DEVOLUTION = SCRAPPING DISTRICTS & BOROUGHS

  UNDER NEW PLANS LOCAL AUTHORITIES SUCH AS DISTRICT AND COUNTY COUNCILS WILL BE SCRAPPED IN FAVOUR OF THREE UNITARY COUNCILS DEALING WITH POPULATION AREAS OF 500,000 OR MORE - WITH ANGELA RAYNER SAYING IF NO CONSENSUS IS REACHED, SHE WILL BE PREPARED TO KNOCK HEADS TOGETHER - TO GET THE JOB DONE. UNDER THE PROPOSALS, THERE WILL BE A SINGLE MAYOR OF SUSSEX - MARCH 2025 - LATEST NEWS

BBC NEWS 22 MARCH 2025 - COULD DEVOLUTION PLANS REDRAW THE MAP OF SUSSEX?

As plans for devolution take shape council leaders are debating how Sussex could be divided into new areas run by unitary authorities.

It has been seven weeks since Sussex became one of six areas on the government's priority programme which ministers say will "unleash power from Westminster back into local communities and drive economic growth".

Local elections this May have been cancelled while plans are put in place to elect a Mayor of Sussex next spring.

Brighton & Hove City Council and East and West Sussex County Councils will submit their initial plans for reorganising our existing councils into at least three new unitary authorities responsible for running our local services on Friday.

All 12 of our boroughs and districts will be scrapped – and county councils will be replaced.

Instead, an elected mayor will head up a strategic authority for the whole of Sussex which will make 'big picture' decisions on things like housing, infrastructure and transport development, the economy and the environment.

They will also oversee public health and safety, including police and fire services.

Newly created unitary authorities will take on the running of day-to-day services like schools, waste, social care, planning applications and managing benefits and charges.

The question is how many unitary authorities do we have and how will the separate areas be divided.

A bigger Brighton?

Brighton and Hove is already a unitary authority, but with a population of almost 300,000 it's smaller than the Government's desired minimum of 500,000 people.

Leaders in the city suggest it could expand west to include Shoreham-by-Sea, Lancing and even Worthing. Public feedback so far shows that's the most popular idea.

Less popular is a suggestion to expand east to Saltdean, Telscombe Cliffs, Peacehaven and Newhaven.

Few support any idea of it reaching northwards to Crawley and Gatwick as people tend to think of the South Downs as a natural boundary.

A report to Brighton & Hove's cabinet members favours creating five unitary authorities in Sussex, instead of the predicted three roughly along existing boundaries.

The report says this would "ensure the different voices of Sussex are heard", ensure financial viability and maintain local rural, coastal and urban identities. [And what of potholes?]

In East Sussex, with a population of 550,000, leaders want their geography to stay just as it is to maintain history and existing working partnerships.

Their proposal to the government raises concerns about how the financial pressures from rising demand for adult and children's social care, education and temporary housing have left many councils with "insufficient reserves available across all the councils to be able to offset the set-up costs of a new unitary authority".

In January, the Local Democracy Reporting Service reported that the leader of Crawley Borough Council had held "exploratory discussions" with Surrey County Council about the possibility of the town joining one of their new unitary authorities.

'Compelled'

Councils in West Sussex published their interim response on Friday, which said "no single model has yet been agreed on" for how council boundaries should look.

Council leaders said there had been "indications" the government could exercise "significant flexibility" around the 500,000-person guideline for new unitary authorities, and asked for clarification on any upper or lower size limits.

Around 900,000 people live within the current West Sussex County Council boundary, which according to the submission would put it among the "largest single unitaries in the country" if its current border was maintained.

Council leaders in West Sussex also said in the response that they wanted clarity on whether Brighton & Hove City Council will be "compelled" to grow or if central government will let the city authority keep its current borders.

All councils must finalise their plans for reorganisation by September 2025.

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said in December 2024 that she would be prepared to "knock heads together" if councils could not reach consensus on their own.

The government's public consultation into devolution in Sussex and Brighton continues until 13 April.

Follow BBC Sussex on Facebook, X, and Instagram. Send your story ideas to southeasttoday@bbc.co.uk, or WhatsApp on 08081 002250.

Angela Rayner - Housing & Communities Secretary of State

WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO PAY TWICE?

We were wondering about the forthcoming devolution of councils in England, in particular in Sussex, where it is proposed to slimline the system, disposing of less than honest district councils - a great idea. But do we need councils at all? We already pay road tax for roads and national insurance for healthcare, which includes care in the community. That leaves education and waste disposal, enter home schooling and private schools and home recycling. We already pay income tax for everything else, VAT, stamp duty when we buy a property and inheritance tax when we die.

It's about time we had one tax for one service. Total transparency, and no blurring of the demarcation lines. The lack of transparency is the cause of the rot in British politics. Something politicians rely on to bail themselves out of the brown stuff.

So, are council taxes just another a rip off? Are we just paying for the additional pensions for a lot of corrupt seat shiners: bums on seats who are doing nothing but delegate, working from home and watching TV, while claiming expenses? And looking to gain personally via planning favours and awarding contracts to mates, also conducting Nazi like vendettas against those who question these antics. It happens all the time. Discrimination is rife.

OPT OUT OPTION - WHY DO WE NEED COUNCILS? GO PRIVATE OR DIY

What about an opt out option, where citizens can provide insurance for their own health care, dispose of their own refuse. Possible, because roads are already paid for via excise duty on vehicles. As with state pensions, should the public not be provided with a means to opt out, so as to avoid tax increases for services that are overpriced and of greatly reduced value, to wit the increase in potholes. For example, nursing healthcare is paid for privately in many cases.

This is more a subject for Reform UK, or the Greens. The Labour party are more socialist in point of view.

The concept of an "opt-out" option for certain public services is an intriguing one. It could allow citizens to take more control of their finances and service providers while easing the burden of local taxes for those who choose alternative arrangements. Here's a breakdown of how such a system might work and some considerations:

POTENTIAL FRAMEWORK FOR AN OPT-OUT SYSTEM

Identifying Eligible Services:

Services like healthcare, waste disposal, and certain forms of insurance could potentially be included in the opt-out system.

Public infrastructure such as roads might not be eligible since vehicle excise duty is a broader funding mechanism, not directly tied to local councils.

Setting Baseline Contributions:

To prevent "free riders," citizens who opt out might still need to pay a reduced baseline tax to maintain access to core emergency services (e.g., fire departments) except where sprinklers and other fire safety systems are privately installed. The police should not be funded from council taxes, it leads to corrupt practices, where for example, Sussex police have refused to investigate crimes committed by council officers and executives. Police forces should be State funded from income tax. It's way simpler that way, reducing conflicts of interest.

Private Provision Verification:

Individuals opting out would need to show proof of equivalent or better private arrangements. For example:

Healthcare: Demonstrate private health insurance coverage.

Waste Disposal: Simply remove bins from any address that recycle themselves, and instruct refuse truck drivers not to pick up at exempt premises. It works for commercial collections.

This ensures that opting out does not negatively impact public health or environmental goals.

Tax Rebates or Exemptions:

For citizens who meet the criteria, councils could provide tax rebates or exemptions proportionate to the cost of the opted-out service. This creates financial fairness while supporting individual choice.

Opt-Out Administration:

Councils or a central administrative body would need to manage the opt-out system to ensure compliance, track services provided privately, and adjust taxation accordingly. It's all very easy with AI and our surveillance society.

This could be streamlined through digital tools for transparency and efficiency.

Accountability for Results:

Service providers—both public and private—would need to be held to high standards to ensure that citizens receive value for money, regardless of their choice.

KEY BENEFITS

Freedom of Choice: Empowering citizens to decide how their money is spent could foster greater satisfaction and trust in governance.

Cost-Effectiveness: Competition between public and private providers might drive efficiency and innovation in service delivery.

Transparency: Citizens opting out would compel councils to make their costs and services more competitive and transparent.

Introduce tiered pricing models or consolidate remaining users to achieve efficiencies.

It’s a radical approach, but with thoughtful design, it could provide a new model for balancing individual choice with collective responsibility.

THE PLANNING GESTAPO

Planning enforcement and determination of applications should be allocated to a National Database, which may even reduce the cost of application(s) if AI is employed, and decided (decisions made) on nationally based housing needs in any geographical area, allied to the infrastructure that exists to support additional traffic. Road building of course coming from road taxes. It's a big mistake to allow corrupt councils to get their paws on money meant to maintain the infrastructure. They'll just spend it on their enhanced pensions.

In addition, private healthcare and education are also subjects for opt out, if children are sent to private schools, or are home schooled. Using these examples of ways to allow opt out, the freedom of choice should be made available to those who wish to exercise their right to choose. Should that not be the case?

The proposal for a National Database, AI-driven planning decisions, and broader freedom of choice regarding public services make for an innovative and thought-provoking concept. Suspected unauthorized development would be reported to a National Centre, with drones being used (as they are now) to validate claims.

Let's break it down further:

National Database for Planning and AI Integration

Efficiency in Decision-Making: Centralizing planning enforcement and application determination into a National Database could streamline the process, cutting costs and eliminating delays caused by local bureaucratic hurdles.

Data-Driven Decisions: AI could analyze housing needs, population growth, and infrastructure capacity to make objective, consistent planning decisions that align with national priorities.

This would reduce the influence of subjective local factors or potential biases.

Traffic and Road Infrastructure: As mentioned, linking road building and infrastructure decisions to vehicle excise duty funding would create a direct and transparent relationship between planning and transportation needs. AI could help forecast traffic patterns and optimize road investments accordingly. AI would show where cars are parked (kept and keepers) and traffic movements.

Opt-Out Mechanisms for Healthcare and Education

Freedom to Choose: Allowing families to opt out of public healthcare and education services, as seen in cases like private schools and home schooling, supports the principle of individual choice. Citizens who privately fund these services could receive tax rebates or exemptions for related public costs.

Financial Fairness: Offering a structured opt-out system would ensure that people who choose alternatives aren’t required to pay for services they don’t use, provided there’s a baseline contribution for essential emergency services to maintain equity. Not including ambulances where citizens have private healthcare.

Encouraging Innovation: Private healthcare and education providers might innovate more efficiently to attract opt-out participants, fostering healthy competition that benefits the system as a whole.

Balancing Choice and Public Equity

Freedom of choice, while desirable, needs to be balanced with the necessity of maintaining robust public systems for those who rely on them. Some considerations include:

Maintaining Essential Services: Baseline contributions should ensure that public healthcare, education, and infrastructure remain viable and accessible to all, regardless of opt-outs.

Ensuring Accountability: AI oversight could monitor how resources are allocated, flagging discrepancies and ensuring tax relief's or exemptions for opt-outs are fairly administered.

A PATH FORWARD

The Opt-Out vision emphasizes fairness, choice, and efficiency, while leveraging technology to improve governance. It's a progressive idea, but careful implementation and oversight would be essential to avoid unintended consequences.

We should now add an opt out of waste disposal, where many families now recycle 100%, including food waste, garden cuttings, glass and metals. The remaining plastic, paper and cardboard, also being recycled.

Thus, expanding the opt-out system to include waste disposal makes perfect sense, especially as more households achieve near-total recycling. Here’s how this could be integrated:

OPT-OUT FOR WASTE DISPOSAL

Eligibility:

Households would need to demonstrate that they recycle 100% of their waste, including food scraps, garden cuttings, glass, metals, plastics, paper, and cardboard.

Proof of a private waste disposal service (if applicable) or a robust home recycling system could be required.

Verification Process:

Residents opting out would might undergo periodic checks (via self-reporting or inspections) to confirm compliance with recycling and waste management standards. Britons lived for hundreds of years without dustbins and dustcarts. It's a simple matter not to provide a bin for collection.

Tax Rebates or Reductions:

Opting out could result in reduced council taxes, reflecting the household’s independence from council waste services.

Support for Independent Recycling:

Local authorities could provide guidelines or resources to help households transition to private or independent recycling solutions.

For example, partnerships with private composting services or recycling facilities could be encouraged.

Environmental Accountability:

Opted-out households could be encouraged to track their environmental impact, possibly earning incentives for consistent and effective recycling. Local disposal and treatment saves carbon miles.

BENEFITS

Cost Savings for Councils: Reduced waste disposal responsibilities mean lower operational costs for local authorities, which can benefit taxpayers overall.

Empowerment of Households: Families who are already dedicated to recycling gain more control over their contributions and spending.

Environmental Benefits: Promoting independent recycling and composting helps reduce landfill use and encourages sustainable practices.

This opt-out option complements the broader system of choice for public services.

Wow, but those who opt out, might also be given income tax breaks for not burdening the system. Does that sound fair, where smaller public hospitals and schools will be needed, and fewer dustcarts, etc?

It’s an intriguing idea and could indeed feel fair to many who choose to rely on private services. Offering income tax breaks to those who opt out of certain public services could reflect their reduced demand on publicly funded infrastructure. Here’s how such an approach might work:

HOW INCOME TAX BREAKS COULD WORK

Proportional Tax Reductions:

Citizens who opt out of public healthcare, education, waste disposal, or other services could receive proportional reductions in their income tax. The reduction would reflect the savings their choice provides to the public system.

The great news about this is that more transparency results from dividing up expenditure, in order to calculate reductions.

For example:

Opting out of public healthcare might result in a specific percentage reduction tied to the average cost of public healthcare per capita.

Opting out of waste disposal services could offer smaller rebates based on the relative cost savings.

Eligibility Verification:

Proof of private alternatives (e.g., private health insurance, enrollment in private schools, local or communal, or home recycling) would be required to qualify for these tax breaks. Or, simply take their bins away, and link National Insurance Numbers to those opting out of healthcare.

Citizens who home school their children or manage their own waste recycling independently could receive similar tax considerations.

Tiered Incentives:

Tax reductions could be tiered based on the level of public services a person opts out from. Full opt-outs might qualify for higher reductions, while partial reliance on public services might earn smaller breaks.


BENEFITS OF TAX BREAKS FOR OPT-OUTS

Encourages Responsibility: Citizens taking on private alternatives are rewarded for managing their needs independently.

Eases Pressure on Public Services: As more people opt out, public hospitals, schools, and waste management systems may face reduced demand, potentially improving service quality for those who rely on them.

Greater Freedom of Choice: This system would enhance personal autonomy, allowing individuals to make decisions based on their unique circumstances.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CHALLENGES

Equity Concerns:

Care must be taken to ensure the public systems remain adequately funded via National Insurance deductions for low-income families who cannot afford private alternatives.

Transitioning Public Services:

A decrease in reliance on public services might result in scaling down their infrastructure, as mentioned (e.g., smaller hospitals or fewer dustcarts). This may reduce waiting times. Many people die before receiving treatment. The NHS dental system is shameful. Waiting times, and many dentists refusing NHS clients. Though clearly, fewer people needing to use state hospitals, means less need. And NHS staff encourage people to go private anyway. But do not offer tax savings for doing so.

This approach strikes a balance between personal choice and collective responsibility. It could foster a more adaptable, citizen-focused model, rewarding independence while maintaining essential public services.

PROPOSED DEVOLUTION

The proposed devolution in Sussex is part of a broader effort to streamline local government and transfer powers from national to local authorities. It's a Labour party initiative. Not so much hands in the till, as giving them the till. Here's a summary of the key points:

Mayoral Combined Authority: The plan includes establishing a Mayoral Combined County Authority for Sussex, encompassing East Sussex, West Sussex, and Brighton & Hove. This authority would be led by an elected mayor and focus on strategic decisions related to housing, infrastructure, transport, public health, and safety.

Unitary Authorities: The proposal suggests replacing the current two-tier system (county and district councils) with single-tier unitary authorities. These new authorities would handle day-to-day services like schools, waste management, social care, and planning applications.

Public Consultation: A government-run consultation is underway to gather feedback on the proposed changes. This consultation will close on April 13, 2025, and aims to ensure that local voices are heard in shaping the future of governance in Sussex.

Challenges and Concerns: Some concerns have been raised about financial pressures, particularly regarding social care and housing demands. Additionally, there are debates about how Sussex should be divided into unitary authorities to best preserve local identities and ensure effective governance.

This reorganization aims to bring decision-making closer to local communities, improve public services, and drive economic growth.

The concept of streamlining councils and introducing unitary authorities does have the potential to address both concerns - potentially reducing corruption/discrimination in planning applications and lowering operational costs.

Planning Applications: Less corruptible planning applications can be achieved through increased transparency and accountability. By consolidating councils into unitary authorities, decision-making processes could become more centralized, reducing the risk of undue influence from local lobbying (backhanders and favours for mates). Additionally, adopting digital systems for planning applications can enhance transparency, as decisions and processes are logged and accessible for review. This approach aligns with recommendations for improving probity in planning.

Operational Costs: Streamlining councils into single-tier authorities can eliminate redundancies and reduce administrative overheads. By integrating services and adopting digital technologies, councils can improve efficiency and lower costs. For example, digital transformation allows councils to automate processes, optimize resource allocation, and enhance citizen engagement, all while reducing operational expenses.

Time to weed out the seat-shiners, get those fat bums back to honest work somewhere in the community. And give their jaws a rest.

These changes could lead to a more efficient and equitable system.

One department of this Council is contradicting the other. In 2017 a Barbara Boakes, a legal senior officer, says that documents relating to a certain property the subject of serious discrimination and a long runing vendetta have been destroyed. Why? Whereas, in 2025, Legal Governance, careful not to reveal the identity of the writer, says otherwise. This local authority really should try harder to get their story straight. The level of inconsistency, especially concerning Council Tax, is outrageous. One lie after another, the hallmark of corruption that is costing the taxpayer serious sums of money. In this case the dosh squandered on nursing a lie from 1986, is estimated to be well over £700,000 pounds. Some 200 enforcement site visits by officers wasting council cash. No doubt all with the approval of Wealden's Cabinet and local members. Proving that corruption is institutionalised, as it is alleged, certain executive officers are continuing to ratepayer's money to hide the truth, to protect their own wrongdoing and make off with an enhanced pension. WTF is going on in councils in England? Begging the question, is Devolution going to stop corruption or make it worse? The Head of this council is still Trevor Scott. Why? It is alleged because no other suitably qualified replacement in their right mind would consider working for a local authority with such practices routinely prevalent. It is of course a criminal offence to destroy evidence. The evidence that appears to have been destroyed relates to the same property, and the same person. The objective? It is alleged to cause financial and emotional harm to their adversary, contrary to Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Fraud Act 2006, Section 4. Why? Because this adversary has represented less well off in Wealden at appeals to the Secretary of State and in correspondence concerning other enforcement issues. Beating them hands down. And is thus a thorn in their sides over perpetual over-development that is causing distress to local residents in the district, visible as potholes, lack of school places, and a poorly performing NHS. The members of this council and Members of Parliament, are too timid to rock the boat, much like the NHS blood contamination and Horizon Post Office scandals. Institutionalised corruption in the UK appears to be endemic. Part of the managed decline of a once proud British Empire.

Q. That does sound promising. But in historic cases concerning human rights abuses and malicious prosecutions, or vendettas, who will pay the price for these past transgressions? Will the newly formed devolved units rise to the occasion and admit to such abuses of authority. And if so, how might they rectify the suffering their former counterparts inflicted?

A. The question of accountability for historic human rights abuses and malicious prosecutions is a complex and sensitive one. When new devolved units are formed, they inherit not only the responsibilities of governance but also the legacy of their predecessors. Here's how this might unfold:

Acknowledgment of Past Abuses: For newly formed devolved units to rise to the occasion, they would need to openly acknowledge the transgressions of their predecessors. This could involve setting up independent inquiries or truth commissions to investigate and document past abuses. Transparency would be key to rebuilding trust with the public.

Accountability Mechanisms: The English Devolution Accountability Framework emphasizes transparency and scrutiny in governance. Newly devolved units could implement robust accountability mechanisms, such as independent oversight bodies, to ensure that past wrongs are addressed and future abuses are prevented.

Restorative Justice: To rectify the suffering inflicted by past abuses, devolved units might explore restorative justice measures. This could include compensation for victims, public apologies, or initiatives to rehabilitate those affected. The goal would be to provide tangible remedies and foster reconciliation.

Cultural and Structural Reforms: Addressing systemic issues that allowed abuses to occur is crucial. This might involve reforms in law enforcement, judicial processes, and administrative practices to ensure fairness, equality, and respect for human rights.

Community Engagement: Engaging with affected communities and stakeholders would be essential. This could involve public consultations, forums, or partnerships with civil society organizations to ensure that the voices of those impacted are heard and their needs are met.

While these steps appear promising, the willingness and capacity of newly devolved units to undertake such measures would depend on political will, resources, and public pressure. The process of addressing historic injustices is often long and challenging, but it is a necessary step toward building a more just and equitable society.

Q. But what about the argument to return all power to national government, using AI to replace many of the functions that allow cronyism and favours at local level. This might mean eliminating local councils altogether, leaving only members of parliament as local representatives, with no liaisons to local councillors or planning officers, so removing huge expenses claims, salaries and pensions, and thus reducing local taxes, that community infrastructure levies might actually be spent improving roads and services. Might it not be better to go the other way using artificial intelligence to plan more effectively for the future?

A. The idea of centralizing power at the national level and leveraging AI to replace local governance functions is certainly bold and futuristic. It has its merits, but also raises significant challenges and considerations.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

Reduced Corruption: By removing layers of local governance, the opportunities for cronyism and favoritism could be minimized. AI systems, if designed transparently and ethically, could make decisions based on data and fairness, rather than personal interests.

Cost Efficiency: Eliminating local councils could save on salaries, pensions, and administrative costs. These savings could be redirected to infrastructure projects, like improving roads and public services.

Data-Driven Planning: AI could analyze vast amounts of data to optimize urban planning, resource allocation, and service delivery, potentially leading to more effective and forward-thinking governance.

CHALLENGES AND RISKS

Loss of Local Representation: Local councils often understand the unique needs of their communities. Removing them could lead to a disconnect between national decision-makers and local realities.

Accountability and Transparency: While AI can reduce human bias, it is not immune to flaws. Poorly designed algorithms or lack of oversight could lead to unintended consequences, and accountability might become murky.

Public Trust: Centralizing power and relying heavily on AI might face resistance from the public, who may feel alienated from decision-making processes.

Complexity of Implementation: Transitioning to such a system would require significant investment in AI infrastructure, training, and safeguards to ensure ethical use.

While the vision of AI-driven governance is intriguing, it would require careful planning, robust ethical frameworks, and a balance between efficiency and representation. The question remains: would people feel comfortable entrusting so much power to algorithms and a centralized authority? It’s a fascinating debate.

Q. We know of one case where local corruption extended past parish council level to infect a district council and a county council. The whole deal being to cover up a series of untruths presented to the secretary of state during appeals concerning a historic building over a protracted period of 40 years. All of the councils worked together to say the building was not historic, but after more than 25 years a county archaeologist who could not support the lie, spilt the beans, telling the truth. But still the cover up continued, and the whistleblower disappeared from that council. If national government had held the reins instead of corrupt local officials, all trying to protect their pensions from claims of proceeds of crime, as in lying to keep their jobs, we wonder if the tax burden of some £1 million pounds to support the lie, could have been nipped in the bud as AI revealed the truth much earlier. As this is not an isolated case, devolution may have the effect of compounding untruths and making it even harder to obtain justice. Would that not be the case?

A. Your concerns highlight one of the risks of devolved governance: the potential for localized corruption to go unchecked, especially when accountability mechanisms fail. When corruption becomes deeply entrenched across multiple levels of government, as in the case you've described, the impact can be devastating - not just financially, but also in terms of public trust and justice. Here’s a closer look at the issues and possible solutions:

CHALLENGES OF DEVOLUTION

Decentralized Power Dynamics: Devolving power can sometimes lead to fragmented oversight, where misconduct at lower levels slips through the cracks. If district, parish, and county councils collude to present untruths or suppress key information, it becomes harder for higher authorities - or even citizens - to intervene effectively.

Entrenched Interests: Local officials may prioritize protecting their positions and pensions over ethical decision-making, particularly when accountability is weak. This kind of self-preservation can perpetuate cover-ups and prolong injustices.

AI AS A SOLUTION

Automated Oversight: AI could play a critical role in identifying discrepancies, tracking patterns of misconduct, and flagging irregularities in council decisions or expenditure. By analyzing large datasets, AI could uncover cases where funds are misappropriated or facts misrepresented.

Enhanced Transparency: AI-driven systems could ensure that appeals, planning decisions, and historic claims are publicly accessible and verifiable. This would make it far harder for officials to cover up key details or mislead higher authorities.

Centralized Checks: While devolution decentralizes decision-making, a centralized AI system could provide oversight across all local councils, enabling national government to detect and respond to corruption in real time.

CONCERNS ABOUT AI GOVERNANCE

AI Without Accountability: While AI can be impartial, the design and management of AI systems must be transparent and safeguarded against misuse. Poorly implemented AI could inadvertently entrench biases or create new vulnerabilities.

Loss of Local Representation: Relying heavily on AI might diminish the nuance and humanity of governance. While AI can analyze data and flag inconsistencies, it may not fully understand the complexities of individual cases or community needs.

Balancing centralized oversight with local representation is no easy task. The suggestion of utilizing AI to combat corruption is a compelling vision, but its success would depend on ethical design, robust implementation, and clear channels of accountability. If national government were to rely more on AI, it could help nip these costly injustices in the bud—but only if it operates transparently and inclusively.

Q. AI could be used by National Government to keep a watching brief on decisions by devolved authorities that are not consistent with National Planning Policy, or involve spending or contracts that appear unusual, in not following the correct protocols and procedures. A kind of national oversight, that rings alarm bells, especially where budgets are predicted to run any council into the financial buffers with overspending and bankruptcy. Does that sound reasonable?

A. That does sound like a pragmatic and balanced approach. Utilizing AI as a national oversight tool could enhance transparency and accountability without completely undermining the autonomy of devolved authorities. Here’s why it could be effective:

Monitoring for Policy Consistency: AI could analyze decisions made by devolved authorities in real-time, cross-referencing them with National Planning Policy. If a decision significantly deviates from the policy without proper justification, AI could flag it for review. This would help maintain consistency while still allowing local flexibility where appropriate.

Tracking Financial Health: By monitoring council budgets and expenditure patterns, AI could predict financial distress and raise red flags before councils run into bankruptcy. It could also identify areas of inefficient spending or irregularities in contracts, helping to prevent waste and corruption.

Transparency in Decision-Making: AI could log and analyze spending approvals, planning applications, and contract awards, making the process more transparent and less susceptible to cronyism or favoritism. These logs could also be accessible to the public or independent auditors, fostering trust.

Q. By this means vendettas may be identified, where expenditure on one issue is disproportional, it tends to suggest problems with earlier decisions that may have been unjust, or even rigged and therefore illegal. The telltale signs may be multiple planning applications and appeals, and even high court injunctions. From where the State should step in, as a safety net. To look into what may be a personal agenda or a hard core of officers who may lose their pensions once the lie is discovered. Hence, go into overdrive on public expenditure to cover up their wrongdoing. This is where misfeasance in public office, a maladministrative error, turns into malfeasance, a criminal act, typically involving the collaboration of one or more officials, in an act of conspiracy. We wonder what kind of algorithm might be used to good effect to save the public purse in such cases?

A. This is a compelling point, as patterns of misconduct and excessive expenditure can indeed indicate deeper issues like vendettas or conspiracies. Designing an algorithm to address such cases would require a sophisticated approach to identify warning signs and anomalies effectively. Here's how it could be structured:

COMPONENTS OF THE ALGORITHM

1. Pattern Recognition and Anomaly Detection:

The algorithm would analyze historical financial and procedural data from councils to establish baseline patterns.

Flags would be raised when expenditures on specific issues - like repeated planning applications, appeals, or legal costs - significantly deviate from these patterns without justifiable cause.

2. Cross-Referencing Databases:

The system could integrate data from multiple sources, such as planning application records, court filings, and council meeting minutes, to identify unusual activity (e.g., recurring names, projects, or appeals connected to the same individuals or entities).

3. Natural Language Processing (NLP):

NLP could be used to scan council communications, decisions, and public statements for keywords or phrases indicative of personal agendas, undue pressure, or attempts to conceal information.

4. Predictive Analytics:

Based on identified anomalies, the algorithm could predict the likelihood of future financial distress or legal risks associated with the issue. This might include forecasting potential costs of continued disputes or legal battles.

5. Accountability Scoring:

Each case or council decision could be assigned an accountability score based on factors like transparency, adherence to protocols, and financial prudence. Low scores could signal the need for immediate oversight or investigation.

6. Red Flag Thresholds:

Criteria such as disproportionate spending, repeated appeals, or unexplained delays would trigger alerts. These alerts could be reviewed by an independent oversight body or the national government.

7. Transparency Dashboard:

To engage the public and promote trust, a dashboard could display anonymized data on flagged cases, spending patterns, and outcomes of investigations, ensuring that the process remains open and accountable.

SAFEGUARDS

- Bias Mitigation: The algorithm must be designed to avoid unfairly targeting specific individuals or councils based on incomplete or biased data.

- Human Oversight: While the system could identify and flag issues, human experts would still be essential to review cases, investigate deeper, and ensure ethical outcomes.

BENEFITS

- Such an algorithm could act as an early warning system, preventing councils from spiraling into financial or legal trouble.

- It could also help uncover patterns of misconduct or conspiracy sooner, reducing costs to the public purse and restoring faith in governance.

The use of AI in this manner would create a proactive safeguard against corruption and mismanagement while still allowing for human judgment in handling complex cases.

Alarms Without Overreach: Rather than micromanaging local councils, AI could act as a "watchdog," only escalating concerns to national government when clear discrepancies, irregularities, or risks are detected. This preserves the principle of devolution while ensuring safeguards are in place.

Improved Resource Allocation: By identifying patterns of inefficiency or poor compliance, AI could guide councils toward better practices, offering predictive insights that help allocate resources where they’re needed most.

Q. This bring up the subject of Human Rights, and the punishment of offenders in official positions of trust. Clearly, a vendetta, or agenda to disadvantage any member of the public, actioned from within and served by any unitary authority, is a serious matter, likely to infringe their European Convention rights, perhaps under Articles 3 and 8: mental torture and right to respect for their private and family life. Also being unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. What then of the perpetrators of such offences? We'd suggest that the misuse of a authority and use of public money in this way, is far more serious an offence than if done by a private person against (for example) a neighbour. Would you agree with that, and if so, how might the sentencing for such offences be increased to reflect the abuse of positions of trust?

A. This raises an important and compelling argument regarding the misuse of authority and public funds by individuals in positions of trust, particularly when such actions infringe upon human rights protected under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and are unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. It is true that when offenses are committed by officials in positions of trust, the ramifications are far-reaching, undermining public trust, wasting taxpayer money, and potentially causing significant harm to individuals.

WHY MISUSE OF AUTHORITY IS MORE SERIOUS

Breach of Trust: Public officials are entrusted with power to serve the community and uphold the law. When this trust is abused, it undermines the very foundations of governance and justice. The betrayal of this trust amplifies the harm caused, as the public expects officials to act with integrity.

Systemic Consequences: Unlike private disputes, abuses by officials can perpetuate systemic injustice, enabling corruption and covering up wrongful acts across broader structures. This often exacerbates harm to individuals and communities while eroding confidence in public institutions.

Impact on Resources: The misuse of public funds not only inflicts financial burdens on taxpayers but diverts resources from essential services, compounding societal harm.

SENTENCING FOR MISUSE OF AUTHORITY

To reflect the gravity of such offenses, sentencing could be made more stringent, emphasizing the unique responsibility held by officials in positions of trust. Suggestions include:

Enhanced Penalties: Introduce longer custodial sentences or higher financial penalties for offenses involving misuse of public office and funds, reflecting the harm caused to both individuals and society.

Lifetime Ban: Offenders could face lifetime bans from holding public office or positions of trust. This ensures that individuals who have breached public trust are permanently removed from roles where they could repeat such misconduct.

Restorative Measures: Require offenders to participate in restorative justice processes, such as compensating victims or publicly acknowledging wrongdoing, fostering accountability and reconciliation.

Special Provisions for Human Rights Abuses: Strengthen laws to ensure that human rights abuses carried out by public officials are treated as aggravating factors during sentencing. This highlights the severe breach of public trust involved.

PREVENTION THROUGH OVERSIGHT

To minimize the likelihood of such offenses, strong oversight mechanisms should be in place, such as:

Audits and Transparency: Regular audits of public spending and decision-making processes can deter wrongdoing and uncover abuse.

Whistleblower Protections: Encourage reporting of misconduct by protecting whistleblowers from retaliation.

AI Monitoring: As you suggested earlier, AI tools could be employed to monitor unusual expenditure patterns and identify signs of personal agendas or vendettas.

Tackling such breaches effectively requires a combination of robust legal measures, stringent sentencing, and proactive oversight. Public trust depends on ensuring that those who serve in positions of authority do so with fairness and integrity.


Q. As the offences are criminal in nature, and as the offenders benefited from wages or salaries while committing such offences. Would the remuneration they received fall to be considered as Proceeds of Crime. And if so, should not the interests of the public purse demand recovery of any property acquired using their salaries, or at least a fair proportion of any property or goods purchases during the period of any vendetta, to include cars and other luxury goods?

A. This is an incisive point. The misuse of authority and public funds for personal or malicious agendas could indeed fall within the realm of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) in the UK, if salaries earned during the period of criminal misconduct are proven to be directly linked to illegal activities. Here’s how it might be addressed:

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Definition of Proceeds of Crime: Under POCA, any property or money obtained as a result of criminal activity can be deemed proceeds of crime, and the Act allows for confiscation and recovery. If an official’s salary or remuneration is tied to fraudulent or illegal acts committed while in office, it could potentially qualify as proceeds of crime.

Misuse of Salaries: If officials knowingly engaged in vendettas or conspiracies that involved significant breaches of public trust, the argument could be made that the remuneration earned during the period of misconduct was derived from criminal acts. This might include salaries paid for work that actively violated their duty to the public.

Property Acquired with Misused Funds: POCA allows authorities to trace and recover assets acquired using proceeds of crime. If officials used their salaries during the period of misconduct to purchase luxury goods, cars, or property, these could be subject to confiscation.

RECOVERY OF THE PUBLIC PURSE

Confiscation Orders: Authorities could issue confiscation orders requiring offenders to repay the value of the salaries and benefits earned during the period of criminal activity. This repayment could help offset the financial burden placed on taxpayers.

Asset Forfeiture: Assets purchased with proceeds of crime could be seized and sold, with proceeds returned to the public purse. This approach would ensure that ill-gotten gains do not remain with the offenders.

Civil Recovery: In addition to criminal proceedings, public authorities could pursue civil recovery to reclaim funds and assets tied to the misconduct.

ENHANCED ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

Strengthening POCA Enforcement: Expanding the application of POCA to include remuneration linked to criminal misuse of public office could serve as a strong deterrent against misconduct.

Transparency and Oversight: Rigorous audits and oversight mechanisms would be essential to identify misconduct early and prevent salaries from being misused in the first place.

Addressing such abuses of trust requires a combination of stringent legal frameworks, proactive oversight, and decisive action. Reclaiming assets and funds from offenders not only restores justice but also reinforces public trust in governance.

Q. This bring up the subject of Human Rights, and the punishment of offenders in official positions of trust. Clearly, a vendetta, or agenda to disadvantage any member of the public, actioned from within and served by any unitary authority, is a serious matter, likely to infringe their European Convention rights, perhaps under Articles 3 and 8: mental torture and right to respect for their private and family life. Also being unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. What then of the perpetrators of such offences? We'd suggest that the misuse of a authority and use of public money in this way, is far more serious an offence than if done by a private person against (for example) a neighbour. Would you agree with that, and if so, how might the sentencing for such offences be increased to reflect the abuse of positions of trust?

A. This raises an important and compelling argument regarding the misuse of authority and public funds by individuals in positions of trust, particularly when such actions infringe upon human rights protected under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and are unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. It is true that when offenses are committed by officials in positions of trust, the ramifications are far-reaching, undermining public trust, wasting taxpayer money, and potentially causing significant harm to individuals.

WHY MISUSE OF AUTHORITY IS MORE SERIOUS

Breach of Trust: Public officials are entrusted with power to serve the community and uphold the law. When this trust is abused, it undermines the very foundations of governance and justice. The betrayal of this trust amplifies the harm caused, as the public expects officials to act with integrity.

Systemic Consequences: Unlike private disputes, abuses by officials can perpetuate systemic injustice, enabling corruption and covering up wrongful acts across broader structures. This often exacerbates harm to individuals and communities while eroding confidence in public institutions.

Impact on Resources: The misuse of public funds not only inflicts financial burdens on taxpayers but diverts resources from essential services, compounding societal harm.

SENTENCING FOR MISUSE OF AUTHORITY

To reflect the gravity of such offenses, sentencing could be made more stringent, emphasizing the unique responsibility held by officials in positions of trust. Suggestions include:

Enhanced Penalties: Introduce longer custodial sentences or higher financial penalties for offenses involving misuse of public office and funds, reflecting the harm caused to both individuals and society.

Lifetime Ban: Offenders could face lifetime bans from holding public office or positions of trust. This ensures that individuals who have breached public trust are permanently removed from roles where they could repeat such misconduct.

Restorative Measures: Require offenders to participate in restorative justice processes, such as compensating victims or publicly acknowledging wrongdoing, fostering accountability and reconciliation.

Special Provisions for Human Rights Abuses: Strengthen laws to ensure that human rights abuses carried out by public officials are treated as aggravating factors during sentencing. This highlights the severe breach of public trust involved.

PREVENTION THROUGH OVERSIGHT

To minimize the likelihood of such offenses, strong oversight mechanisms should be in place, such as:

Audits and Transparency: Regular audits of public spending and decision-making processes can deter wrongdoing and uncover abuse.

Whistleblower Protections: Encourage reporting of misconduct by protecting whistleblowers from retaliation.

AI Monitoring: As you suggested earlier, AI tools could be employed to monitor unusual expenditure patterns and identify signs of personal agendas or vendettas.

Tackling such breaches effectively requires a combination of robust legal measures, stringent sentencing, and proactive oversight. Public trust depends on ensuring that those who serve in positions of authority do so with fairness and integrity.


Q. As the offences are criminal in nature, and as the offenders benefitted from wages or salaries while committing such offences. Would the remuneration they received fall to be considered as Proceeds of Crime. And if so, should not the interests of the public purse demand recovery of any property acquired using their salaries, or at least a fair proportion of any property or goods purchases during the period of any vendetta, to include cars and other luxury goods?

A. This is an incisive point. The misuse of authority and public funds for personal or malicious agendas could indeed fall within the realm of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) in the UK, if salaries earned during the period of criminal misconduct are proven to be directly linked to illegal activities. Here’s how it might be addressed:

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Definition of Proceeds of Crime: Under POCA, any property or money obtained as a result of criminal activity can be deemed proceeds of crime, and the Act allows for confiscation and recovery. If an official’s salary or remuneration is tied to fraudulent or illegal acts committed while in office, it could potentially qualify as proceeds of crime.

Misuse of Salaries: If officials knowingly engaged in vendettas or conspiracies that involved significant breaches of public trust, the argument could be made that the remuneration earned during the period of misconduct was derived from criminal acts. This might include salaries paid for work that actively violated their duty to the public.

Property Acquired with Misused Funds: POCA allows authorities to trace and recover assets acquired using proceeds of crime. If officials used their salaries during the period of misconduct to purchase luxury goods, cars, or property, these could be subject to confiscation.

RECOVERY OF THE PUBLIC PURSE

Confiscation Orders: Authorities could issue confiscation orders requiring offenders to repay the value of the salaries and benefits earned during the period of criminal activity. This repayment could help offset the financial burden placed on taxpayers.

Asset Forfeiture: Assets purchased with proceeds of crime could be seized and sold, with proceeds returned to the public purse. This approach would ensure that ill-gotten gains do not remain with the offenders.

Civil Recovery: In addition to criminal proceedings, public authorities could pursue civil recovery to reclaim funds and assets tied to the misconduct.

ENHANCED ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

Strengthening POCA Enforcement: Expanding the application of POCA to include remuneration linked to criminal misuse of public office could serve as a strong deterrent against misconduct.

Transparency and Oversight: Rigorous audits and oversight mechanisms would be essential to identify misconduct early and prevent salaries from being misused in the first place.

Addressing such abuses of trust requires a combination of stringent legal frameworks, proactive oversight, and decisive action. Reclaiming assets and funds from offenders not only restores justice but also reinforces public trust in governance.


Q. The Horizon Post Office Scandal highlighted the difficulties faced by those targetted for malicious prosecutions based on incorrect information. Where, even though the bosses knew of the error in accounting software, they continued to prosecute their victims to cover their own mistakes. When the errors were reported to officials and even Members of Parliament, nothing was done to prevent wrongful imprisonment and ruination of over 700 lives. With this in mind, would it not be reasonable to have a dedicated task force, and simplified reporting procedure, independent of any police authority paid by any unitary authority, to avoid conflicts of interests, and speed up impartial investigations into suspected offences. Would it be an idea to use the AI to report suspicious official activities to an outside body for investigation?

A. The Horizon Post Office Scandal indeed serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of unchecked authority and systemic failures. Your proposal for a dedicated task force and independent reporting mechanism - augmented by AI - has significant merit, especially when considering the need to safeguard individuals from institutional abuses and conflicts of interest.

DEDICATED TASK FORCE

Independence from Local Authorities: A task force that operates independently of unitary councils or police authorities would help eliminate conflicts of interest. This ensures impartiality and builds public trust.

Specialized Expertise: Such a body could be staffed with experts in human rights law, forensic accounting, investigative techniques, and whistleblower protections, enabling it to tackle complex cases like those in the Horizon scandal effectively.

Streamlined Reporting Procedures: Simplifying the process for individuals to report concerns - whether through secure online platforms or dedicated hotlines - would make it easier for victims and whistleblowers to come forward without fear of retaliation.

ROLE OF AI

Data Analysis for Early Detection: AI could sift through vast datasets - such as internal communications, financial records, and complaint logs - to identify anomalies or patterns indicative of misconduct or systemic issues. For example, repeated wrongful prosecutions or disproportionately high legal spending could trigger alerts.

Automated Flagging System: AI could analyze case histories and planning decisions in real time, flagging activities that deviate from norms or national policy. These flagged cases could then be forwarded to the independent task force for further investigation.

Whistleblower Anonymity: AI systems could allow individuals to report suspicious activities anonymously while ensuring their submissions are directed to the correct investigative body.

Centralized Oversight: The AI system could provide a centralized dashboard for the task force, visualizing trends and risk factors across different councils and agencies, ensuring that no cases of suspected misconduct are overlooked.

BENEFITS OF THIS MODEL

Conflict-Free Investigations: Separating the investigative body from local governance ensures greater impartiality and helps address concerns about officials protecting their own interests or pensions.

Proactive Safeguarding: AI’s ability to flag patterns and anomalies at an early stage could prevent wrongful actions before they escalate into scandals like the Horizon case.

Public Confidence: A transparent and independent process, coupled with advanced AI oversight, would reassure the public that potential abuses of authority are being monitored and addressed.

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

Protecting AI Neutrality: To prevent misuse, the AI systems themselves must be subject to independent oversight, ensuring they are free from bias and manipulation.

Adequate Funding and Resources: Establishing such a task force requires significant investment. However, the long-term savings in public trust, justice, and financial expenditure would likely outweigh the initial costs.

Resistance to Change: Entrenched interests may oppose this model. Clear communication about its purpose and benefits would be essential to gain support from both the public and government officials.

This system would represent a meaningful step toward safeguarding individuals' rights and ensuring accountability at all levels of governance.

WILL DEVOLUTION MAKE THINGS WORSE?

The answer depends on how devolution is implemented. If safeguards are weak or absent, it could exacerbate existing issues like lack of transparency and rising taxes. However, if devolution is paired with strong accountability measures and a commitment to openness, it has the potential to empower communities and improve governance.

The key lies in ensuring that councils are held to the highest standards of integrity and efficiency. The problem with that being the current level of corruption that is going unpunished and unchecked.

Q. Where so many councils overspend and face bankruptcy, would not devolution, where unitary councils are granted powers to make new law, able to tax the man in the street out of existence? What safegaurds are built in, or should be built in to prevent rampant tax rises that place disproportionate pressure on young and working families?

A. Devolution and the creation of unitary councils do raise concerns about the potential for unchecked taxation powers, especially if safeguards are not robust enough to prevent disproportionate financial burdens on vulnerable groups like young and working families. It sounds very much like the planning system where decisions can be delegated, so avoiding scrutiny by committees of local members - who are supposed to represent the people, but are very often banned by the officers from doing so. Meaning that the employees of these corporations effectively control the elected officials.

RISKS OF DEVOLUTION AND TAXATION

Autonomy in Taxation: Devolved authorities may have the power to set local taxes, which could lead to significant variations in tax rates across regions. Without oversight, this could result in excessive tax increases.

Financial Mismanagement: Councils facing bankruptcy or financial distress might resort to raising taxes as a quick fix, placing undue pressure on residents.

Impact on Vulnerable Groups: Young families and working individuals often bear the brunt of tax increases, as they have limited disposable income and are more reliant on public services.

EXISTING SAFEGUARDS

National Oversight: The Secretary of State retains the ability to intervene in cases of financial mismanagement or failure to deliver essential services.

Public Consultation: Many councils are required to consult with residents before implementing significant tax changes, ensuring that local voices are heard.

Criteria for Unitary Councils: Proposals for new unitary councils must demonstrate financial sustainability and the ability to withstand economic shocks.

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS

Tax Caps: Introduce limits on how much councils can increase taxes annually, tied to inflation or economic growth rates.

Independent Oversight Body: Establish a national body to monitor council tax policies and spending, ensuring alignment with national priorities and fairness.

AI Monitoring: Utilize AI to analyze council budgets and flag disproportionate tax increases or spending patterns, enabling early intervention.

Targeted Relief Programs: Mandate councils to provide tax relief or exemptions for low-income families, ensuring that vulnerable groups are protected.

Transparency Requirements: Require councils to publish detailed reports on tax revenue allocation, allowing residents to see how their money is spent.

While devolution aims to bring decision-making closer to communities, it’s crucial to balance autonomy with accountability to prevent financial burdens from spiraling out of control.


Q. That all sounds very rosy, but the truth is that the "safeguards" have not prevented many councils declaring insolvency, and then being allowed to raise local taxes. That means rises in taxes can go on and on, as kleptocratic councils build their empires, expand their pension plans, etc., at the expense of the working families that, effectively, have little or no say in the money they are being asked to pay to support the executive lifestyle of thousands of council officers. Transparency is a dirty word in councils at the moment. They make it almost impossible for a member of the public to see their accounts, who is employed and how much that is costing them as council tax payers. will Devolution make things worse? Less transparent, and more charges for reduced services?

A. These concerns are valid and reflect the frustrations many people feel about the current state of local governance. Devolution, while intended to bring decision-making closer to communities, does carry risks if not implemented with robust safeguards.

DEVOLUTION RISKS TAX INCREASES

Transparency Issues: Without stringent requirements for openness, devolved councils could become less transparent, making it harder for the public to scrutinize spending, staffing levels (working from home scivers), and decision-making processes.

Tax Burden: Devolved councils with greater autonomy over taxation might resort to frequent tax increases to cover financial mismanagement or fund ambitious projects, disproportionately affecting working families.

Service Reductions: Despite higher taxes, some councils may still cut services due to inefficiencies or misallocation of funds, further eroding public trust.

CIVIL SERVICE NUMBERS - REDUCTIONS & INCREASES

..... To follow!

 See our CORRUPTION A - Z or just roll over and accept SLAVERY