There is an ancient theory in local government circles that whenever anyone fully understands the structure of English local government, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which says that this has already happened many times.
There are currently two reforms in the pipeline: devolution and local government reorganisation.
Devolution will see powers come down from government departments in Whitehall to a new Sussex mayoralty.
Local government reorganisation will see the establishment of unitary authorities across the country, eliminating the county and borough separation.
There will not be a Sussex “mega-council” as some quarters have reported erroneously.
As a Labour councillor in Brighton and Hove, I’m genuinely excited about the opportunities this could bring to our region.
Devolution might sound like one of those buzzwords that politicians love to throw around but, at its heart, it’s about giving local people more control over the decisions that affect our daily lives. That is something to be embraced and is worth celebrating.
One of the biggest benefits of devolution is the potential for Sussex to have a louder voice on the national stage.
For too long, decisions about our transport, housing, health and local economy have been made by people in Westminster who don’t understand the unique challenges and opportunities our county presents.
Soon we will be able to shape policies that are tailored to the needs of our communities, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all approach.
Take transport, for example. Many of my constituents want better transport links into East Sussex but the current lack of powers and division of responsibilities makes that very difficult to achieve.
It’s not just about getting people from A to B, it’s about creating a greener, more accessible transport network that works for residents, not for private corporations and moneymen chasing profit over performance.
Devolution could mean greater control over funding and planning of public transport, allowing us to tackle congestion and improve connectivity across Sussex.
Of course, devolution isn’t a magic wand. It’ll require collaboration between councils, businesses and community groups to get the best out of it.
But what excites me most is the chance to think big and be bold. Just look at how Manchester has developed The Bee Network or how Tees Valley pioneered adult education and training in the post-industrial north east.
This is our chance to tackle the challenges we face head-on and build a fairer, more prosperous Sussex for everyone.
Let’s embrace this opportunity to shape our own destiny and show the rest of the country that “we wunt be druv”!
Councillor Jacob Allen is a Labour member of Brighton and Hove City Council.
Does this mean reducing the number of Sussex council authorities from 320 plus to a more functional system ??? so many people doing the same administration in so many locations I’m sure the Data privacy legislation is at risk, reduce the the numbers, make it functional for the people who pay for it, AKA. Only one circus can only feed so many monkeys, same for clowns, put too many in the ring then it loses its effect.
This is the councillor who actively sought to prevent residents from raising a question at the Patcham Court Farm planning meeting. He had no real need to try and stop residents questions and it just came across as trying to stifle residents having a say on an issue of concern to them. Irrespective of whatever people’s views are on the Patcham Court Farm application, stopping residents speaking and asking legitimate questions at public meetings is poor form.
I note in this article Councillor Jacob Allen makes no reference to asking residents what they want in a referendum or a formal consultation on the devolution issue.
Other than trying to stamp down claims about “mega councils” there’s nothing tangible in what this councillor says about how it will benefit residents in any real or meaningful way. From what he’s saying at the moment, it sounds like a load of spin. However, if it is something as transformative as he makes out, the council should commit to full public engagement, consultation and a referendum, rather than forcing something that at present we are being told is transformative and massive, but in is being described in very opaque language. What’s being communicated by the Labour administration on this is far from adequate.
The devil is in the details. I agree that if a consultation were to happen, it should be framed with what the actual affects this will have on people and their day-to-day.
I would gently suggest good communication will be key here. The average person is likely to not understand the concept very well.
Thanks Jacob for your input. You say that people’s claim of a ‘greater Sussex’ are wrong but still don’t say or explain exactly what is proposed. If we are to become part of a Mayoralty what will be it’s boundaries and what functions will it take from the existing City Council? Will that council continue to exist? How many councillors will represent us? Currently the City has 54. Will that still be the case? Will ward boundaries be changed?
Is there the slightest chance that such a radical reforms will be enacted bedore the next General election?
Keep an eye on the Brighton & Hove City Council website as there should be a full public consultation very shortly that is supposed to last until March. This might be where they publish it: https://yourvoice.brighton-hove.gov.uk/en-GB/
Keep an eye on the council websites as there should be a public consultation very shortly. The one on Brighton and Hove’s might be published here soon: https://yourvoice.brighton-hove.gov.uk/en-GB/
Why won’t there be a Sussex council. Surly that would be a lot more efficient for running
bins, police, fire, road repairs and a transport network.
Just thinking of all the duplication we must have in admin, management ect.
My point exactly, although duplicate is 2 and the number of repetetive admins much higher, W. Sussex has 166 council authorities for 880,000 people, overdone, a lot. Data protection rights also become negligible with so many systems keeping multiples of personal data on repeat. And they all get paid plus pensions on the rise it’s getting more expensive with less actual function being accomplished, politician solution = raise taxes provide less, let’s see what happens next
It’s more accurate to say raise taxes to maintain service levels with less central funding after years of austerity.
You give the region a mayoralty and we in Brighton will be governed by Tories against our will. I don’t want the people in the sticks choosing who represents us. That this plan is supported by Labour councillors is like turkeys voting for Christmas
An English parliament would be a better bet. Then we can fight the Barnett Formula.
This is one of those comments, ,, be careful what you wish for, the next result could be worse, and with todays clowns in charge it probably would be.
Very good idea. Not just fight but get rid of the Barnett altogether.
Of course Brighton wants an amalgamated authority. It will immediately dissolve their £54m debt for that useless white elephant i360 and pass it on to taxpayers that have never had any say about it. I’m outraged that this is being presented as a fair accompli without any consultation let alone input with taxpayers. We are being treated like plebs with young idealists like Jacob thinking they have the right to make these huge decisions for us. I haven’t voted for anyone in Brighton or E Sussex so what right do they have to organise this collaboration without even asking us?
Worst case, debt consolidation for all the debts, one debt mangement is easier than multiples from a truck load of mini emperors. On the positive side when a giant debt is accrued or assembled Ts&Cs become more “flexible” in the payment and interest terms, mainly because of the scale it presents. Money owners never want to lose out no matter who owes it.
very true. well said.
Consultation is incoming Valerie, the proposals need to be detailed, otherwise we’re just having a conversation about the pros and cons for devolution generically, and whilst interesting, it certainly isn’t useful for an informed conversation, right?
The problem is, Jacob, that you trot out the usual cliche’ from the Left that we are not safe with “private corporations and moneymen chasing profit over performance” as if they were the only ones to mistrust. Experience and evidence says to me that power and influence is just as misused in the public sector, if not more so. This unspoken claim to the moral high ground when evidence frequently indicates quite the opposite in truth is what leads to a disillusioned and disengaged populace.
Public sector is open to a lot more transparency, so if even if your claim is that they are equal to private, then that simply means it’s a lot more hidden within the private sector. I know what I would rather have.
Potential benefit is devolution could bring in the possibility of a tourist tax. Even a single £1 added to a hotel booking could raise millions to help pay for services.
A Sussex mayoralty will surely drop into the laps of either the Tories or, worse still, Reform (if they still exist by teatime).
They will not be reliant on votes from Brighton and Hove, which does not vote for right wing parties in large numbers. Therefore they will ignore the needs of Brighton and Hove, just like the present Police and Crime Commissioner.
Very hard to see this as a step forward, and it’s all presented in a very typical New Labour way, which is to patronise the electorate into the ground and treat everyone as if they were complete idiots.
a)Would these proposals actually mean that we can see exactly where OUR money is being spent?
b)Will the ‘ local authority ‘ still be a Corporation and still linked to Dun and Bradstreet?
c) Will there actually be proper and total transparency on all issues including the issue in point a)?