No unitary for Oxford
I’m really cross at the news that despite a really strong bid, there will not be one single unitary authority for the city of Oxford. Great. No local accountability at all for the delivery of youth services, education, social services, major road repairs, and the county council gets to carry on redistributing tax money away from the city to the rural hinterland.
Sorry?…
Antonia Bance is complaining because Oxford will not be a unitary authority:…and the county council gets to carry on redistributing tax money away from the city to the rural hinterland. A strong argument, don’t you think? London should become a…
Just to note that Tim doesn’t seem to understand the difference between redistribution from rich to poor, and redistribution from poor to rich.
Take care
Dan xxx
Bad news.
Still, this at least was good:
http://www.northumberlanddirect.gov.uk/ontc/20070327.asp
Hurrah. Really glad to see this decision. There is an issue about representation - but the answer is fair votes not attempting to create authorities that only cover one political group. People’s republic of Ashurst Way? Grand Duchy of Old Headington? Principality of 399 Banbury Road?
But Oxford City Council doesn’t only cover one political group. It covers five, none of which are the Conservatives, who are nonetheless responsible for education, transport, social services etc etc etc in the City. It’s a manifestly absurd situation.
Matt
Not as absurd as the nonsense filling this blog.
So by the same logic can we have Home Rule for Surrey? It has never ever elected a Labour MP yet we have a Labour government making decisions for us.
George Pargiter won Spelthorne for Labour in 1945. I grant you it was in Middlesex in those good old days, but it’s in Surrey now.
Labour seem keen on bringing democracy to the people of Iraq - they should get their own house in order first! Labour talks a lot about local decision-making but when the people of Oxford overwhelmingly want more freedom to govern themselves - they are ignored.