Green councillors in Brighton and Hove are calling for an emergency full council meeting to discuss Labour’s proposal for a Sussex-wide mayor.
A far-reaching decision is due to be made tomorrow (Thursday 9 January) by the council’s cabinet – made up of 10 Labour councillors – the Grens said.
It would “fast-track a move which would see Brighton and Hove come under the control of a Sussex-wide mayor”.
The last time an elected mayor was proposed to run Brighton and Hove, a referendum was held and the proposal was overwhelmingly rejected. Labour lost their council majority at the next local elections.
The Greens said: “A white paper on devolution was released by the government shortly before Christmas. The decision that cabinet is taking will be made less than a month later.
“Green councillors have slammed the move, highlighting the speed with which the decision will have been made and the lack of any kind of public consultation.
“Greens say this first step should have been a decision for full council to make – allowing all councillors to discuss the issue rather than a handful of Labour members.
“(They) are calling for any final decisions on large-scale changes to local democracy to be subject to a binding referendum.”
Steve Davis, the Green opposition leader on the council, said: “The proposals going before cabinet tomorrow represent a step towards some of the largest changes to local democracy that we have seen in recent history.
“Labour has absolutely no mandate for these plans which have been drawn up in haste, leaving very little time for proper scrutiny.
“Labour are taking a huge gamble with our city’s future which, based on the last elections, could see it put under the control of a Tory or even Reform mayor.
“This is a clear example of politics being done to people, not for them – the residents of Brighton and Hove deserve to have their say on this massive decision.”
The East Sussex County Council and West Sussex County Council cabinets are holding similar meetings tomorrow.
The aim is for a joint submission to the government by the two county councils and Brighton and Hove City Council this week.
It is obscene that a cabinet of only 9 Brighton and Hove City Councillors out of 54, a sixth of all City Councillors, are potentially making this decision on behalf of the whole city.
Let’s not forget too that Council Leader Sankey has hitherto failed to provide proof the Gunning principles were followed in forming her cabinet council, potentially rendering it invalid, which would mean undoing all decisions it has made so far, if the case.
We need to demand a public referendum on a decision this major, not just for Brighton and Hove, but for the whole of Sussex.
But perhaps first a Judicial Review of how the cabinet council came to be founded as if it is not on firm foundations, it has no business other than immediate dissolution.
Some going for a powergrab before new Government policies are brought in.
100% agree with your view about the way the Cabinet has been steamrollered in is obscene.
Any positives of devolution are being lost by the way this Labour council seem intent to ignore residents voices. Devolution is much more than just installing a mayor, we’re talking about boundary changes and combining local authorities. Personally I can’t imagine the good people of Lewes, or Worthing, or wherever Labour decide to draw the boundary lines would relish the idea of City Clean being responsible for their bins collections. There are so many implications of merging councils, and the lack of detail coming from Labour abour what options they are considering, including where they might want to draw the lines, feels secretive. Its certainly not the listening Labour they promised they would be.
It’s also quite shocking that the plans would delay local elections in some areas – that’s hindering democracy and quite shocking on its own!
About 80% of councils use a cabinet system according to the LGiU. Going down the Gunning route, the argument there would be again, such governance models have been widely adopted and refined as an efficient model of government.
Perhaps a symbolic gesture of broader concerns, but as a legal challenge lukewarm at best.
Registered electors have the right to raise a petition calling for a referendum on the matter of changing the Council’s governance arrangements.
Under the Local Authorities (Referendums) (Petitions) (England) Regulations 2011, one of the things a Council must do is to inform people about their right to ask for a referendum on the matter of changing the Council’s governance arrangements.
Regulations under the Act provide for a referendum to be held where at least 5% of local government electors petition the Council for a referendum on whether the Council should change to a different form of governance.
Off you go.
Cart before horse.
There was no mention of a cabinet council on Labour’s manifesto in 2023 so it could be argued they were voted in under false pretences.
Moreover there is no proof to date that they have followed the Gunning priniciples to establish a cabinet council, which in itself could render Brighton and Hove City Council invalid.
Now, here we are allowing them to make decisions well above the competance of nine city Councillors left to play SimSussex with our lives in real time.
I’ve already explained why Gunning isn’t a great argument, and it follows the same logic as to the manifesto argument. Absence isn’t evidence of being misled, sorry Mike.
On the contrary, consultations that don’t adhere to the four Gunning Principles are subject to judicial review.
This is nothing more than an attempt by the labour government to remove our right to vote. They are terrified that reform is going to have a major impact at the local elections in May. The streets of Brighton and Hove are becoming more violent and you all know why.
Yup, first Labour swing for the pensioners, then the farmers, then the Waspies and now our right to vote.
A certain Capo has a lot to answer for.
Labour swing for pensioners was a set up to be mugged down the line.
I am not sure that Reform will win here – but in Brighton we have the deeply unpopular Tories, the failed Greens and now the nationally failing Labour party.
Labour and The Tories have turned on their traditional voter base. The Greens are still highly discredited for poor financial management and the imposition of their sinister ideology in schools. Perhaps we will see a swing to the Lib-Dems ?
At risk of seeing Davey pole dancing in a mankini – please no more ‘Trusties’ knocking on my door telling me how great the Lib Dems are.
Could you explain how the UK will become a dictatorship and when please? A cogent rationale explaining how this will happen only please.
Further, please explain what we all know about the increasing violence on the streets. Underpin your assertion with facts though.
So let’s get this straight, Brighton and Hove City Council, West Sussex County Council and East Sussex County Council are all having meetings on devolution and forming a mega Sussex council on the same morning today.
This means that NO Sussex resident is enabled to attend all three meetings as they are in different parts of the county and more or less simultaneous in timing.
Accident?
And does this also mean there is an untabled meeting happening this afternoon between all three Councils that we do not know about?
Or has one already occurred?
Council meetings have always been on a Thursday, coincidence?
I want less politics not more, politics is so outdated, red, blue, green, yellow – who cares apart from the political elite – get rid of the lot, they’ll be no benefit to any of use.
Apathy is the literal worst stance to take, with apathy, you end up with extremist views getting into power, global history will tell you.
Rarely in the field of political debate has so much nonsense been spoken by so many ill-informed people with so few concrete facts at theit disposal.
The devolution plans are at a very early stage and absolutely noboby knows for certain what the actual proposals will be.
The is the Green Party dog-whistle at its worst!
The ill-informed aspect concerns me, because I believe in good challenges to everything, pros and cons, from educated and intelligent perspective, delivered articulately with decorum.
Between two such viewpoints an effective way forward can be achieved. Weaknesses can be ironed out, and pitfalls can be avoided.
Logical fallacy and emotive attacks doesn’t contribute anything useful. Then again, we commenters on here are just the vocal keyboard warrior minority, so there’s a heavy handful of salt to be taken with everything said on here.
When is the next meeting on this matter?
This council seem to behave in a dictatorial, illegal and unsafe way. There is a mountain of evidence to support this.
Such as? I’d be deeply interested in what this evidence is to back up your repeated opinion.
Fire safety and their housing stock. Why have they still not published fire risk assessments for high rise blocks? That’s one example.
Councils are not obliged to publish those, although if you’re interested, ask for them with an FOI. Afraid that doesn’t back up Lyn’s statement. Have another one?
Think the ‘deeply unpopular’ Tories should now read, ‘deeply unpopular’ Labour. Tell me, is anyone any better off yet? Are you likely to be? I’m surprised Labour are so keen on this idea, because I certainly can’t see it being a Labour mayor. No bad thing I suppose.
Is the so called cabinet council illegal?
I do not see how Brighton and Hove can be running a legal cabinet council. I recall no meaningful consultation, and certainly not, city referendum, on becoming a cabinet council. And it was not in the 2023 Labour manifesto. Sankey is now spinning it in today’s devolution meeting that everything she and her council decide is covered by the word ‘change’ in their manifesto! So if, for example, she wants to install a wind turbine on top of everyone’s roof, abracadabra, she’s covered herself!
Unfortunately, that comes across as personal incredulity. Referendums have no legal standing, and according to academia, referendums work best with simple questions where voters are well informed on a subject, and regardless should be used sparingly.
I would argue that on this topic, neither really applies. And then on a more subjective basis, last major referendum ended up with Brexit, with many economists stating the downsides have outweighed any benefits.
No Lyn, the process followed the Localism Act 2011 correctly. If it didn’t, you don’t think critics against common cabinet structures would have already pointed that out?
This council is Anti-Democratic.
I watched the BHHC meeting today and was reminded of the famous David Brent scene from The Office where everyone else was losing their positions but the really positive news was that David Brent was keeping his!
It was a struggle to see what the defined benefits were for anyone other than Council Leader Sankey becoming uncrowned Queen of Sussex via some undemocratic sounding anomaly she termed ‘total place leadership’.
Was this the payoff for not being allowed to run as a Labour MP by Mr Starmer last year? ‘Well be a good girl and I’ll give you something even bigger and better.’
But decentralisation and bottom up community leadership it was not. It was more about top down and tightening the governments; shackles on Sussex via Labour’s instrument Ms Sankey and we might get the odd chance ‘to shape things’ if we were lucky.
And actual lies. Integrated transport for example, is something that only the nationalisation of public transport can deliver, not regional devolution.
As for all the ‘fast track’ talk, Ms Sankey made applying for devolution sound more like a Black Friday sale than a plan for the future of Sussex with any political integrity whatsoever.
Devolute in haste, repent at leisure?
Not having a choice about something is not democracy I say.
Not sure why Cllr Sankey thinks she would become mayor if elections were held across all of Sussex. When you look this way, the conservatives have always won as the police commissioner shows. Perhaps if timed with the most recent general election there was a chance for Labour to take all of Sussex as a mayor. Now, with the chaos and failures of Labour nationally, there is no chance for them.
Labour poll ratings have plummeted at a never-before-seen speed. By the time of these elections in a year to 18 months they will be in a dire position (assuming the current trends and attacks on pensioners, employers, economy, jobs, farmers etc continue). Perhaps if the promised house building happens and we have millions of new homes, the NHS is fixed and the economy grows Labour stands a chance. But how likely is any of that to happen? The polls say most don’t think it will. If so, the turkeys are voting for Christmas!
Total Place is an established model that encourages synergetics, it’s not a novel idea. There’s an argument to be made though, that Brighton, being quite unique, needs a unique management to it; centralising may dilute that.
This all looks a bit too like splitting the country into zones. We need more voices and autonomy, not greater consolidation of power in the hands of councils – all of which are register corporations on Companies House.
Well, it’s certainly kicking off here.
1) The discussion about councils combining is at a very early stage and is mostly led by the hope of cost savings, but it”s also still at a very theoretical stage. If you are a conspiracy theorist then I see why you think something dodgy is going on. Buy more tin foil.
2) The idea for an elected mayor is a different discussion, but note you do get to vote on that. In some areas of the UK the Metropolitan councils and their elected mayors are now quite popular. Me, I worry about the idea of personality politics, because it’s actually the polices that matter, and where the budget is spent.
3) For sure, it’s a bit scary that urban and city-centre areas can be joined with villages and country folk, as that mix may well change the political make up of the area. The bar-stool logic of a snake-oil salesman like Farage would not go down well in Brighton.
However, most of us still worry first that our bins are emptied on time – and that the roads are gritted when there’s a chance of snow and ice.
And what we have right now is not great local government.
Then again the Greens were even worse, and they wasted money on all sorts of pointless crap.
4) The fact that the current Labour group have adopted a cabinet system is not suspicious at all – it’s just a practical move away from the time wasted in pointless meetings which only serve to vent hot air. If you’ve ever watched an online council meeting live streamed, you’ll know exactly what I mean. Many other councils use the cabinet system.
It does appear to encourage quite the energetic debate between people. I want to touch on your point three, because it’s interesting.
Brighton is quite a unique area, especially when compared to some of the neighbouring areas devolution would seek to bring together. With that, there potentially is an argument that devolution might be to Brighton’s detriment in such a system, as it needs a unique solution that the broad strokes of a larger mayoral system.
Or maybe on balance the benefits outweigh? I’d be keen to hear your thoughts on this, Billy?
Can’t help thinking that Labour has not quite thought this through. What if the cabinet have only reform members on it , would they still be so keen on it? It might make decisions quicker being autocratic/technocratic not very democratic. High chance of poor decisions if you listen to less people. What do the voters think?
Take a step back Doug, as the devolution is moving decisions from central government to regional. This is potentially a good thing. Devolution is designed to broaden perspectives by bringing decision-making closer to the people it affects. It allows for more localised input and ensures that regional voices are heard, which can lead to more diverse and representative decision-making.
I’ve said this a few times, but it seems like devolution as a concept is not really well understood by many, and that’s something that needs to be factored in because there’s an element of a good idea presented badly, is a bad idea.
Why are the actual people who live in sussex not being allowed a voice in this matter. Surely a decision as large as this should not be up to a few councillors.
As to trying to stop the May elections that is just running scared of the results.
Let the people have their right to speak up over these matters.
This is a misconception, because, before that, the central government needs to approve this, generally through legislation. So in reality, it isn’t “up to a few councillors.”
A lot of conspiracy theorie nonsense about something that will probably benefit Brighton in cash terms and in other terms make not one difference to the way you go about your life…
As for the greens crying ‘This is a clear example of politics being done to people, not for them’. That’s a bit rich isn’t it
Although, on balance, there are some fair criticisms and concerns that should be addressed should they proceed. Public participation has needed an overhaul for a little while. My thoughts are that it could be done through a citizen’s assembly or a similar model. I think what we have currently is not very representative.
In addition, I think there is a distinct lack of knowledge out there, conversations I’ve had online and in person have reinforced that many people aren’t very well informed about what devolution means. That’s a challenge in itself.
None of the few Labour apologists on here have explained how this this top down, politics forced on us and done to us under the guise of it being for our benefit is a. legal, b.democratic or c. for our benefit. Where is the cost/benefit analysis for example? The whole deal from local government reorganisation to devolution will cost millions if not billions across the county. It will be decades until any ‘cost savings’ are seen, if ever. The indecent haste with which this is being steamrollered through is also alarming. Judging by the way our council is being run right now, resident satisfaction is at an all time low so the last thing anyone wants to see is an incopentent council being given any MORE powers when it cannot even deliver a clean and beautiful city with full statutory servcies and resident inclusion as it is. How many of us trust anything from Starmer now as having our best interests at heart either? His approval rating is dropping like a stone and he has already shafted the farmers, the waspies, the pensioner, those awaiting justice for sexual abuse. Are the citizens of Sussex next on his hit list?
Devolution is widely supported in academic research as a means to improve governance by enhancing efficiency, accountability, and responsiveness to local needs. Katz and Nowak’s The New Localism (2018) highlights how devolved powers enable local leaders to innovate and tailor policies to their communities.
The principle of subsidiarity underpins this, ensuring decisions are made at the most local effective level. Research, such as studies published in Regional Studies, also shows economic benefits, including more targeted regional development and reduced inequalities. Evidence suggests that with safeguards, (which is why I advocate for a strong opposition) devolution strengthens democracy by empowering communities and bringing government closer to the people.
And as requested, an evidence based of academia that supports this.
Katz, B. and Nowak, J. (2018) The New Localism: How Cities Can Thrive in the Age of Populism. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Available at: https://www.thenewlocalism.com (Accessed: 10 January 2025).
European Parliament (n.d.) The principle of subsidiarity. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/7/the-principle-of-subsidiarity (Accessed: 10 January 2025).
Rodríguez-Pose, A. and Ezcurra, R. (2005) ‘Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A cross-country analysis’, Regional Studies, 39(7), pp. 731–745. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00343400500128390 (Accessed: 10 January 2025).
Centre for Cities (2020) Devolution in England. Available at: https://www.centreforcities.org/devolution (Accessed: 10 January 2025).
MikeyMike, I love the way you are able to conflate all the Daily Mail dogwhistle politics into one paragraph.
You also ask for a cost benefit analysis – and then you make one up.
Insults. The resort of those with no real answers.
My answer to your challenge is currently under moderation, Mike.
Thanks Billy.
One of the ways we are warned to avoid scams in everyday life is to be careful of anything that tells you to act quickly. Special prices that will disappear tomorrow. That sort of thing. Well, this “fast track” offer does look very similar. Act now or lose out!
The interesting thing is that Labour and Conservative councillors at different local councils have all approved a move to the next stage. I’m not convinced. The needs of areas within the city are hugely different already – and local councillors represent different needs and agendas. Look at that across Sussex with very different issues in villages and I wonder if we’ll end up with less say. We shall see, as Labour and their opposition agree on this.
You seem to be suggesting that we should let scammers scam rather than challenging them. Letting a bunch of individuals who probably fill no more than a meeting room between them steal democracy and dictate to nearly 2 million Sussex residents who thought they’d voted for democracy seems insane.
“Steal democracy” is an appeal to emotion. It suggests a lack of understanding of what devolution actually entails. There are pros, and there are cons, certainly. And I quite agree that informing people in a way that a common person can understand is always going to be a challenge. The average person does not care, does not care to understand, and would rather stick with the emotive – we’ve seen this time and time again on many issues over the years.
I think challenging now won’t work as the decision has been made. It can be pointed out – but don’t think it will change it. Ultimately it is likely to hurt both Labour and the Tories. Both, at the next election, will face challenges away from the centre as central politics is being seen as not working by many. Tories were terrible and Labour is just as bad or worse. Reform is already here on the right, there will be a new break-off party on the left too as Labour fractures when it doesn’t deliver. I think Labour and the Tories think these moves will help them if this happens – I suspect the opposite.