Potholes.

My mistake, it wouldn't be 12 per week if say 650 MPs lasted 4 years and a bit. Nearer to three elections a week.

Be nice to have them geographically spread too, though that might not be that easy with so many being in eg London.

Are there any other services which are as important to the citizens as a whole? Everyone benefits from accessible and serviceable roads, even if they themselves do not drive.

health - what did the Romans do for us?

Frankly the history of the last 50 years is bureaucrats and socialists promising more services, delivering them less well and claiming they need more taxes. Perhaps its those overweight amazon trucks and electric vehicles who should pay more road tax and hypothecate that to potholes...

Yes, it seems that Reform are the only party to want to balance the books. Seemingly other parties prefer the council become bankrupt. Who would have thought that?

The opposition Conservative group called the 9% settlement "scandalous", but Reform leader Jo Monk said they were saving the authority from "financial collapse". "

Laughingly, "By the time they staged their walkout the Lib Dems had secured £21m in new spending commitments from the Reform leadership including investment into rural roads, drainage clearance, flooding alleviation and new cycle routes."

Perhaps not so bad after all. Money doesn't grow on trees.

So the Tories think it scandalous to save the authority from bankruptcy. Usually it's Labour?

That is often thought of a "public service", but it really doesn't tick all the boxes for that classification. Not all citizens require it (of course, they never know whether and when they will need it, but many won't. The case is even more stark for social housing and social services / social work.

On the other hand, roads, law enforcement and defence do. So do water, sewerage and refuse disposal. Neither list is exhaustive, only illustrative.

There are other ways to get income and spending into balance.

Everyone has to comply with it in real lfe.

How about: "Show me a rich man who buys politicians"? (And I'll show you a system which only pretends to be democratic.)

I'm not too active in local politics and only have a general idea of 'which body is responsible for which activity', but if I can easily spot something like this - it has to be deliberate.

Health is centrally funded.

We were talking about local councils

AI Overview Local councils in the UK (unitary, county, or district) are responsible for delivering over 800 essential community services, including social care (nearly 60% of spend), education, waste management, social housing, planning, and maintaining local roads. They act as the primary local democratic body, delivering services, improving community wellbeing, and conducting local elections.

So that's it. 'social care' social housing & schools which actually benefit a minority.

Schools are a genuinely public service (whereas social work and social housing are not).

In message <6JyAR.41040$ snipped-for-privacy@fx15.ams, at 20:28:03 on Sun, 5 Apr

When I pressed a district councillor about why they claimed to be responsible for something actually at County level, their response was along the lines "we can respond to consultations, and lobby them in other ways".

Of course, neither is likely to be very successful in getting the County to change direction. Especially if controlled by a different political party.

In some ways they have a point. To make the County change direction needs the support of multiple county councillors, not just the one from this particular constituency. Therefore to make that happen requires a good amount of persuasion of others, whether the councillor can directly vote for the policy or not. 'A' councillor elected on a particular campaign gives credence and a platform to say that their electorate are concerned about XYZ issue, even if it is one their council doesn't have a vote on. Especially if they are in the same party, or the council responsible is marginal and might swing to different control at the next election - at which point the councillors are more sensitive.

Equally a campaign can exist without the support of any elected officials. But every little helps.

Theo

Things are somewhat more straightforward here as we have a unitary authority - so they would have to claim influence in Cardiff or Westminster.

Which they would, At least they cant claim Brussess *quite* so much any more

In message <E4l* snipped-for-privacy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:46:26 on Mon,

I think it's more likely that the County being on the receiving end of lobbying from the District Council, would regard it as meddling, and possibly even counter-productive.

In which case, it's even more misleading for a District Councillor to claim they are capable of wielding influence, when it's not even them doing it.

In message <S8TAR.20680$ snipped-for-privacy@fx13.ams, at 19:42:58 on Mon, 6 Apr

I wouldn't be surprised if some prospective Unitary councillors claim to be able to influence nationally governed affairs, in their campaign literature.

In message <10r0utk$2aadp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, at 19:44:04 on Mon, 6 Apr

It's far easier to influence Brussels policy, than UK policy at any level. They run very open consultation processes and take building a consensus very seriously.