Talk:History of local government in the United Kingdom

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Scope

The difficulty of the article is deciding what to exclude. There is so much that could go in. Any significant points missing? MRSC 07:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good, substantial start. We should include Improvement Commissioners in the ad hoc bodies: but we don't have an article on them yet! Lozleader 09:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably include Libraies (The Public Libraries Act 1850 was adoptive, while the Public Libraries Act 1919 allowed county councils to establish libraries (and without a referendum).

Museums and art galleries were quite signicant municipal enterprises too: not sure where they got the powers or when..

Lozleader 13:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Background

I picked up a book at a charity book sale: England in the Nineteenth Century by David Thomson (Volume 8 of the Pelican History of England, published 1950). He notes that a precedent was established by the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834: a central body was created (The Poor Law Commissioners); who constituted and oversaw the activities of local, elected authorities (the Poor Law Unions/Boards of Guardians). This pattern was later followed with the General Board of Health/Local Boards, Local Government Board/Local Government Districts. Similar arrangements were of course made in Scotland and Ireland.

He also provides a background to the reforms of the 1830s. His basic thesis was that there had been little change in local administration since the settlement of 1688, for the reason that the landed gentry had monopolised the system. They dominated the House of Lords, nominated members for boroughs in the Commons, held the lieutenancies and control of the militia, formed the benches of magistrates, and controlled senior appointments to the established church and to the army. Pressure for the representation of the new moneyed industrial and commercial classes was delayed due to the drawn out period of warfare ending in 1815. The 1830s reforms to parliament and municipal corporations etcetera were a recognition of the new owners of economic property, with power largely passing from the landed classes to the industrialists. The new and reformed bodies were elected by the property vote system: the more property the more votes. Notions of universal suffrage and so on were too radical, and too closely asssociated with the American and French Revolutions to be implemented. Lozleader 09:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also on this theme, Kingdom, J., Local Goverment and Politics in Britain (1991) notes that county boroughs were 'fought for' and not part of the original plan. MRSC 08:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to mention the ideologies that have shaped local government at various times. The motives for the social reform of the LCC and the big boroughs. When dealing with Thatcher many commentators note that "rolling back the state" in terms of local government actually meant centralising more power. It is difficult to know how far to go with this.

Poplar rates rebellion should probably get a very brief mention. I'm also not sure if it is clear enough (or should be mentioned) that 1) local government has no constitutional right to exist and 2) there is little consensus as to what services it should provide. MRSC 14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland and Ireland

This is very England and Wales ish at the moment. Examples of things that differed in the rest of the UK:

County administration in Scotland was under Commissioners of Supply from before the Union
Town Commissioners existed in Ireland.
There were no poor law unions in Scotland, there were parochial boards,
The poor law unions were introduced to Ireland at a different date.
Ad hoc Education Authorities, elected under proportional representation, existed in Scotland from 1918 - 1929
Irish county government was administered by grand juries from 1833 - 1899
Sanitary authorities were introduced to Ireland at a different date.

I don't know if this needs splitting into constituent countries. A table, at least, might be useful, with a column for E&W, S and I? Lozleader 13:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not split the article into Scotland, Ireland, E&W as it might get a bit too repetitive. I think it would flow better if we deal with each service or reform in broad chronological bands.

I have the beginnings of such a table split by time and country in Bryne, T., Local Government in Britain, (1994). I will create something based on it and we can slot in anything missing. MRSC 14:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On looking it up I see it doesn't include Ireland and is a little complicated for the rest. Can we flesh out here what level of information to include? MRSC 17:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mucked around at User:Lozleader/local gov, dunno if its any use: it's really just a list units rather than noting functions, which would be better. Lozleader 18:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing we could do is timeline tables for each constituent country and put them either at the end or along the side of the article. MRSC 06:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other things to add

Not sure if/how to broach devolution? MRSC 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We might mention the creation of Passenger Transport Authorities by the Transport Act 1968: moving council transport undertakings to an ad hoc joint board, and then to the new metropolitan county councils, and then the forced sale of the bus operations in the 1980s. Also the transfer of water undertakings from local councils by the Water Act 1973 probably merits inclusion. The councils also lost motor vehicle licensing to a central government by the Vehicle and Driving Licences Act 1969 (the councils acted as agencies for the Ministry of Transport while the system was computerised and transferred to Swansea from about 1970 - 1975) Lozleader 18:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the transport stuff is interesting. I've added the GLC having London Transport from 1970 to 1894. It would be good to get a broader view with what happened elsewhere. MRSC 06:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in with the theme of social change, it is probably worth mentioning the effect of the middle classes leaving cities like Liverpool and Manchester. This caused a drop in councillor calibre and there were calls for boundaries to change to encompass the hinterlands they had moved to. MRSC 08:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funding

Needs more about funding: the rates, user fees, municipal trading funds, and the increasing proportion of council income coming from central government: both as block grants and as ringfenced money. Morwen - Talk 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to get some funding figures for ~2005 to add to the chart (and historical figures if possible). MRSC 11:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found further historical figures. For the current picture we have [1]. It is not converted into % unfortunately - would it be OR to calc and include? I think this information is more likely to come from journals. I will have a look next time I am able. MRSC 07:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also absent is how the councils reacted to reduced funding; selling fixed assets etc. I will see what I can find on that. MRSC 07:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is %s isn'tit? there's a pie chart on page 35. Morwen - Talk 07:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! MRSC 08:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the Housing Finance Act 1972 could be mentioned. Morwen - Talk 23:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]