Joining 'Greater Birmingham' would be good for the City, says Ann Lucas.. (2 Viewers)

Forums New posts
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Can someone explain how an alliance with Coventry and Warks would work?

atm Warks is tiered, where the Boroughs and Districts run underneath the county. Would they expect something similar to happen, with a COv + Warks alliance being an extra tier above the Warks one, or would it be Cov would go to a lower tier like RBC and WDC, with a new overarching Cov + Warks authority above them?

tbh I don't really understand. I've seen all the claims about how this alliance or that would be great, but I don't really know why other than a promise of more money... which seems bribery, to me.

I do know that the ill-fated West Midlands authority didn't... work.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
If we're joining up with anyone surely Warwickshire makes the most sense. When Lucas comes out and says if we don't join Birmingham we'll be ignored isn't she saying she's not very good at her job as she's the one who's supposed to get the best for the city?
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Can someone explain how an alliance with Coventry and Warks would work?

atm Warks is tiered, where the Boroughs and Districts run underneath the county. Would they expect something similar to happen, with a COv + Warks alliance being an extra tier above the Warks one, or would it be Cov would go to a lower tier like RBC and WDC, with a new overarching Cov + Warks authority above them?

tbh I don't really understand. I've seen all the claims about how this alliance or that would be great, but I don't really know why other than a promise of more money... which seems bribery, to me.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen it's an extra layer so CCC would still exist but there would be a Coventry & Warwickshire Council in addition. That council would be responsible for things currently done by government, so they would get a chunk of money for things like transport and economic development. That's my understanding anyway. The whole concept seems a bit of a half baked idea. If you want to start devolving powers to the regions surely you look at the whole council structure. How much money is going to wasted bringing these authorities into existence and running them?
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
chiefdave said:
From what I've seen it's an extra layer so CCC would still exist but there would be a Coventry & Warwickshire Council in addition. That council would be responsible for things currently done by government, so they would get a chunk of money for things like transport and economic development. That's my understanding anyway. The whole concept seems a bit of a half baked idea. If you want to start devolving powers to the regions surely you look at the whole council structure. How much money is going to wasted bringing these authorities into existence and running them?
Click to expand...

So we'd have, say, as a tier for Warwickshire as it is:

Cov + Warks
WCC
RBC, WDC, N&BBC, and SDC?

Or the Cov+ Warks one would be a merger/acquisition of bits of services currently delivered by WCC and CCC, into the new C&WCC?
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
So we'd have, say, as a tier for Warwickshire as it is:

Cov + Warks
WCC
RBC, WDC, N&BBC, and SDC?

Or the Cov+ Warks one would be a merger/acquisition of bits of services currently delivered by WCC and CCC, into the new C&WCC?
Click to expand...

Isn't the idea to almost disband councils and set up new organisations (or slim lined councils for want of a better word), to deliver services on the ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
stupot07 said:
Isn't the idea to almost disband councils and set up new organisations (or slim lined councils for want of a better word), to deliver services on the ground.
Click to expand...

So WCC no longer exists, but the Parks section, say, runs as an autonomous body (a Trust?) loosely tied to a higher body?
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
So WCC no longer exists, but the Parks section, say, runs as an autonomous body (a Trust?) loosely tied to a higher body?
Click to expand...

I can't seem to find anything online, but was listening to them talk about it on the radio but yeah that's what would loosely happen. Cov & warks would join as a strategic authority then borough council type organisations sitting underneath.

They would definitely look to break things up where they can, like you said set up parks as a social enterprise, Tupe staff over, then they can bids for private works, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
stupot07 said:
I can't seem to find anything online, but was listening to them talk about it on the radio but yeah that's what would loosely happen. Cov & warks would join as a strategic authority then borough council type organisations sitting underneath.
Click to expand...

But isn't that what happens now with WCC anyway?

(Things like parks, heritage etc are run under WCC. Areas such as planning are under the Borough and Distruct councils)
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
But isn't that what happens now with WCC anyway?

(Things like parks, heritage etc are run under WCC. Areas such as planning are under the Borough and Distruct councils)
Click to expand...

Yeah, kind of, but then you'd joint services together with Coventry, and things like planning would be brought up to strategic level not borough level so that you have that strategic development oversight, etc.

To be honest, I think the idea is a glorified version of the old Regional Development Agency, which the tory's scrapped when they came in. I think it's dangerous having 1 person come in and make all these decisions, as a number of areas have found out with the Police Commissioner roles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Hmmmm. Now where's my CV ;)

It all seems, tbh, reorganisation for the sake of reorganisation.
Click to expand...

Definitely. As I said thinks I added if before hour replied, it's like the bastard child of the regional development agency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
Covstu

Covstu

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
From what I've seen it's an extra layer so CCC would still exist but there would be a Coventry & Warwickshire Council in addition. That council would be responsible for things currently done by government, so they would get a chunk of money for things like transport and economic development. That's my understanding anyway. The whole concept seems a bit of a half baked idea. If you want to start devolving powers to the regions surely you look at the whole council structure. How much money is going to wasted bringing these authorities into existence and running them?
Click to expand...
should warwickshire have the same concerns as we do with Brum i.e. would you trust cov council with a potential say in your towns budget??
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Covstu said:
should warwickshire have the same concerns as we do with Brum i.e. would you trust cov council with a potential say in your towns budget??
Click to expand...

Personally I wouldn't trust Lucas with anything! What would be the populations covered by the various councils if we joined up with Warks? I doubt we'd be as dominant a partner as Brum, plus we have things such as the Cov and Warks Chamber, NHS Trust etc already in place so it seems a more natural fit.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
Yeah, kind of, but then you'd joint services together with Coventry, and things like planning would be brought up to strategic level not borough level so that you have that strategic development oversight, etc.

To be honest, I think the idea is a glorified version of the old Regional Development Agency, which the tory's scrapped when they came in. I think it's dangerous having 1 person come in and make all these decisions, as a number of areas have found out with the Police Commissioner roles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
Click to expand...

Indeed.....
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Absolutely, county's shouldn't be stripped of their identity to become just one big sprawling mass (mess).

Covstu said:
should warwickshire have the same concerns as we do with Brum i.e. would you trust cov council with a potential say in your towns budget??
Click to expand...
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
torchomatic said:
Absolutely, county's shouldn't be stripped of their identity to become just one big sprawling mass (mess).
Click to expand...

Although tbf Cov was Warwickshire for many many years until county reorganisation.

(although so was Brum too:whistle:)
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Yes, that's correct. It confuses people who do family trees! Solihull, Warwickshire for example. 1974 wasn't it?

Deleted member 5849 said:
Although tbf Cov was Warwickshire for many many years until county reorganisation.

(although so was Brum too:whistle:)
Click to expand...
 
Houchens Head

Houchens Head

Fairly well known member from Malvern
I was born in Coventry, WARWICKSHIRE. It says so on my birth certificate. It will ALWAYS be Warwickshire to me. And nothing whatsover to do with Birmingham or West bloody Midlands! :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
The Newsbot's going for a story every hour?

icon1.png
NEWS : Coventry partnership with Birmingham rejected by 83 per cent of poll voters

Started by Newsbot, 1 Hour Ago

Newsbot
1 Hour Ago
icon1.png
NEWS : Coventry partnership with Birmingham rejected by 82 per cent of poll voters

Started by Newsbot, 2 Hours Ago
Click to expand...
 
oakey

oakey

Well-Known Member
Houchens Head said:
I was born in Coventry, WARWICKSHIRE. It says so on my birth certificate. It will ALWAYS be Warwickshire to me. And nothing whatsover to do with Birmingham or West bloody Midlands! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Click to expand...

Me too. Although I now live in Yam Yam land. Can't see a problem with a big authority as long as there is no reference to Birmingham in the name. I favour the old name, Mercia.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
oakey said:
Me too. Although I now live in Yam Yam land. Can't see a problem with a big authority as long as there is no reference to Birmingham in the name. I favour the old name, Mercia.
Click to expand...

Bring back the Hemlingford Hundred!
 
M

Macca

Well-Known Member
I doubt anyone would notice. There is little character left in the old place anymore, pretty much a mirror image of Birmingscum
 
A

Ashdown

Well-Known Member
Looks like people are coming out in favour of Coventry being aligned with Warwickshire only and that can only be a good thing ! It's probably what everyone apart from Lucas wants as well !
 
Covstu

Covstu

Well-Known Member
Ashdown said:
Looks like people are coming out in favour of Coventry being aligned with Warwickshire only and that can only be a good thing ! It's probably what everyone apart from Lucas wants as well !
Click to expand...

Just waiting for Lucas to call us all idiots and misguided....
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Although tbf Cov was Warwickshire for many many years until county reorganisation.

(although so was Brum too:whistle:)
Click to expand...

Was Brum Warwickshire? I thought it was Staffs. Can't be sure though.

I think Warwickshire sounds nicer, but in the real world, the regional economic power is with Birmingham. Economicaly we would be better off together with Birmingham than Warks - but our pride would certainly be hurt and we would loose our individuality.
 
A

Ashdown

Well-Known Member
martcov said:
Was Brum Warwickshire? I thought it was Staffs. Can't be sure though.

I think Warwickshire sounds nicer, but in the real world, the regional economic power is with Birmingham. Economicaly we would be better off together with Birmingham than Warks - but our pride would certainly be hurt and we would loose our individuality.
Click to expand...

We wouldn't be better off at all with a Birmingham dominated council, I could see immediate issues with actually obtaining our 'share' of the funding.
 
Covstu

Covstu

Well-Known Member
martcov said:
Was Brum Warwickshire? I thought it was Staffs. Can't be sure though.

I think Warwickshire sounds nicer, but in the real world, the regional economic power is with Birmingham. Economicaly we would be better off together with Birmingham than Warks - but our pride would certainly be hurt and we would loose our individuality.
Click to expand...

There are major issues in Brum in respect to roads and housing, i could see our budgets disappear in that bottomless pit...
 
S

Sky Blue Dal

Well-Known Member
REFEREENDUM NOW YOU STUPID WOMAN!!!

No way should Coventry even think about joining forces with Birmingham and Black country.

Under this and past Labour Councils all Coventry has been doing is going backwards.

Spend that £250,000 of tax payers money on a referendum. It is up to the people of Coventry to decide the future and direction the city should take and not some no mark council leader who obviously does not understand the democratic process.

See the updated telegraph poll and take note Anne.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-warwickshire-not-small-attract-9297405


Also note by joining B'ham we will be inheriting there debts they built up on after losing there very costly sexual discrimination case in high court. They are still paying it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top