Re~Stirred Forum

Actually 'up to six' in the decisions recommended (2.2) and 'up to five' in the background notes (5.7).

There are comments here http://suttoncoldfieldlocal.co.uk/sutto ... r-central/ and here http://martinmullaney.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... d-and.html

I promised a report on the District Meeting for Yardley - held in what is now a highly unorthodox place for Birmingham: the District that the meeting was about: Yardley.

The councillors sat in a long line facing us, as per usual. They were asked whether they had any intention of organising themselves into a square with us around the edge. Answer: no because they wanted us to see them, and, also, more importantly, they wanted to see us when we had our hands up to ask a question. There was a proposal, supposedly agreed, that members of the audience should stick to one contribution, and try to get everything into that, but, to be honest, that was not very strictly adhered to.

There was quite a thorough discussion involving both councillors and members of the audience on the issue of where and when District meetings should be held. Answer (with the exception of one councillor) in Yardley, at 6.30 in the evening. This means more people can attend far more easily. It was suggested by the dissenting councillor that the real place for democracy should now be in the Ward, where local affairs could be discussed, and that the District meetings would now be handling complex budgeting decisions dealing with various services. Some of us felt, though, that the fact that what were previously Ward budgeting decisions will now be discussed at District level will mean that it will be even more important to attend these meetings. There was an item on the effect on the District budget created by having two Leisure Centres in the District. This was very revealing, and some of the audience also raised points and asked questions about the operations of the Leisure Centres.

A petition was circulated, with agreement from the Chair, asking that Cllr Bore reconsider the decision to force Districts to hold their meetings at the Council House. It was signed by eleven out of the twelve members of the audience. Twelve is not a huge number for a meeting like this, but the audience was clearly involved, and, clearly in a number of cases carrying issues from other groups in the District they were representing, and reporting back to those groups. This is better than the two who appeared to have managed to attend each of two recent District meetings in in town.

What will happen after Monday? Who knows. Cllr Paul Tilsley remarked that the next meeting was planned to be held at 6.30 though.

If it's a serious question:

Iceland 319,000
Luxembourg 517,000
Tonga 105,000
Seychelles 86,000

and there must be others!

Population or GDP?

Well you find out then!

Sorry I thought it was an interesting question given the discussion.

Another question would be given the statutory nature of local government, isn't this just window dressing what are mainly mandated activities from the centre?

I don't think any of the ones I listed are tax havens. Too far away for Tonga, European integration for Luxembourg. Iceland had dodgy banks but wasn't a tax haven. Unless your definition of a tax haven is a small country. Anyway why do you exclude them? It's not relevant to what Lisa T was saying.

Because comparison is natural.

I don't know what this thread is talking about, but the comments on the Post article are priceless.

Doesn't this strike anyone else as an absolutely bizarre thing to have a fight over?

This has obviously become a point of principle now and in Birmingham that means we will argue about it past any sensible point of giving up.

I can't quite grasp why, now this debate has become public, the Labour Party don't realise that if they get their way it will play very badly with the public. When all this started I think their motivation might have been sound and it really didn't affect many people but now it just looks really undemocratic.

Surely someone should tell them this isn't a fight that is worth winning.

They are also, at the same time, abolishing the Ward Advisory Boards, it seems. Again, this came up last night. I have never been a member, but I know the WAB has always played an important role in Acocks Green. More comment here from old Re-Stirred Friend Martin Mullaney ...

http://martinmullaney.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... isory.html

I don't really see this as a problem. Essentially you could still quite happily have a ward advisory board but its meetings aren't serviced by democratic services.

Exactly the same people can sit round the table and have the same conversations about their area, just get someone else to take the minutes. In Martin's example there are more than enough organisations there that service their own meetings that can voluntarily do this.

If the entire viability of their structure hinges on paying someone to take minutes then I'd question whether it needs to exist anyway.

Not a WAB expert, though I was intending to apply to join some time. If we could do this, I agree that might be reasonable. However, it seems that it is a bit more complicated than this, because the WAB took decisions about how to spend the Ward Community Chest money. These decisions are taken by local reps from various organisations in the Ward, using local knowledge and past experience. These decisions are now, it seems, to be taken at District level (or, otherwise, how this is intended to work is not yet clear) and, if the central meeting plans are enforced, out of earshot of most, if not all, of the people who previously helped with the decisions - even if they were to be allowed to comment, which, in some Districts, looks dubious.

David Hallam is a lovely guy, remarkably genuine for an ex-MEP. He stood in losing seats for years and finally became MEP for Herefordshire and Shropshire in the Labour landslide of 1994, only to lose out when the dreaded proportional representation came in. He is unusual in being a liberal pro-gay Evangelical Christian. This is a 'political' post. If David's shrewd brain and cheery manner can defuse troubles between the city council and our MPs he'll be worth ten.

Nothing about empty listed buildings on your link, barnard.

Well, I don't think Acocks Green Ward has been paying for any police cars recently! More seriously, though, I think this tends to underline the problem we have been talking about all along. If we are leaving it to the District Committee, we are leaving it to those god like councillors to decide everything for us again. Are we to assume that they are both always more knowledgeable than the people who live in the Ward (Our three presently do live in the Ward, but not always the case) and, automatically, less partisan? The present system, at least means that, although the councillors attend the WAB, there are a few more voices, like Neighbourhood Forums, and Road Resident Groups, for example. Also, at present, the recommendations are then discussed at the Ward meeting, before being approved, and anyone can then comment.

Ah! (when you find the little 2 box).

Fair comment. Though it's surprisingly easy for owners to "encourage" squatters tramps and the like who might just light a match in a flammable spot.

Given the choice between live streaming and nothing else, it is obviously sensible to support live streaming. However, this is, also, clearly, not the same as facilitating the easy attendance of people - various reports from recent District Meetings in the Council House now add up, I think to: Hall Green 2, Ladywood 2, Perry Barr, 1. The point about attendance is the ability to contribute some points and questions (if these are allowed, of course which is a separate issue). Also, subsidiary advantages include being able to bring documents to the meeting - like the letter that the Ladywood councillor forgot, and the petition that was circulated at the last Yardley Meeting, and, as any meeting junkie knows, not forgetting what happens before and after any meeting, which is the chit-chat, networking, chewing over what is to be talked about/what was talked about together - and sometimes, with the councillors and their own teams, as well.

Also, in discussions in the last few minutes on Twitter Cllr John O'Shea has conceded that 20 attending Yardley District meeting is not the whole story - there is an informal local delegate system, which has been going on for years. Cllr Paul Tilsley estimates the additional people reached this way runs into 100s.

Also, incidentally, there are still computer and internet phobics out there. I think of two or three in Acocks Green, who are not going on the internet any time soon, but who do, sometimes, come to District meetings - and these, unsurprisingly, tend to be over 70, and less likely to travel into town. To put it bluntly, we are also excluding the elderly this way!

The prospect (and it is just a prospect at the moment) of live streaming is the first reason that might justify the overt centralisation of the devolution agenda.

http://www.thechamberlainfiles.com/birt ... n-monster/

I guess there is not a lot we can do about this now, but am I the only one to find this claim a little extraordinary?

According to Mr Dale:

A senior councillor said the aim was to do away with “the dead hand of centralised management” and to encourage communities to take responsibility for running their own areas.

How can we take responsibility for running our own areas when it has been so made so difficult for us to attend District Committees where decisions about our areas will be taken? I don't feel 'encouraged' I feel discouraged. I think we have already been quite thoroughly around the wonders of the local Ward Committee, where local issues will be discussed and we can then rely on our aunty and uncle councillors to later brilliantly represent our points for us at District Committee. Not sure how many people are convinced?

I am also wondering why this 'senior councillor' appears to be reluctant to be named. Is it because they don't want to take any flak now, or is it because they are wondering if this statement will come back to haunt them a year or two down the line?