Skip to main content

GREENS REAFFIRM BACKING FOR 'FOUR AND A HALF' UNITARIES MODEL FOR NORFOLK, IN SUBMISSION TO BOUNDARY COMMITTEE

 

NORFOLK GREEN PARTY STANDS BY ITS CALL FOR 'FOUR AND A HALF' UNITARIES MODEL FOR NORFOLK

"Local government should be local", say Greens.

LATEST POSITION OF THE GREEN PARTY ON PROPOSALS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION IN NORFOLK:

With the Boundary Committee asking Councils in Norfolk to put forward revised conceptual models for unitary Councils across the county by today, Norwich and Norfolk Green Parties decided to restate their common position. [A version of this document has just been sent to the Boundary Commission, an hour ahead of their final deadline for comments from interested parties.]

The Green Party continues to support 'four and a half' unitaries for Norfolk:

Greater Norwich (covering the whole of the built-up area)

North Norfolk (covering the coast and the broads)

South Norfolk (taking in part of the current Breckland district)

West Norfolk (taking in part of the current Breckland district)

Yartoft (the urban areas of the current Yarmouth and Waveney districts).

 

However, if 'Yartoft' were ruled out, the Greens would then support four unitaries for Norfolk:

Greater Norwich (covering the whole of the built up area)

North Norfolk (covering the coast, including Yarmouth, and the broads)

South Norfolk (taking in part of the current Breckland district)

West Norfolk (taking in part of the current Breckland district)

Cllr. Adrian Ramsay, Leader of the Green Party Group on Norwich City Council, said, "We believe that local government should be local. Anything less than four unitaries undermines any pretence of all of the people of Norfolk getting local government, and so we cannot see how that would be acceptable.

"We believe that four (or four and a half) unitaries is the position now being put forward by West Norfolk and South Norfolk Councils, so there is increasing support for it."

Cllr. Ramsay continued, "We do not support the idea of 3 unitaries for Norfolk because it would involve a South Norfolk Council that would run from King's Lynn to Loddon – this is far too wide an area to have any real local accountability or sense of identity.

"Needless to say we are also strongly opposed to the two unitary and one unitary (full county unitary) models, both which would create an absurdly large unitary authority. If the Boundary Committee is minded to propose either of these we would want to investigate keeping a two-tier arrangement in rural Norfolk but just introducing a unitary council for Greater Norwich as Norwich City Council originally suggested."

Cllr. Rupert Read, lead European elections candidate for Eastern Region Green Party, is also the Press Officer for Norfolk Green Party. He added: "Some recent discussions between the Boundary Committee and Norwich City Councillors have highlighted the need for the City Council to be clear on the reasons for unitary status for Norwich. It was suggested that if the city region concept and economic and housing growth are the prime motivators than that may be a reason for a larger boundary for the Greater Norwich Council. In our view, however, these have never been reasons for unitary status for Norwich. The key reasons for unitary status relate to local accountability and democracy and to the fact that urban Norwich has different needs to rural Norfolk. This reason points to a unitary council that covers the urban area and no more; and, indeed, we would argue that including rural areas in the new council would start to defeat the object of the exercise. Let the rural areas stay rural, and let Norwich have one Council to cover Norwich – the urban area – alone."


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Medialens under the lens, over Syria and Libya: Becoming the new Dave Sparts?

I have long been an active supporter of Medialens ( http://www.medialens.org/ ). Like many others, I have supported them with money, time, tips, and I have been proud to have done so. For they have done very important groundbreaking work over the years challenging the inanities and distortions of the 'mainstream' media. They have for example written important critiques of mainstream media coverage of dangerous climate change, of Iraq Body Count, of the corporate nature of most of our media, and much more besides. They have held the corporate media to account time and again. They ought to be saluted for all of that. It is therefore with a sense of deep regret (as well as of some foreboding) that I have finally to write to address the ways in which, lately, some of the wheels seem to be coming off their wagon. An early warning sign perhaps was their long-running spat with George Monbiot, over the Rwandan genocide and the terrible atr...
16 comments
Read more

'Scandal' over hacked climate-science emails at UEA: Don't believe the hype

The 'scandal' of the hacked emails from Environmental Science at UEA ( http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRU-update - this includes a direct rebuttal of the single seemingly most-damaging email, the 'trick' email), my University, has been gotten out of all proportion in some of the right-wing media, old and new. I have now read a good number of the 'worst' of the hacked emails. I also know a few of the protagonists personally, and for human-interest value the hacked emails certainly do offer some tidbits. But: When the dust settles, I predict that the climate-deniers will be left holding onto hardly anything, here. There is so far as I can tell at this (still-admittedly-early) stage no significant scientific scandal, and most importantly absolutely no reason to doubt any of the fundamentals of the science of manmade climate change here, just a few unpleasant or silly or (at worst) unwise and bad-practice emails. Scient...
17 comments
Read more