My full council speech on the proposal to form a Thames Valley Combined mayoral Authority with powers over strategic planning, highways, housing and more...
“ A few weeks ago, the Lib Dem leader stated he was against elected mayors. He then went to the Lib Dem conference and came back, having done a backflip to become an enthusiastic supporter. What changed?
This proposal is falsely badged as devolution. However, in another example of Labour double speak, it is the opposite: the proposal is for a directly elected mayor of the Thames Valley who will take powers from the elected council and use them to dictate policy on housing, roads and more to local councils. Just like the dark days of Berkshire County Council, once again decision-making will be removed far from the people it affects. This remoteness is why local people voted to abolish the County Council. Now they’re having even more remote decision-making imposed on them without their consent.
Labour nationally seems to view councils as a delivery mechanism, not policy makers with a direct mandate from affected residents.
I am no lover of the current administration, but at least I know that the people of the borough can get rid of them if they don’t like what they are doing. A remote Thames Valley mayor will be elected by more than 2m people with big conurbations such as Reading, Oxford and Slough, which have quite different interests and problems to our Borough. They could receive no votes in our Borough, have no mandate to act in our area, and still impose policies on our residents. We can see that in London, where the outer London suburbs are dictated to by the central urban blocks and forced to implement policies, like the ULEZ expansion, which hurt their residents. This issue was a major point of contention in the local elections.
There is already disquiet about housing targets and where the houses are built. How will Cllr Conway look his residents in the eye if the new mayor decides to dump hundreds of houses on say, Twyford, because of its transport infrastructure and proximity to London? How will he explain that he gave away the power to self-determination based on a vague hope of a bit more money from a bankrupt, incompetent and untrustworthy government?
There will be a board of leaders advising the new mayor but it’s not clear what happens if they disagree. It is also quite possible that a party with the largest number of councillors in the Thames Valley is not even represented on that body. A board of leaders is not the same as a direct democratic link, especially where the administration doesn’t even have a majority on their council – take Cherwell District, for example, where the Liberal Democrat-led coalition with the Greens and Independents is outnumbered by the Opposition
Funding is another issue – no one wants more expensive government, or another layer of politicians with tax raising powers, and it is clear there is no more money, so where will any money this Mayor spends come from? The taxpayer and possibly centralised funding for responsibilities lost by Councils, or even our £50m tax bombshell – who knows?
We will be told this decision is harmless, it is simply an expression of interest; however, it is not clear if we can unilaterally extract ourselves from this process if we think it is not in the interests of local people. The current leader has a track record of saying, “it’s inevitable, and we haven’t got any choice” when faced with suggestions that he could change direction, so we don’t have any confidence that he would negotiate a good deal or that he would extract us, however bad the decisions are for our residents.
This proposal has no clarity, no democratic accountability, and no mandate to be imposed on our residents. I urge you to vote against it. ”
SURPRISE SURPRISE THE NEXT SPEECH WAS FROM THE LIB DEM DEPUTY LEADER WHO SAID - YOU GUESSED IT - ITS INEVITABLE, WE HAVE NO CHOICE - well we do have a choice, and they bottled it
