Manchester Governance and AGMA

[skymann]

Originally Posted by leebuk2005

I guess Irwell you live in one of the areas that you think should belong to Manchester. Do you ever see Manchester Council demanding Failsworth from Oldham and Denton from Tameside because ive not, maybe Manchester Council dont care.

The City Council did present a scheme to the Labour Government about 1998/99 when asked about what the city needed. Basically Manchester city said it should have parity with somewhere like Leeds or Sheffield. I.e. incorporate its suburbs. The plan basically included all Manchester suburbs like Stretford, Urmston, Eccles, Denton, Prestwich, Whitefield, Swinton, Salford, Sale etc. I think it also alluded to Cheadle and Altrincham.

The other Gt Manchester boroughs had a big sulk about it, like the small-minded dicks they can be at times. It just showed the hypocracy of some of the boroughs created or extended in 1974. So Bury MBC saw nothing wrong in forcing Manchester suburbs like Prestwich and Whitefield to pay Council Tax to them, but got in a huge huff when Manchester suggests that its own suburbs should come under the city!! Same will Oldham, and the most mickey mouse of boroughs like Trafford, Tameside and the "new" Salford (after all what have Swinton or Worsley got to do with Salford - A BID FAT ZERO).

Why should Leeds and Sheffield incorporate their suburbs, but Manchester and Liverpool not do the same. The City Council wanted parity. It makes perfect sense. It's hardly an outragous request to want your own suburbs!

[heatonparkincakes]

I am of the opposite opinion about extending the City of Manchester's boundaries.

As I see it Council's are geographically based delivery agents for local services.

They deliver small scale and personal services such as refuse collection, pre uni education, social services and local planning management.

What makes them different from saying your local NHS health trust or other delivery agents is that people have a unique loyalty to an area and that it is headed by an elected group of people.

Thus personally I think that the services that are provided by these delivery agents (or councils) are best done on a smaller scale of a population of 150,000 to 200,000 people. Any smaller and they arent cost effective, bigger and they become too remote and bureaucratic.

So yes, it might be a romantic notion to include clearly Manc suburbs like my own or Denton or Stretford, but practically it isnt really.

In fact I would of liked a London scenario of the city being split into three councils, North and east Manchester, central and south and Wythenshawe.

[skymann]

Originally Posted by heatonparkincakes

I am of the opposite opinion about extending the City of Manchester's boundaries.

As I see it Council's are geographically based delivery agents for local services.

They deliver small scale and personal services such as refuse collection, pre uni education, social services and local planning management.

What makes them different from saying your local NHS health trust or other delivery agents is that people have a unique loyalty to an area and that it is headed by an elected group of people.

Thus personally I think that the services that are provided by these delivery agents (or councils) are best done on a smaller scale of a population of 150,000 to 200,000 people. Any smaller and they arent cost effective, bigger and they become too remote and bureaucratic.

So yes, it might be a romantic notion to include clearly Manc suburbs like my own or Denton or Stretford, but practically it isnt really.

In fact I would of liked a London scenario of the city being split into three councils, North and east Manchester, central and south and Wythenshawe.

Following your logic (which I have some agreement with), some renaming would make sense then; Tameside to East Manchester, Trafford to South West Manchester, Salford/Eccles/Swinton to West Manchester. Maybe combine Prestwich, Whitefield, Blackley, Radcliffe, Moston and Middleton into a new North Manchester borough. I'd be quite happy to divide Manchester's 1 to 1.2 million or so into 6 or seven boroughs as long as they share some citywide services like libraries, culture & sport, economic development - as one unified City of Manchester, but become service delivery agents covering 150,000 to 200,000 Mancunians for social care and eduation. It would make sense to split up Birmingham and other large cities too, but for economic development, libraries, culture etc it makes far more sense to keep things at a unified city level. There's no point Tameside, Trafford etc wasting time and effort trying to sell itself as a destination separate from Manchester for tourism or ecomonic development. There is one Chamber or Commerce for the whole of Manchester after all.

What is certainly true of Manchester and Liverpool is that they are a long long way from incorporating their actual suburbs. It is simply illogical and ineffective for Manchester to not include inner city suburbs like Old Trafford a mile or so from the city centre, or for Liverpool to not include suburbs like Bootle or Huyton. I think dividing the cities into smaller delivery units of 150,000 to 200,000 is fine but each should contain the name of Manchester or Liverpool in their title and then the geographica location and just exist as agents for social care and education. All other services would be better provided at the big city level. I would see Manchester as having the City of Manchester (of about 1 to 1.2 million Mancunians), but with maybe the boroughs of Central Manchester with Salford, South West Manchester, South East Manchester, East Manchester, West Manchester, North Manchester to deliver Social Care and education. The six Manchester boroughs would pay some of their revenue to a small central City of Manchester organisation, to deliver citywide library, planning, economic development, culture and sport etc.

[heatonparkincakes]

Skymann your ideas are quite sensible, And in a sense the 1973 reforms to a Gtr Manchester council intended to do that.

However Thatcher (Pinochet's great friend and other freedom loving types) didnt feel us city folk should have democracy and abolished the Metro counties and their ability to be pro active. And now the Tories bark on about how poor the cities are. Interesting!!

The Gtr Manchester council was incomplete in so many ways. Wilson appointed Redcliffe maud to draw up the reforms, but it was the Heath government that followed it through. However this was a very restricted compromise. The powers were much less than orginally advocated and Tory voting (and high rateable) suburbs like Wilmslow and Rossendale were excluded.

However, apart from some incremental tinkering with the boundaries (like say Brooklands from Manchester to Trafford or Dane Bank from tameside to Manchester, etc) I very very much doubt any major re-drawing of the boroughs will occur.

The real change is at the next level. Will we talking about a new Gtr Manchester County or a Manchester city region or even a North West regional govt as there is clealry a need for a democratically elected authority at this level.

Or will we continue to talk about the semi quangos called the AGMA and the NWDA.

[Metrolink]

Right, dreamers, who live on a different planet to me, please let me know what I should be expecting by the end of 2008 with regards the setting up of a mayor for (Greater) Manchester.

Before you start, read...

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/displ...ntion_plan.php

Gtr Manchester powers extension plan
By Rob Devey

Comment | Read Comments (54)

PLANS to extend the powers of the club of 10 Greater Manchester councils have sparked a political row in Bolton.
Opposition councillors fear a move by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) to draw up its first constitution could see powers taken away from Bolton.
It would give commissions of councillors and experts and a Business Leadership Council strategic powers over areas including economic development, housing, transport and the environment.

Aims include getting people off benefits and into work and delivering more afforable homes, and some are set out in a Multi Area Agreement which must be agreed by the Government.
Member councils could get greater freedom to borrow money against expected future revenue to fund major regneration and infastructure programmes like road improvement schemes.
And a new Greater Manchester Climate Change Agency would promote use of renewable energy.
Bolton's Liberal Democrat group leader, Cllr Roger Hayes, said that although there could be a case for more economic cooperation there had been little public debate and it was unclear what AGMA's extra powers would be.
A motion backed by Lib Dems and Conservatives at the last full council meeting said Bolton would oppose any attempt to "bounce it" into a quick decision without full public consultation.
Supporters including Bolton Council leader, Cllr Cliff Morris, say powers would be devolved from bodies like the Government Office North West, North West Development Agency and Learning and Skills Council.
But the plans make it possible for powers to be transferred from the ten councils to the beefed up AGMA if there is agreement from both sides.
Conservative group leader, Cllr John Walsh, added: "I would not want people outside Bolton to have more power over services in the borough than its directly elected councillors."
He added that he feared that a decision on whether to introduce congestion charging on roads into Manchester in return for £3 billion in public transport improvements could be imposed on member authorities under the arrangements.
The Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid, which would deliver a new transport interchange at Bolton Station, is still being considered by the Government.
But Cllr Morris said: "This is not about basic services provided in Bolton or having another tier of Government but regional strategies and decisions nobody else is currently taking.
"If we can attract jobs, prosperity and investment into Greater Manchester we are more likely to be able to attract them to Bolton."
Cllr Morris said other councils would not be able to impose their will on Bolton if there was disagreement over the TIF bid.
He said he would oppose any plans at a later stage to extend the congestion levy to the borough.
AGMA hopes to agree the new constitution by April but Cllr Morris added that there would first be public consultation through local area forum meetings.
2:16pm Friday 28th December 2007

Now, given Bolton council is in no overall control, and the Tories could do well and become the largest party in May in Bolton, how likely do those who proclaim a mayor will solve all our problems is going to happen when a simple of transfer of powers to AGMA is causing such a stur.

The worst thing, by far, about these forums is the total lack of realism.

[TheFly]

Not sure of the point you are making here Metrolink.

As an example of not needing to tax the people of Greater Manchester, the airport is an interesting case.

It has grown to the 65 busiest in the World (2007 figures, down from TOP 50 previously).
No government subsidy needed.

The airport is the largest single peice of private investment in the whole of Greater Manchester and probably outside of London.

So, make an economic case for a project and I can gaurentee there will be investment from either the councils or more likely from the private sector.

Why no Metrolink to the Trafford Centre Shops/Hotels/Offices/Ski facilities....because Peel, quiet rightly are saying, hold on..every 6months these barn pots at the town hall change their minds about who would be funding this project, lets sit tight and get the link for free!

If, the expansion of Metrolink was down to the private sector...then we would have, as now...Bury,Eccles,Altrincham...and without a shadow of doubt a Trafford Park line funded by the Park and Peel and also an airport line, funded by the airport (and by default the local councils!).

So, there you are an expanded network, paid for by the private sectror/local councils.

Once these new routes, proove just as profitable as the existing network is a snow ball builds its momentum and other lines get looked at.

[andysimo123]

Do you mean a mayor who has overall power over Greater Manchester. Who can just say, f*** you, I want to charge you all green taxes?

[b4mmy]

nice thread metro... a Greater Manchester Mayor seems in principle ok, but I share Bury's feelings as well. Inevitably a centralised governor will consider the benefit of the whole before he/she considers the benefit of the individual... it begs the question whether there is a need for centralisation in the microcosm that is Manchester...

[b4mmy]

Originally Posted by andysimo123

Do you mean a mayor who has overall power over Greater Manchester. Who can just say, f*** you, I want to charge you all green taxes?

like metro said, read the article. It's not metro's proposal, he has put it up for discussion.

[URBANISER]

Democracy working well in GM, this is the reason the CC will never happen because MCC will be seen to get the lions share of investment. It does'nt matter if its to the detriment of the conurbation were only interested in our patch. Its going to get self interested and shambolic.

[Metrolink]

Fly - read the article.

As someone who has promoted the idea of a Greater Manchester mayor, and one who has claimed that one will happen soon I am quite interested in how you seeing this tie in with the situation outlined in the Bolton article.

Oh, and for another thread, but where did you get the idea that Metrolink made money?

The very reason private companies are not interested in investing in public transport in Manchester, Brum, Leeds or anywhere else is because it does NOT make money.

The last year for which financial results are available, Metrolink LOST £3.7 MILLION , hardly something that is going to attract private investment really - and it's seen as the most successful financially in the UK.

[TheFly]

If Metrolink lost £3.7million carrying 20million passengers per annum then:

Increase fares by an average of 18.5p per journey and hey presto profit!

Not much of an increase.

Poor management more likely cause!

Just a thought!

[Metrolink]

They'll have made the business decission that they are at the optinum price.

Raise the price and the number of passengers will drop off.

Maybe if the price of each single went up by 18.5p and returns by 37p (in fact it would be MUCH higher than this as OAPs don't pay after 9:30am, and kids pay lower fares) then only 15m would use the system.

Using your logic they could just increase the price by £2 a journey and use that mone to pay for all extensions.

As it is, Metrolink is already the most expensive tram system in the country to use per km journey.

[Metrolink]

oh - and if it was as simple as raising the price by a few pence, don't you think a private company would have spotted this huge potential by now, and built themsleves dozens of new lines everywhere raking in the money?

btw - this is already being discussed in the Metrolink thread.

[The Longford]

I am officially announcing my candidacy for Manchester Mayor right here.

VOTE FOR ME.

[Comdot]

Originally Posted by Metrolink

They'll have made the business decission that they are at the optinum price.

Raise the price and the number of passengers will drop off.

like me. i thought it was pretty expensive to get from deansgate to pomona... £1.80 or something for a few hundred metres of track! i'll never go that route again.

[Metrolink]

If companies could make money out of these systems, when the contracts come up for tender, companies would be willing to pay PTEs to gt access to the systems rather than requiring funds as they do now.
The simple fact is you cannot make money out of building operating and maintaining tram systems in the UK.

[Cherguevara]

Metrolink - While your devotion to the cause of realism is admirable in this forum, considering the blind enthusiasm and hyperbole that most people toss around, but if you have one weakness its that you never look beyond the immediately achievable to the desirable. The fact that Bolton councillors are parochial idiots suggests that an elected and legitimate central executive is more necessary rather than less so. The London mayor was imposed over the heads of the local councils because there was popular support for it. If a campaign could build that support in Manchester then the Metropolitan Boroughs would have to cope with it. Obviously it won't happen in 2008, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, and doesn't mean that it isn't legitmate topic for discussion. If people pressed for this it'd probably happen eventually. Things change, and debating the benefits of changing them is the first stage of that process.

Looking at the TiF bid, the danger to it succeeding seems to be that the councils, although cooperative are easilly divided. In London a central executive was able to act over the local authorities's (and widespread public) objections, prove his case and win re-election because it turned out that congestion charging was not the mammoth disaster people feared it would be. Direct election confers a legitimacy that no unknowable cabal of local authority figures could ever have. Irrespective of what councillors may think.

[Metrolink]

Che - I agree about the desirability of it.

However, I feel absolutely zero demand for a GM mayor, or indeed any more powers handed down locally, there is simply no trust of politicians.

There was some demand both from the local public and the national Labour party for devolution in London, Scotland and Wales.
This demand is simply not there elsewhere.

I predict, no matter what the dozen or so of us on here did for the rest of our lives, by the time I die we'd be no closer to a GM mayor.

[Metrolink]

Having said all that, I'm trying to find an article that I have read recently that kind of contradicts everything I've ever said.