Talk:Combined authorities and combined county authorities/Archive 1

Archive 1

2014 combined authorities

There does seem to be a war going on between the local authorities and DCLG over the names of the authorities. Let's not replicate it here. The encyclopedia isn't paper and we can update as things change. We have to use reliable sources. At the moment they are the draft orders before parliament and until those change we should use those names. It is completely right to report on disputes over names, but that must also be referenced. MRSC (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually all of this editing is really quite ridiculous because whatever Wikipedia says or whatever anybody edits on it, Liverpool's combined authority is going to be called precisely that, irrelevant to 'Greater Merseyside' rubbish or councils listed alphabetically. Btw citing a reference to outside media who have got the wrong end of the stick shows how silly some of this can be - the Gov were the only people to change the name, from LCR ca to genetically modified(!) ca, then people complained, the Gov acknowledged this, then ignored their own consultation responses to change name again to all the councils, which is also the case for Sheffield and north east too, but not west yorks. who have chosen the old county name which CURRENT Gov prefers - this will all change when Gov changes. The local media ref you cited is mistaken even though you've correctly cited your reference! Knowsley Council has the agenda for The Liverpool City Region Cabinet (that's its name, anyone can like it or not) and they have all agreed from the very beginning to being called LCR ca, and yesterday on Local Government Chronicle website Wirral Council chief exec reiterated this for the umpteenth time... The article you cite saying people lobbied for name change is correct, but they lobbied to change the name Greater Merseyside lol, nothing else - check the Gov's response to the second consultation, it's own one! Being from Liverpool I have followed this throughout the process, the name problems are all Central Gov's fault. Sorry sign--I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. We can't write about things we know or expect will be. It is quite possible, indeed likely, that the name will change. However, we reflect reliable sources and not conjecture. Once we have a reliable source for the new name we will update the article, not before. MRSC (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you checked the Local Government Chronicle website from yesterday, just put in combined authority in Google, that's the one I use by default really, and it comes up about it, also Knowsley Council agenda for the meeting of the LCR Cabinet yesterday - these are far more accurate, not crystal balls or imagining what the name is, or what we'd like it to be, but the name the councils collectively are gonna use, whether DCLG or Wikipedia agrees. The media article you cited has unfortunately made a mistake.--I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added that the councils intend to use the name "Liverpool City Region Combined Authority" as a public name and the reference from the meeting. If that does indeed become the common name, the Wikipedia article will move to Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, even if the formal name remains as in the draft legislation. MRSC (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I thought you'd gone quiet on me lol. Here's lgc ref It doesn't seem to work on Show preview! It's http://www.lgcplus.com/briefings/corporate-core/governance/dclg-accused-of-silliness-over-combined-authority-names/5068222.article?blocktitle=Latest-Local-Government-News&contentID=2249 anyway and the Kniwsley Council agenda also from yesterday is http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/pdf/CRC-AGENDA-210214-Mayor.pdf or a click link reference if it works Both of these references are from yesterday and supersede the citing you made from a mistaken article days before :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk • contribs) 11:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added both those references. MRSC (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, here are some more: this is the DCLG's response to its own consultations for three of the CAs excluding the north eat one I think https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279457/140212_Consultation_Summaries.pdf --I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC). This ref tells the public that people wanted the name Liverpool not Merseyside greater or otherwise, and this is where the articles were mistaken when they said people objected to the name - the gov itself clearly says people objected to Merseyside and wanted Liverpool, read it it's only short. Your ft ref is also wrong because it's based on an erroneous article in the first place, and they just copied what that first mistaken article said.

All those sources are in the article. We have be balanced and tell both sides of the story. MRSC (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's more http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/about-us/media-centre/news/Documents/Scrutiny%20Arrangements.PDF http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/about-us/corporate-information/Pages/Combined-Authority-Proposal.aspx http://liverpool.gov.uk/council/councillors-and-committees/combined-authority-proposals-submitted-to-government/ http://www.liverpoollep.org/liverpool_city_region/liverpool_city_region_review_o.aspx http://www3.halton.gov.uk/lgnl/pages/86821/328673/LCR_Governance_Review_for_submission_300913.pdf Many of these date from before submission to DCLG so demonstrate the name is and always is Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, I hope this helps with references and clears up the confusion that the gov started by changing the name from the wishes local government has said from the very beginning it wants only. I'm not trying to be not balanced about it, but these refs make it clear - nobody asked for Liverpool to be changed, they asked for Merseyside to be changed, the local newspaper quoted from the gov's consultation response, but contributed it to people saying some wanted to change Liverpool, when the gov was proposing GM anyway, it was a mistake by the journalist in the first place and the gov being averse to anything seemingly with Region in the title. Ridiculous and unnecessary 'row' by gov and a local journalist making a mistake which then others made because they based their subsequent articles on that one, first story from a few days ago!  :) --I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

http://liverpool.gov.uk/media/682459/lcrsubmissionletter300913.pdf. Covering letter to DCLG in submission saying exactly what they want, no confusion, no people saying not Liverpool name, etc etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk • contribs) 11:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Another one http://liverpool.gov.uk/media/682511/skmbtc45213093012400.pdf --I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to reflect facts, not opinion. Some scousers who live in the city of Liverpool almost certainly did argue to call the name 'Liverpool'. On the other hand there was a petition of over 1,000 signatures from people of Halton against this epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/58216

Over 500 from St Helens outright against www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/standing-up-for-st-helens

Official policy of Wirral, St Helens and Sefton Lib Dems (in each case the opposition party on the council) is opposed.

Because you are from Liverpool, don't assume the rest of the region wishes to be and that the onky thing stopping you from getting justice is the nasty central Government. There is considerable opposition to this in the grass roots amd the Government decision reflects that. It is called 'democracy', and the job of Wikipedia is not to pedal a particular view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.21.16 (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111109489/pdfs/ukdsiem_9780111109489_en.pdf. In this reference National Government makes it again clear that ALL of the statutory consultees, who are the six councils of Liverpool City Region and the Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority, as well as the Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership, all stated that the name of their own combined authority should be the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, which is the name that was agreed from the start when the councils began the process of officially forming a combined authority having already collaborated together as the Liverpool City Region Cabinet. I find it absolutely astonishing that some people are continuing to state that the councils asked for the combined authority to be called Greater Merseyside, for example other people's edits state on Wikipedia that the name of the ca was such when it was submitted to the DCLG - WRONG!!! The covering letter from Knowsley Council cited above, who are co-ordinating the process locally, says explicitly and without any ambiguity, confusion, and controversy that the councils involved wish their collaboration to be called Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. They cite the reasons as being that's what they've chosen like it or not(!); they want to use the brand Liverpool because it is far more well known than Merseyside, etc. Unfortunately the article itself here on wp is a mess with contradictions, at one point mentioning greater Merseyside then another mentioning Liverpool City Region as names on submission to the DCLG - wrong, and there is no such thing as greater Merseyside anyway, it's never existed! It is my conclusion that this article is being wilfully ruined by vandalism, with RELIABLE cited sources being ignored and people's prejudiced opinions being allowed freedom to do whatever they want on Wikipedia. I'm thinking of formally reporting this issue. There is a lot of passive aggressive bullying going on, and I also notice, though not on this article or articles related to it, that somebody or perhaps more, are logging off, systematically making edits and amendments to other constructive changes I've made, so that they think I don't know who it is. I will report this, and we will find out who the ip belongs to. As with all bullies they're cowards really, in this case trying to hide behind anonymity, though not very effectively. On this article and others, virtually every edit I have made to constructively improve the article and actually get the facts right has been wilfully removed, and then replaced with inaccuracies, errors, and media sources which have made mistakes in their reporting. I have followed the process of forming the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority from the beginning, so I know what I'm talking about. Here is the process and timeline: the six councils of Liverpool City Region agreed to conduct a governance review as they must statutorily if they are thinking of establishing a combined authority, or economic prosperity board, etc. in order to improve local economic conditions and transport arrangements. The six councils regularly meet anyway through their executive leaders, and this org is called the Liverpool City Region Cabinet, YES they all long ago agreed that this is the name for the area and it's governance structures, shock horror!!! And they don't have to ask Gov, and some or certain people on Wikipedia is it allowed!?!! As part of the governance review they decided that a combined authority for the area would be the best choice of governance structure for a number of reasons. They then conducted a first, local open consultation with members of the public, businesses, charities and other voluntary groups, local authority councillors, MPs, anyone that wished and chose to contribute to this consultation. The Liverpool City Region Cabinet then looked at the responses to their consultation and found, shock horror, that the vast majority of consultees agreed that the combined authority should be established. Yes, you've guessed it, they agreed that there should be a combined authority for the proposed combined area, called, shock horror, the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority! They fine-tuned some aspects of their proposals, but not the name (because nobody objected!) which was, continued to be, and is the LCR CA, and then sent the proposal to Nat Gov's DCLG - with an accompanying covering letter from Knowsley Council cited above who had been co-ordinating the process as already said, and signed by all of the local authority executive leaders saying that they want a combined authority, it commands support in the area, and the name is LCR CA. This process was completed and sent to DCLG at the end of September, 2013. So then why for example do silly edits on this article on wp say that they wished for the ca to be called greater Merseyside - it is blatantly ignoring the facts! The DCLG received the proposal for the combined authority of Liverpool City Region named sensibly to reflect the area it will govern Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, presumably read it one would hope, though people shouldn't be sure about this(!), decided that they didn't like the name because as it has turned out later - it's got Region in the title - they don't like or understand the word Region as they seemingly don't have a dictionary with Region in it at Eland House or whatever it's called, after all they could hardly object to Liverpool City, given the fact Liverpool has been here formally since 1207, and a City since about 1880. The fact that LCR exists and that we have a City Deal for LCR seems to have gone unnoticed by Gov! The name change that Central Gov had tried to impose was their own suggestion of greater Merseyside which doesn't exist. By the way it's not Merseyside either as LCR CA is bigger than Merseyside because LCR includes Halton, which doesn't form part of the smaller old metro county of Merseyside, except in NUTS recent changes - I'm presuming you know what NUTS are, as there's no debate over this recent change either! As part of the second, national open consultation, the Gov and statutory consultees (the 6 councils of LCR, the Integrated Transport Authority and the Liverpool City Region LEP) all must communicate their views with each other according to the law governing combined authorities. The statutory consultees ALL said to the Gov's DCLG yet again that they want to be called Liverpool NOT called by the Gov's suggestion of greater Merseyside. Many members of the LCR public also chose to take part in the second, national open consultation as they had done the first, local open consultation, with a clear majority agreeing that there should be a combined authority of the City Region combined area, with many just responding to the consultation to say CHANGE THE NAME - from the one the DCLG was then proposing, which was greater Merseyside - they too, like their councils, want to be called Liverpool. The Gov's response to its own consultation states this explicitly in the report it made in concluding the consultation. Again see the reference above for categoric evidence! So the Gov listened to the consultation responses, binned the name greater Merseyside nobody wanted but the DCLG itself and some people on wp it seems, and then proceeded to ignore yet again the wishes of the six councils, the Integrated Transport Authority, and the Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership, and the members of the public who said they want the ca to be called Liverpool. The DCLG did this by giving the ca the purely alphabetical listing of councils as its name in the draft order to Parliament. Contrary to many factually incorrect media articles written on the subject, this was not a snub to Liverpool, or singling Liverpool out with a long name of listing councils, but rather it stems from the CURRENT Gov's ridiculous allergy to the simple word region!!! This is evidenced by the Gov's own admission on the subject, and the fact that the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority, like Liverpool, is being hampered from using their preferred name in this so-called LOCALIST policy agenda. The Gov also ludicrously then says the CAs can choose whatever name they want for themselves in practice overturning the DCLG again! Therefore, naturally, both Liverpool and Sheffield intend to use the names THEY want, not what names anachronistic ministers and civil servants in Whitehall may bizarrely create. Thus, we have the The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and the The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. The West Yorkshire Combined Authority is called that because the constituent councils there themselves from the outset of their own proposals said they did not wish to be called Leeds or Leeds City Region, therefore the Gov agreed with that because the name is based on the old 1974 name for the area, names that the DCLG seem so attached to. The North East Combined Authority based on the North East Leaders' Board includes much more land area than the Newcastle area City Region, so they have not chosen a name with that title, but even this the DCLG has a problem with, even though the 'offending' word Region is absent, the Gov is calling them by the same alphabetical method of listing council names as is the case with Liverpool and Sheffield. It seems Gov is offended by the words north east put together! As the Wirral Council chief exec said on Friday, 21 February, 2014, so much for LOCALISM! He also said that LCR will continue with its name which they have all advocated without change from the start - LCR CA to govern LCR - there's more evidence for you! See the reference above. Like Liverpool, both Sheffield and The North East have had their preferred names from the very start changed by Nat Gov from what they want and submitted to the Nat Gov's DCLG in the first place - the evidence is cited in the references above!I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a lengthy rant and it is very hard to understand what exactly you want. Can you summarise this succinctly in terms of how we are going to improve articles? MRSC (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. This massive block of rant has got to be a Wikipedia record? (Actually, probably not..!) Argovian (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)