7, 11 or 15?
We have been expecting the shake up in our 26 councils to come to the Executive for a decision for some weeks. At one point yesterday, 28th February, was pencilled in as the most likely date. However the meeting at Stormont Castle came and went with no word on the future of local government.
It's understood the Environment Minister Arlene Foster is concerned that time is running out for an agreement on the number of councils. She has threatened that she may have to move ahead with an election next year to the existing 26 councils if the parties don't sign off on a compromise number of new super councils soon. But some republicans aren't convinced her deadline is for real. How many councils might we get? 11 still looks like the magic number, even though Sinn Fein officially remains wedded to 7.
Attempts have been underway to arrange a special executive meeting on the topic next Tuesday, but with some key ministers unavailable that's not going ahead. Officials are still juggling ministerial diaries to see if a meeting later in the week is a possibility.
I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
The exact number of super-councils is not the most important issue, even though the parties seem to be obsessing over it. If they are to wield real power and control serious budgets, the new councils must be seen by the public to be credible and legitimate. This means abandoning the mechanical boundaries of the Mackenzie report and adopting in principle the traditional counties and cities as a basis for local government.
The exact number of councils is a detail. If the locals want to split a particular county in two for administrative purposes, so be it. Unlike parliamentary constituencies, there is no reason to prefer equally-sized local councils. A lower limit on council population would be sufficient to prevent the worst inefficiencies. It may annoy the accountants, but local identity has little truck with imposed uniformity.
Scotland, Wales and much of England were subjected in the early '70s to an imposed, 'logical' system of super-councils. These were almost all dismantled in recent years because they lacked popular legitimacy, and their demise has gone unmourned.
It seems that comprehensive schooling is not the only dinosaur being promoted in NI just as it falls out of favour in England. And in England, they're bringing in single-faith schools. Does nobody ever learn...?
The exact number of super-councils is not the most important issue, even though the parties seem to be obsessing over it. If they are to wield real power and control serious budgets, the new councils must be seen by the public to be credible and legitimate. This means abandoning the mechanical boundaries of the Mackenzie report and adopting in principle the traditional counties and cities as a basis for local government.
The exact number of councils is a detail. If the locals want to split a particular county in two for administrative purposes, so be it. Unlike parliamentary constituencies, there is no reason to prefer equally-sized local councils. A lower limit on council population would be sufficient to prevent the worst inefficiencies. It may annoy the accountants, but local identity has little truck with imposed uniformity.
Scotland, Wales and much of England were subjected in the early '70s to an imposed, 'logical' system of super-councils. These were almost all dismantled in recent years because they lacked popular legitimacy, and their demise has gone unmourned.
It seems that comprehensive schooling is not the only dinosaur being promoted in NI just as it falls out of favour in England.
The exact number of super-councils is not the most important issue, even though the parties seem to be obsessing over it. If they are to wield real power and control serious budgets, the new councils must be seen by the public to be credible and legitimate. This means abandoning the mechanical boundaries of the Mackenzie report and adopting in principle the traditional counties and cities as a basis for local government.
The exact number of councils is a detail. If the locals want to split a particular county in two for administrative purposes, so be it. Unlike parliamentary constituencies, there is no reason to prefer equally-sized local councils. A lower limit on council population would be sufficient to prevent the worst inefficiencies. It may annoy the accountants, but local identity has little truck with imposed uniformity.
Scotland, Wales and much of England were subjected in the early '70s to an imposed, 'logical' system of super-councils. These were almost all dismantled in recent years because they lacked popular legitimacy, and their demise has gone unmourned.
It seems that comprehensive schooling is not the only dinosaur being promoted in NI just as it falls out of favour in England.
The exact number of councils is an important issue, we all know the reasons SF want a 7 council model, but a much fairer and more sensible number is 11.
11 is probably what we will get, whether it is a sensible number is a matter for debate. We will be losing a large degree of local contact. One of the plus points is that we will hopefully be losing a large amount of the dead wood that take up council seats! I hope the parties do use the new councils as a means of blooding fresh talent rather than their current policy of rewarding longevity over ability. I think the DUP can at least thank Jim Allister for doing them a favour in removing a significant number of their councillors who would fall into the former category.