About this blog

Ramblings, thoughts, facts and opinions about political things - starting point council tenant participation with my land-lord Camden council and council tenant reps plus other housing issues, and whatever.


NOTE: I believe this account has been illegally hacked. Little clues have been left for me. They like playing games.
Showing posts with label LONDON. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LONDON. Show all posts

Sunday 5 June 2022

Municipal Corporations - Local Governance

WORK IN PROGRESS


[notes: I can't find this great reform act of 1832 or the below mentioned 1835 Act - on the website legislation.gov.uk, not even under the year 1832 HEREI've also checked the years 1831 - 1839, just in case and I still can't find such acts even ones that have been noted as repealed.

I can though find 2 Municipal Corporations Acts of 1882 and 1883 which I will link to below]


http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/politics/municip.htm

" The 1835 Municipal Corporations Act 

After the passing of the 1832 Reform Act the next logical step in the reform of the constitution was that of the Municipal Corporations

There were about 250 of these towns, each of which had received a Royal Charter at some time in the past to have its own council or corporation. There were great variations in how the corporations were chosen and how they functioned but in over 180 of them, only the members of the Corporation were allowed to vote. Normally they re-elected themselves or brought friends and relatives onto the council. The Commission found generally that power was held by a small number of people because so few townsfolk could vote. 

They also found evidence of corruption with the council members becoming rich at the expense of the town's inhabitants.

Corporation funds are frequently expended in feasting and in paying the salaries of unimportant officers. In some cases, in which the funds are expended on public works, an expense has been incurred beyond what would be necessary if due care had been taken. These abuses often originate in negligence ... in the opportunity afforded of obliging members of their own body, or the friends and relations of such members.

Parliamentary Papers (1835) XXIII. Royal Commission on Municipal Corporations

The corporations fixed the local bye-laws and taxes and it was impossible for the majority of rate-payers to remove unpopular councils because they could not be voted out. Most of the corporations used their privileges for personal and party advantage: the majority were Tory. Councils ignored matters like water supplies, drainage and street cleansing which they were supposed to oversee.

Even worse than this, most of the new industrial towns had not been recognised as boroughs and had no corporation at all. In these towns, living conditions deteriorated and the overcrowded slums were a threat to public health. In October 1831 the first cholera epidemic broke out in Sunderland and spread rapidly throughout the country. By January 1832 cholera had broken out both in Edinburgh and London.

Following the same procedures that had been adopted for the investigation of the Poor Laws, in July 1833 the Whig government set up a Royal Commission was to investigate the working of local councils. The Commission's secretary was Joseph Parkes, a radical lawyer. 285 towns were investigated, most of which were found to be unsatisfactory. As a result of the Commission's findings, a Bill was drawn up and brought to the House of Commons by Lord John Russell in June 1835.

The Bill went through the House of Commons without too much difficulty but the House of Lords proved more difficult. 

Most of the closed corporations were controlled by Tories and the Tory peers claimed that the Bill was an attack on privileges and property. They had used the same reasons to oppose the abolition of rotten boroughs during the 1832 Reform Act campaign. The Lords made some amendments to the Bill but, thanks to the efforts of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, the Tory Lords were restrained from throwing out the Bill altogether. The legislation went onto the Statute Book in September 1835.

Terms of the Act

  • All closed corporations were abolished
  • Borough councils were to be elected by all male ratepayers who had lived in the town for three years
  • Councillors were elected for three years at a time and one-third of the council was to be elected annually
  • Councillors would choose the mayor, who would hold office for one year
  • Councillors would choose a group of Aldermen who would hold office for six years
  • Each borough was to have a paid town clerk and treasurer. Accounts were to be properly audited
  • Councils were required to form a police force
  • Councils, if they so wished, could take over social improvements such as proper drainage and street cleaning
  • Towns and cities that had no council could apply for incorporation if they so wished

Comment

The Act provided a vast improvement over the previous system, which was haphazard and disorganised. It also established the principal of elected town councils. Progress was very slow but the Act at least established the machinery that would enable future reforms to be carried out in the towns. However, the legislation did have several failings:

  • The Act did not compel the new councils to make social improvements. Consequently, by 1848 only twenty-nine boroughs had taken any action in terms of public health
  • Many towns failed to apply for incorporation because the procedure was complicated and expensive. In 1848 there were still sixty-two large towns without councils.
  • The Act mainly benefited the middle classes. Very few working men were wealthy enough to be ratepayers."  Source  http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/politics/municip.htm


Municipal Corporations Act 1882 HERE   

Municipal Corporations Act 1883  HERE

Sunday 15 March 2020

Systems Thinking in Local Government

Housing Management Performance Page HERE



Systems Thinking - The Vanguard Method [ST-VM]

What is Systems Thinking - the Vanguard Method  [ST-VM] ? I don't really know but am trying to read up on it to get a basic understanding. Its been around for a while and various councils have been using it, reportedly with good or even outstanding results.

Some information about ST-VM can be found at the below links:

9 Feb 2020
https://localgovernmentutopia.com/category/systems-thinking/
Some interesting points made by someone who seems to know a lot more about the Vanguard Method than I do.

15 May 2015
https://www.local.gov.uk/systems-thinking-methodology-improve-services-and-reduce-cost

2014
https://locality.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Locality-Report-Diseconomies-updated-single-pages-Jan-2017.pdf
excerpts from Forward
" As the report sets out, far too many public service systems ‘assess rather than understand; transact rather than build relationships; refer on rather than take responsibility; prescribe packages of activity rather than take the time to understand what improves a life’. The result is that the problems people face are not resolved, that public services generate ever more ‘failure demand’, that resources are diverted to unproductive ends, and that costs are driven ever upwards."

"Our report sets out an alternative strategy. We propose that public services should be ‘local by default’, that they should help people help themselves, that they should focus on underlying purpose rather than outcome, that they should manage value not cost."

Feb 2012
http://www.parliament.scot/S4_LocalGovernmentandRegenerationCommittee/Inquiries/Vanguard_Consulting.pdf

Jan 2010
https://www.audit.wales/system/files/publications/Lean_and_Systems_Thinking_in_the_public_sector_English_2010.pdf
pg 8 "Command and control is defined as “regulation by management, with its battery of computer and other informational aids … where decision-making is distant from the work and based on abstracted measures, budgets and plans” (Seddon and Caulkin 2007).

Systems thinking emphasises not just ‘wholeness’, but also the ‘thinking of the system’ (i.e. that of the managers and workers within a system) which needs to change in order for the system to be able to improve. Figure 1 shows some of the key differences between the two approaches."

pg 17 "Simply put, attempts to improve the efficiency of the service flow without understanding the often high percentage of preventable demand will lead to designing a process which is both ineffective and inefficient."

update Sunday 5 April 2020
I've read a little about ST but I can't find what it is exactly ie a step by step guide to how it is implemented. I may still come across such a Guide/Instructions and will let my 'billions of trillions' of readers know.

A Camden Councils Housing officers report from 2017 HERE  Systems Thinking Review of Landlord Services.  I think it may be fair to say that even senior housing officers haven't a clue how its supposed to be implemented - but don't tell anyone.