Any Housing Schemes For Non First Time...
Home & Garden0 min ago
Des London Need New Leadership?
https:/
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by thesshhh. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No.
London needs no leadership at all. Mrs Thatcher went to great lengths to rid the capital of the wretched Greater London Council. In 1986 the responsibilities which that body had gradually amassed for itself over the years were either devolved to the 32 London Boroughs (such as education) or were subsumed into various national government departments (such as transport).
Everything went swimmingly until Mr Blair swept to power. Under his ridiculous "devolution" mantra he gave London the chance to have an elected Mayor and assembly. Londoners foolishly went for the bait (well, 24.9% of those eligible to vote did, anyway) and the Mayor and London Assembly were born.
This organisation, with its unique Presidential-style organisation, now employs over 1,000 people in "City Hall" and countless others elsewhere, consuming vast sums of taxpayers' dosh which could be usefully employed actually providing the services the GLA meddles in and interferes with.
London does not need new leadership. It has enough of that in national government and the 32 boroughs. It needs the abolition of the GLA together with the post of Mayor. Then City Hall can be sold off for the far more useful purpose - that of providing high-end hotel accommodation for London's tourists, just as the GLA's"County Hall" does now.
London needs no leadership at all. Mrs Thatcher went to great lengths to rid the capital of the wretched Greater London Council. In 1986 the responsibilities which that body had gradually amassed for itself over the years were either devolved to the 32 London Boroughs (such as education) or were subsumed into various national government departments (such as transport).
Everything went swimmingly until Mr Blair swept to power. Under his ridiculous "devolution" mantra he gave London the chance to have an elected Mayor and assembly. Londoners foolishly went for the bait (well, 24.9% of those eligible to vote did, anyway) and the Mayor and London Assembly were born.
This organisation, with its unique Presidential-style organisation, now employs over 1,000 people in "City Hall" and countless others elsewhere, consuming vast sums of taxpayers' dosh which could be usefully employed actually providing the services the GLA meddles in and interferes with.
London does not need new leadership. It has enough of that in national government and the 32 boroughs. It needs the abolition of the GLA together with the post of Mayor. Then City Hall can be sold off for the far more useful purpose - that of providing high-end hotel accommodation for London's tourists, just as the GLA's"County Hall" does now.
The Times last Saturday...sorry, I can't provide a link as the material is behind a pay-wall...published a two-page spread with the headline, "Violent crime is surging four times as fast outside London."
Certainly, knife-crime is only one aspect of violent crime, but you surely have not failed to hear of the recent escalation in knife-killings in Birmingham and other midlands and northern cities.
Any attempt to lay this phenomenon at the feet of the Mayor of London is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to score a political point. Even worse, in a way, is how it has now started to be all right to blame head teachers for having disruptive pupils, who then join knife-gangs, expelled.
Let's blame anything and anybody but the true culprits, the government and their police-numbers reduction policies, seems to be the order of the day.
Certainly, knife-crime is only one aspect of violent crime, but you surely have not failed to hear of the recent escalation in knife-killings in Birmingham and other midlands and northern cities.
Any attempt to lay this phenomenon at the feet of the Mayor of London is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to score a political point. Even worse, in a way, is how it has now started to be all right to blame head teachers for having disruptive pupils, who then join knife-gangs, expelled.
Let's blame anything and anybody but the true culprits, the government and their police-numbers reduction policies, seems to be the order of the day.
Quite agree, QM.
Sadiq Khan can do little or nothing about crime levels in London. The single most important factor in doing so is almost certainly the number of officers and that is not under his control. Over 75% of the funding for the Met comes from central government and this has been reduced considerably in recent years. More than that, politicians are not the best people to determine policing priorities and operational effectiveness. Like the "Police & Crime Commissioners" outside London, the GLA's Police and Crime Committee is an expensive talking shop and the money it costs would be better spent employing a few burley coppers who can go out and feel a few collars.
Sadiq Khan can do little or nothing about crime levels in London. The single most important factor in doing so is almost certainly the number of officers and that is not under his control. Over 75% of the funding for the Met comes from central government and this has been reduced considerably in recent years. More than that, politicians are not the best people to determine policing priorities and operational effectiveness. Like the "Police & Crime Commissioners" outside London, the GLA's Police and Crime Committee is an expensive talking shop and the money it costs would be better spent employing a few burley coppers who can go out and feel a few collars.
1 to 20 of 20
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.