Thank you, Mr Mayor.
The Labour Group have submitted an amendment to the recommendations set out by this administration for Rushcliffe’s vision for local government reorganisation — because we believe this proposal is unbalanced, is based on bad data and potentially damaging to not only Rushcliffe but also the wider Nottingham & Nottinghamshire. Unfortunately, despite our efforts, it has not made it to Full Council tonight so will not be able to vote for the recommendation as it is set out because it means we are not entering this period of consultation & debate with an open mind to the benefits of all options, but instead have made politicalised assumptions that have blinded us to new, possibly beneficial, possibilities.
Let’s be clear: the structure of local government should serve the needs of all our communities — not the other way around. But the recommendations we have before us today is a proposed reorganisation plan that risks doing just the opposite. It is straight-jacketing the process because it has been hi-jacked by the Rushcliffe Conservatives that means that all useful, essential debate has been pushed out and replaced with political rhetoric.
Most concerning of all, this proposal is being pushed forward without a full and transparent exploration of all alternatives.
We’ve not investigated all the options — not thoroughly, not openly, and not in good faith. There are other ways to improve efficiency, to strengthen service delivery, and to make our collective councils more effective. But instead of exploring those, we’ve been presented with a single path, wrapped in the language of inevitability and a £64K consultancy price tag.
That’s not good governance. That’s short cutting a process that should be rooted in evidence, consultation, and community voice.
We must ask: why has there been no serious evaluation of boundary review when the government has said that they would be considered if the changes promoted strong public services & financial stability? Existing districts are considered building blocks for proposals, not unbreakable lines that we cannot reimagined.
Where is the evidence that tells us option 1(b) is superior to 1(e) which has been omitted from this recommendation? Reading through the Pricewaterhouse Coopers document gives the impression that they are level-pegging in terms of service provision. The reality is that the Rushcliffe Conservatives have politicised this debate from the beginning so we cannot truly bring all options to the table nor truly explore options that may even be seen to benefit the people.
Council, we are not just opposing the recommendations as set out. We are demanding a better process, a reliance on much better evidence, and therefore better respect for the people we serve. We owe it to our residents to ask: Have we really done the work this process is asking of us? Have we looked at every alternative without bias?
Until the answer to those questions is a confident yes, we cannot — and will not — support this.
Thank you.
The Labour Party in Rushcliffe 