Amalgamate all commissioners/ local authorities

With a population of a small town, there should be no need to have responsibility for social housing, street cleaning etc in more than one place. All social housing should be entirely manageable from one office,  street cleaning/refuse collection equipment can be designated to different areas on different days ( or if people recycle properly collections could be on a fortnightly basis), repairs can be managed centrally. It seems pointless and expensive to have multiple organisations doing the same jobs, all with their own staff, offices, equipment, headed paper etc. By all means have an office in each of the four corners of the Island, maybe manned by one or two staff a few days a week, but more should be made of digital communications for reporting issues etc. The housing stock must be better managed and should only be on a needs basis, there is no right to a permanent social home. Centralising control of the stock, should mean fewer empty properties, and improve the capacity of the housing - e.g. families in 2/3/4 bedroom properties, singletons in 1 beds, and couples in 1/2 beds.

to encourage social integration, responsibility for maintaining public areas such as parks, hedgerows etc could be given to groups from the prison.

Why the contribution is important

Cost savings and more efficient use of housing resources and costly equipment rather than leaving it under-utilised.

by DragonX on April 17, 2017 at 04:30PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 4.7
Based on: 7 votes

Comments

  • Posted by dpfellows April 17, 2017 at 17:22

    DragonX to follow your thoughts one step further:

    if you amalgamated all Councils and Commissions to get much better value for money from the local government structure and linked it to an Island-wide rating system then the next possible step is to say that with just one layer of local government we also only need one layer of national government.

    Whilst there are some strong vested interests it does raise again the question of whether an effective government structure in such a small legislature as ours needs an upper house - particularly with a 'national local government'. A few years ago the LegCo stated it was there because it provided an "all Island perspective" - not needed with what you propose.

    Many much larger, successful and democratic countries manage very well indeed with one National Assembly. Examples are New Zealand, Iceland, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Singapore, Sweden.

    Clear up-front cost savings of LegCo salaries and pension provisions plus the attendant costs of servicing the activities of the LegCo and a reduction in paperwork and bureaucracy.

    Because we have had one for 150 years to keep the 'democratic' assembly under oversight does not mean we need one for the next 150 years.
  • Posted by Maclirmanannan April 17, 2017 at 17:57

    Agreed. Much to be achieved by consolidating local authorities but many have tried to reform and all have failed. Opportunity exists with a new administration to drive through necessary change early on.

    In my view it's not the reduction in commissioners where savings are made but in shared services. Massive savings can to be achieved by reducing 20 plus town/village clerks to 5-6 with regional housing officers, centralised waste collection etc. Payroll in these authorities is huge especially Douglas where money is no object. Nice chaffeur driven jag for the Mayor every year.... courtesy of the rate payers! No SAVE programme needed here.
  • Posted by paulg April 19, 2017 at 10:22

    To put this proposal into perspective, the Manx population is only slightly larger than a medium UK provincial town or city such as Chester. This makes the size and tiers of government here on the Island look totally out of proportion.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas