Crawley and Reigate councils to decide on unitary authority plan
"We are duty-bound to consider all possible options within the guidelines set by government to ensure this town and its residents are best served by whatever structures are to follow."Devolution is the government's plan to transfer power from Westminster to regional or local authorities. This was published in the government's English Devolution White Paper last December, outlining reasons including "a change in way of governing" to improve the country's standards of living. Both councils say the potential economic benefits of this move "outweigh any savings that might be made through the formation of a larger unitary".They add the two areas form a "£13bn-plus economy and conjoined by the world's busiest single runway airport in Gatwick"."By submitting this proposal now, we keep this option, and the compelling case regarding our shared economy, alive so that it can be considered alongside the proposals that emerge from our work in West Sussex," added Mr Jones.The proposal will be considered at a meeting on 7 May at Crawley Borough Council.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Divide, distract, dominate is the oldest political trick in the book
The symbolism is chilling. These aren't just bonfires; they're public performances of dehumanisation. That such displays are treated as cultural tradition by some only deepens the irony. When protesters are accused of stirring division, yet coordinated burnings of ethnic and political identities are dismissed or even celebrated, the moral compass has not only spun but snapped. READ MORE: Calls for removal of migrant effigies in boat on loyalist bonfire There's a pattern here. Infringements of human rights provoke resistance from those with lived memory or historical understanding of injustice. When that resistance is ignored – or worse, criminalised – it becomes troubling to those invested in the status quo. At that point, bigotry is no longer covert, it erupts into entitled performance. We're closer to square one than should ever have been allowed. This isn't just a Northern Irish issue, nor is it confined to sectarianism. It is mirrored in how Westminster handles Scottish democratic expression. Repeated refusals to permit a second independence referendum have stalled not just political process but political imagination. Yet instead of scrutinising Westminster's intransigence, much of the media, and therefore the population, blames the SNP government for not having 'delivered' independence – as if permission wasn't withheld in the first place. This is precisely the kind of misreading and misattribution the UK Government depends on to suppress dissent. Ironically, the Scottish Government has achieved a great deal despite these constitutional constraints. Standards in public services have been maintained above what should have been possible without mitigation under Westminster's fiscal tightening. Meanwhile, many English councils – Labour-led ones among them – are buckling under austerity. English voters and commentators routinely spout the lie that they're subsidising Scotland, instead of recognising their own shared victimhood under the same system of centralised indifference. READ MORE: Scottish depot trying to bring back Tesco pallets from loyalist bonfire Just as the bonfires burn symbols of international solidarity, so too Westminster pits nation against nation, and citizen against migrant. Divide, distract, and dominate: it's the oldest political trick in the book. Whether it's asylum seekers turned into effigies, or Holyrood turned into a scapegoat, the effects are the same: dehumanisation, delegitimisation, deflection, and denial. And this is not unique to the UK. Globally, we see the same game playing out. Refusal to address historical or structural injustice leads to protest reframed as provocation, then those in power manipulate grievance to embolden reactionary forces. The rise of religious nationalism in India, Israel's settler-state exceptionalism fuelling genocide in Palestine, and racial retrenchment in parts of the US all follow this well-worn pattern. We are not trapped in this cycle because it is inevitable. We are trapped because those with the power to break it choose instead to preserve it. They conflate silence with peace, and protest with peril. That's why symbolic violence like these bonfires is tolerated, and even encouraged in some circles. It's why legitimate calls for democratic self-determination in Scotland are rebranded as political failure. Until this cycle is broken by those in the middle ground recognising that complacency is complicity, we will keep returning to these same flames of hatred, denial, and distraction. The real danger is not just that we forget history or fail to celebrate sociocultural traditions, but that we keep choosing to relive history's worst moments and immolate the progress those traditions should represent. Ron Lumiere via email
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Scottish Labour-run council orders no Alexander Dennis buses
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has consistently accused John Swinney of failing to support the company. At FMQs, he has leaned on the fact the company is planning to move its operations to England as an attack line against the SNP on several occasions. But it has now emerged council bus firm Lothian Buses has failed to make a single order from Alexander Dennis since Labour came to power in the capital, according to the Scottish Sun. Up to 400 jobs are at risk as the bus manufacturer announced plans to move operations to England from its factories in Falkirk and Larbert. It comes after more than 400 jobs were lost at the nearby Grangemouth refinery. READ MORE: Here's how a wealth tax on Scotland's luxury properties could work Last month Sarwar accused Swinney of doing 'nothing' to save jobs at the firm. He claimed Swinney received a letter almost a year ago directly from the company setting out "how his decision to buy buses from China, instead of from Scotland, was putting the company and jobs at risk". Swinney acknowledged the letter which he said was followed by a meeting in which "we established work for Scottish Enterprise with the company to support the company in securing its future". Sarwar had also previously said that Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham had ordered nearly five times the number of buses from Alexander Dennis than the Scottish Government. Swinney dismissed that suggestion, saying his Government had secured 360 vehicles through Scottish Government funding programmes, compared to the 160 orders for Manchester. Labour have now been accused of hypocrisy in their demands for more support for the manufacturer. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar with head of operations Stuart McKinnon (left) during a visit to manufacturing business Alexander Dennis in Falkirk (Image: Jane Barlow) A Scottish Government source told the paper said: 'While the Scottish Government explores all options to secure the future of Alexander Dennis in Scotland, the Labour Party have been focused on playing politics. "This proves that Labour are not serious, they are more concerned with soundbites and social media videos than actually governing and Anas Sarwar is clearly unfit to be first minister.' READ MORE: Why the UK will not see economic growth under Rachel Reeves The SNP and Scottish Labour ran Edinburgh Council between 2017 and 2022 in a power-sharing deal. But after the 2022 local elections, Labour seized control of the city with support from LibDem and Tory councillors. Opposition councillors have previously said it is "unacceptable" Labour continue to lead the administration given they only have 11 councillors. An Edinburgh Council spokesperson said: "The council has no involvement in procurement of vehicles for Lothian Buses. This is decided by the Lothian Buses Board." A Lothian Bus spokesperson said: 'All vehicle procurement decisions are based on an extensive range of factors including product compatibility with Lothian's evolving fleet strategy.'
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
What game is Labour playing on a wealth tax?
Photo byBack in March, Rachel Reeves made a telling intervention at Prime Minister's Questions. As Richard Burgon, the Corbynite MP for Leeds East, demanded a wealth tax in place of disability benefit cuts, Reeves shook her head with the vigour of someone who plainly regarded this as a terrible idea. Yet four months later, the air is thick with talk of Labour adopting just such a measure. After Neil Kinnock proposed a tax of 2 per cent on assets worth more than £10m, No 10 and No 11 had the chance to rule this option out – and refused to do so. Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, would only say yesterday that the tax was not discussed 'directly' at the cabinet's Chequers away day. What's changed? For one thing, tax will have to be much more central to Reeves' next Budget than she ever wanted. Last November she told the Confederation of British Industry's conference that 'public services now need to live within their means' and that 'I'm not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes'. You won't hear the Chancellor, who could face a £20bn-£40bn black hole, repeat such language now. But a Kinnock-style wealth tax isn't going to happen for two reasons. First, it would make the UK a distinct outlier at a time when Reeves is striving to maintain international competitiveness (according to Sky News, of the 38 OECD countries only Colombia, Norway, Spain and Switzerland levy net wealth taxes). Second, HMRC lacks the data on property and pensions required to introduce a general wealth tax (and it would take several years to establish a new system). Yet it suits Labour to maintain ambiguity over this issue. It avoids another public row with the party's soft left, of which Kinnock is the founding father, and it also allows Reeves to surprise business on the upside when she delivers that Budget. But while the Chancellor won't be introducing a wealth tax, she will be taxing wealth more. That much is guaranteed by the government's decision to maintain Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, VAT and National Insurance on workers. 'There's a lot else that could be done not to tax people who are very economically insecure at the moment,' a No 10 aide tells me. What could that mean? Options being explored by the Treasury include higher taxation of dividends through a rise in the 39 per cent rate or the abolition of the £500 tax-free allowance – as floated in Angela Rayner's once-dismissed memo – and an online betting tax (as proposed by Gordon Brown in his New Statesman guest edit), as well as a rise in the bank profits levy. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Pension tax relief could also be curbed for higher earners and some even speculate whether Reeves might introduce a new top rate of income tax (which, they argue, would not amount to a technical manifesto breach). Here is the political challenge for Labour. The panoply of measures to be announced this autumn will lack the totemic status of a wealth tax even as, to echo Denis Healey, there are 'howls of anguish' from the rich. For proof of that, recall Reeves' first Budget which imposed numerous taxes – on non-doms, farmers, private schools and private jets – but resulted in far more political pain than gain. Can the Chancellor reverse this dynamic? Here is one test of whether she can revive her fortunes. Related
