Quoted from blackdog

Following this argument to its logical conclusion planning should be devolved to ever smaller areas until you get to individual plots -

Yes, well I'm sure the government will have thought this through very carefully.  My point was that one objection to council mergers - that councillors in Slough would decide what happens in Newbury - probably hadn't been properly thought through.

I'm still not clear why WBC seems so keen not to debate merging support services across the board and drastically reducing the number of senior managers is instead focusing on cutting the front line.  I'm sure that's not what Mr Pickles - or the rest of us - wants.

It's pretty much inevitable that we'll see much deeper cuts to front line services after 5th May, incidentally. The councils which have cut deepest so far don't have elections this year.

Quoted from blackdog

I don't think anyone is suggesting the merger of disparate operations - just merging common functions across the six UAs.   Support functions by their nature need to be located within reach of those being supported - but there must be scope to save significantly by merging the management of common services across Berkshire and taking advantages of economies of scale in procurement.

Yes, merging common functions with another organisation based locally was tried before.

I believe it was supposed to last 25 years but one party withdrew after around only 5.

Quoted from user23.3

Yes, merging common functions with another organisation based locally was tried before.

I believe it was supposed to last 25 years but one party withdrew after around only 5.

It's a bit worrying that Market Street's finest can't come up with better arguments than this.

I'll try to be gentle.  There are two big flaws in the 'we tried it before but it didn't work' objection to change (I think it's about 3 on the top 100 ways to try to block change).  Can you guess what they are?

Quoted from noobree

It's a bit worrying that Market Street's finest can't come up with better arguments than this.

I did. Councillors from Slough, Maidenhead and Bracknell deciding on whether your neighbour can build his extension or not.

By the way, "We tried it before but it didn't work, so let's do it again" doesn't seem the best course of action, to me.

Quoted from user23.3

I did. Councillors from Slough, Maidenhead and Bracknell deciding on whether your neighbour can build his extension or not.

By the way, "We tried it before but it didn't work, so let's do it again" doesn't seem the best course of action, to me.

It's pretty much decided by the planners before any item is called to council commitee anyway but of course there would be local councillors attending the planning meeting so pretty much the same as now I suspect.

Quoted from brian

It's pretty much decided by the planners before any item is called to council commitee anyway but of course there would be local councillors attending the planning meeting so pretty much the same as now I suspect.

Planners based in Reading, Slough, Maidenhead or Bracknell I would have thought, so nothing like now or under Berkshire County.

Quoted from user23.3

Planners based in Reading, Slough, Maidenhead or Bracknell I would have thought, so nothing like now or under Berkshire County.

Why should the planners not be in Newbury?  Just because six UAs are replaced by one (called Berkshire) it doesn't mean that every WBC employee would disappear from Newbury.

Quoted from user23.3

I did. Councillors from Slough, Maidenhead and Bracknell deciding on whether your neighbour can build his extension or not.

At present we have two planning committees for West Berkshire (Eastern and Western Area Committees) - under a countywide UA there would still be multiple committees covering various areas and dominated by  councillors from the area in question.

Under the localism bill everything will change anyway - devolving decisions to parished and neighbourhoods if you believe the spin.

Quoted from user23.3

Yes, merging common functions with another organisation based locally was tried before.

I believe it was supposed to last 25 years but one party withdrew after around only 5.

I wonder how much of that was down to WBC staff such as User23 making sure it didn't work!!

Quoted from user23.3

By the way, "We tried it before but it didn't work, so let's do it again" doesn't seem the best course of action, to me.

We'd achieve virtually nothing - powered flight, climbing Everest, putting up shelves - if we worked on that basis.

There are two obvious reasons why 'we tried it before but it didn't work' is a bad argument against change:

1. the first time it might have been done badly
2. conditions will have changed since then

I still haven't heard any good reasons why West Berks Council shouldn't look at large scale mergers of services and management structures. There's a lot of pressure from central government for them to do so: http://bit.ly/em1oWD

There needs to be open debate about this before the 5 May elections.

Quoted from noobree

We'd achieve virtually nothing - powered flight, climbing Everest, putting up shelves - if we worked on that basis.

There are two obvious reasons why 'we tried it before but it didn't work' is a bad argument against change:

1. the first time it might have been done badly
2. conditions will have changed since then

I still haven't heard any good reasons why West Berks Council shouldn't look at large scale mergers of services and management structures. There's a lot of pressure from central government for them to do so: http://bit.ly/em1oWD

There needs to be open debate about this before the 5 May elections.[b][/b]

Open debate? If it involves curtailing some of the power of WBC and lowering the burden to taxpayers then that will be dead in the water then?  

Quoted from Cognosco

Open debate? If it involves curtailing some of the power of WBC and lowering the burden to taxpayers then that will be dead in the water then?  

Clearly it won't be debated unless it's raised by the public - neither of the parties whose government is responsible for achieving the local authority cuts seems to have this issue on their agenda.  Do be sure to ask canvassers who turn up on your doorsteps about it.  

You may be right that Mr Jones and his colleagues rather like the sense of power that having a team of highly paid officials advisers brings with it.   But perhaps part of the problem is that it's just too expensive to make senior staff redundant: see this http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2011/03/no-fair-shares-for-chief-executives-by-heather-wakefield/

Quoted from noobree

But perhaps part of the problem is that it's just too expensive to make senior staff redundant.

You are correct, to make Mr Carter and his chums redundant, would cost a small fortune. You will have to wait until they seek a more lucrative post elsewhere and not replace them. (or employ someone at 1/3 of their current salary) when they have gone.

I am sure that Mr Carter already has his CV prepared to send round the gravy train circuit when Park Way proves to be a substantial success. (Did I really write that?)

Quoted from Archie

You are correct, to make Mr Carter and his chums redundant, would cost a small fortune. You will have to wait until they seek a more lucrative post elsewhere and not replace them. (or employ someone at 1/3 of their current salary) when they have gone.

I am sure that Mr Carter already has his CV prepared to send round the gravy train circuit when Park Way proves to be a substantial success. (Did I really write that?)

Yes strange isn't it?
Financial, banking, football,local authorities all have to pay top money to attract the right people supposedly.
Yet Hospital doctors, nurses, other essential life saving services including police are all considered to be far less important and therefore paid well below par? Do they not need top people in their organisations?

Also if the essential services do not perform well IE someone dies or is seriously disabled etc from their actions they are held to account.
The highest paid especially bankers and local authorities it would appear are accountable to no one. They can mismanage as much as they like and no consequences are paid, often only moving on to another organisation with no loss of earnings or benefits.

Am I the only one to think like this?