transfer employees, building and staff of the local councils to the mega-council) and have what they call a "general power of competence". What this means is the power to do whatever they like so long as they can justify it. * They will have unlimited "precepting powers". So your council tax will go up to pay for renting out swish offices in Liverpool, paying to buy worthless Beatles Memoribilia in Liverpool, paying for tourist attractions in Liverpool, paying for Vanity Projects like Trams that won't ever run, in Liverpool, paying for [insert whatever here] in - you've guessed it - Liverpool. * There is no point in "planning" if it does not involve coercion. So for example, they have a "knowledge economy" plan. This means encouraging new businesses involving IT and computers to rent out office space in Liverpool (because the same office space was built at great public expense and lying empty). And the flip side of the coin is prohibiting new business in IT and computers to rent space in St Helens. To the Liverpool Labour Party and their trade union supporters, this all makes perfect sense. They refer to a "Functional Liverpool City Region", where we are all one city anyway. In these circumstances, why would it matter if St Helens has no jobs. Liverpool can have the jobs, and people of St Helens can travel there (using Merseytravel, provided by the Liverpool City Region). And if you take a look at any online forums from our friends at the foot of the East Lancs, you will see the Liverpool Labour party are up in arms. They are fuming at what they say is a "Betrayal" by the "Tories" in London. What is this Betrayal? It is calling the new council "Greater Merseyside Combined Authority". They all feel that it should be called simply "Liverpool Authority". They also want a Mayor of Liverpool, to rule over the whole thing. They say that people who oppose this are living in the past. That is a nonsense. I love Liverpool. I shop there, it is important for my work, I go on nights out there. But I do NOT live there. I do NOT want them making decisions that affect my life. Last part of this post. Scrutiny arrangements. Knowsley Council have helpfully published what the arrangements will be to scrutinise this new super-council. It will consist of a panel of 20 Labour Councillors, all getting enhanced expenses, forming into "topical subgroups" (i.e. free lunches on Council Tax Payer's money, talking about nothing and then agreeing to what their party says). The Knowsley documents says that they *MAY* consider putting a token Lib Dem and Conservative Councillor on one of these panels. That's right, 1 single Lib Dem, and 1 single Conservative. This would apparently reflect the political views of the City Region. This is a proposal that even North Korea would think twice about implementing. The history and culture of St Helens (and Southport and Northern Sefton, and parts of Knowsley too for that matter) is of Lancastrian tradition. These places are not just parts of Liverpool, in the way that, say Clapham is just a part of London. They have nothing to do with Liverpool, a different culture, a different heritage. Its time to put a stop to this and bring back Lancashire! domcoop

5:26pm Fri 13 Dec 13

mikeperry109 says...

domcoop wrote:
This needs to be stopped, and stopped now.

If you read the PDF, you will find that:-

* Most of the consultees came from the "local authority community". That's right, of the people consulted, MOST (IF NOT ALL) OF THE RESPONSES WERE FROM LABOUR COUNCILLORS SUPPORTING THE PROPOSALS!!

* If you read the "Draft Order" (I'm a lawyer so it makes more sense to me) they have BUILT IN MISSION CREEP into this. It says that the plan is that the Joe Anderson Combined Authority will be able to take over Highway Functions (and the Secretary of State will be able to transfer employees, building and staff of the local councils to the mega-council) and have what they call a "general power of competence". What this means is the power to do whatever they like so long as they can justify it.

* They will have unlimited "precepting powers". So your council tax will go up to pay for renting out swish offices in Liverpool, paying to buy worthless Beatles Memoribilia in Liverpool, paying for tourist attractions in Liverpool, paying for Vanity Projects like Trams that won't ever run, in Liverpool, paying for in - you've guessed it - Liverpool.

* There is no point in "planning" if it does not involve coercion. So for example, they have a "knowledge economy" plan. This means encouraging new businesses involving IT and computers to rent out office space in Liverpool (because the same office space was built at great public expense and lying empty). And the flip side of the coin is prohibiting new business in IT and computers to rent space in St Helens.

To the Liverpool Labour Party and their trade union supporters, this all makes perfect sense. They refer to a "Functional Liverpool City Region", where we are all one city anyway. In these circumstances, why would it matter if St Helens has no jobs. Liverpool can have the jobs, and people of St Helens can travel there (using Merseytravel, provided by the Liverpool City Region).

And if you take a look at any online forums from our friends at the foot of the East Lancs, you will see the Liverpool Labour party are up in arms. They are fuming at what they say is a "Betrayal" by the "Tories" in London. What is this Betrayal? It is calling the new council "Greater Merseyside Combined Authority". They all feel that it should be called simply "Liverpool Authority". They also want a Mayor of Liverpool, to rule over the whole thing.

They say that people who oppose this are living in the past. That is a nonsense. I love Liverpool. I shop there, it is important for my work, I go on nights out there.

But I do NOT live there. I do NOT want them making decisions that affect my life.

Last part of this post. Scrutiny arrangements. Knowsley Council have helpfully published what the arrangements will be to scrutinise this new super-council. It will consist of a panel of 20 Labour Councillors, all getting enhanced expenses, forming into "topical subgroups" (i.e. free lunches on Council Tax Payer's money, talking about nothing and then agreeing to what their party says).

The Knowsley documents says that they *MAY* consider putting a token Lib Dem and Conservative Councillor on one of these panels. That's right, 1 single Lib Dem, and 1 single Conservative. This would apparently reflect the political views of the City Region.

This is a proposal that even North Korea would think twice about implementing.

The history and culture of St Helens (and Southport and Northern Sefton, and parts of Knowsley too for that matter) is of Lancastrian tradition. These places are not just parts of Liverpool, in the way that, say Clapham is just a part of London. They have nothing to do with Liverpool, a different culture, a different heritage.

Its time to put a stop to this and bring back Lancashire!
A superb analysis, domcoop. I have not yet been through it with a fine tooth comb, but you have made my task much easier. Joe Anderson misled listeners on the Roger Phillips show earlier today when he stated that there would be no extra cost to the council tax payer- that is clearly wrong.
I have asked Cllr Rimmer for a public meeting and she has passed the request on to Carole Hudson, the St. Helens Council Chief Executive. Can I suggest that you submit your analysis in the form of a letter to both the Star and the Reporter? We only have until January 22nd to respond and stop this proposal in its tracks.
[quote][p][bold]domcoop[/bold] wrote: This needs to be stopped, and stopped now. If you read the PDF, you will find that:- * Most of the consultees came from the "local authority community". That's right, of the people consulted, MOST (IF NOT ALL) OF THE RESPONSES WERE FROM LABOUR COUNCILLORS SUPPORTING THE PROPOSALS!! * If you read the "Draft Order" (I'm a lawyer so it makes more sense to me) they have BUILT IN MISSION CREEP into this. It says that the plan is that the Joe Anderson Combined Authority will be able to take over Highway Functions (and the Secretary of State will be able to transfer employees, building and staff of the local councils to the mega-council) and have what they call a "general power of competence". What this means is the power to do whatever they like so long as they can justify it. * They will have unlimited "precepting powers". So your council tax will go up to pay for renting out swish offices in Liverpool, paying to buy worthless Beatles Memoribilia in Liverpool, paying for tourist attractions in Liverpool, paying for Vanity Projects like Trams that won't ever run, in Liverpool, paying for [insert whatever here] in - you've guessed it - Liverpool. * There is no point in "planning" if it does not involve coercion. So for example, they have a "knowledge economy" plan. This means encouraging new businesses involving IT and computers to rent out office space in Liverpool (because the same office space was built at great public expense and lying empty). And the flip side of the coin is prohibiting new business in IT and computers to rent space in St Helens. To the Liverpool Labour Party and their trade union supporters, this all makes perfect sense. They refer to a "Functional Liverpool City Region", where we are all one city anyway. In these circumstances, why would it matter if St Helens has no jobs. Liverpool can have the jobs, and people of St Helens can travel there (using Merseytravel, provided by the Liverpool City Region). And if you take a look at any online forums from our friends at the foot of the East Lancs, you will see the Liverpool Labour party are up in arms. They are fuming at what they say is a "Betrayal" by the "Tories" in London. What is this Betrayal? It is calling the new council "Greater Merseyside Combined Authority". They all feel that it should be called simply "Liverpool Authority". They also want a Mayor of Liverpool, to rule over the whole thing. They say that people who oppose this are living in the past. That is a nonsense. I love Liverpool. I shop there, it is important for my work, I go on nights out there. But I do NOT live there. I do NOT want them making decisions that affect my life. Last part of this post. Scrutiny arrangements. Knowsley Council have helpfully published what the arrangements will be to scrutinise this new super-council. It will consist of a panel of 20 Labour Councillors, all getting enhanced expenses, forming into "topical subgroups" (i.e. free lunches on Council Tax Payer's money, talking about nothing and then agreeing to what their party says). The Knowsley documents says that they *MAY* consider putting a token Lib Dem and Conservative Councillor on one of these panels. That's right, 1 single Lib Dem, and 1 single Conservative. This would apparently reflect the political views of the City Region. This is a proposal that even North Korea would think twice about implementing. The history and culture of St Helens (and Southport and Northern Sefton, and parts of Knowsley too for that matter) is of Lancastrian tradition. These places are not just parts of Liverpool, in the way that, say Clapham is just a part of London. They have nothing to do with Liverpool, a different culture, a different heritage. Its time to put a stop to this and bring back Lancashire![/p][/quote]A superb analysis, domcoop. I have not yet been through it with a fine tooth comb, but you have made my task much easier. Joe Anderson misled listeners on the Roger Phillips show earlier today when he stated that there would be no extra cost to the council tax payer- that is clearly wrong. I have asked Cllr Rimmer for a public meeting and she has passed the request on to Carole Hudson, the St. Helens Council Chief Executive. Can I suggest that you submit your analysis in the form of a letter to both the Star and the Reporter? We only have until January 22nd to respond and stop this proposal in its tracks. mikeperry109

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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