Talk:Greater London Council

Politics

The article focuses very heavily on the personality politics of the GLC and rather ignores some of the underlying problems that arouse. A significant number of services were slowly moved away from it over the course of its lifetime (sometimes to independent bodies covering the same areas, at other times the services were reorganised on a different geographic basis) and indeed at one point even Ken Livingstone was asking why it still existed! (This was before he became leader of it.) Furthermore some of the Livingstone ventures had been ruled illegal by the courts and aroused hostility in some of the boroughs, especially when the actions were having negligible effect but increasing taxes - the policy of raising the rates to subsidise the London Underground was challenged by one of the boroughs that is nowhere near a tube station. By the early 1980s there was a strong administrative case for abolishing the GLC, regardless of the party politics. Does anyone know more of the detail to add some of this to the article? -- Timrollpickering (13 Feb 2004)

Try looking at Streamlining the cities and the external link from it. G-Man 19:44, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The reason the original article 'focuses on the personality politics of the GLC' is that it was probably copied from my website and then fiddled about with so that it did not look like a copyvio (compare the early versions and you'll see it more clearly). There's more discussion of the policies of the GLC under the biographies of its leaders which I have written. Actually the GLC gained powers at first (eg London Transport in 1969) before losing them later under Thatcher. Ken Livingstone's support for abolition after the report of the Marshall inquiry is interesting but perhaps belongs more in the Livingstone biog.

There should be more about abolition because it's actually wrong to say that the Livingstone leadership led to abolition: the GLC would have been abolished no matter who was leading it, because the outer London boroughs had finally worked out they didn't need it at all. It would, though, have been bad form for a Conservative government to abolish a Conservative-led GLC. Dbiv 00:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that assesment. I think the fact that Livingstone's policies proved popular rattled the Thatcherites. Livingstone was at least a large factor in the abolition. G-Man 17:50, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think so too. I remember in 1985, returning to University after the summer holidays, the father of one of my fellow students was heard to complain that Livingstone was doing a good job, and he really wished that he wasn't because it would make it easier to get rid of him and the GLC! StanPomeray (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

City of London

I'm just doing some link-chasing and realised this article doesn't mention that the GLC didn't include the City of London ... my memory is correct in this isn't it? -VampWillow 13:19, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, the GLC did include the City, though there are other institutions of all-London government which don't. Dbiv 00:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC

Inner London Probation Service

Was one of those organisations that remained independent of GLC and City of London. In fact ILPS started in 1936 and shared boundaries with ILEA (Inner london Educataion Authority) The City of London Probation service remained independent of ILPS until the 1990's when it was at last merged. The good burgers of the City had been reluctant to lose their independence but eventually the Home Office will took precedence. I have started an article about ILPS which was itself succeeded by London Probation Area serving all London from April 1 2001 which was the day The National Probation Service came into being. (I have yet to learn how to link items so will be happy for another to do it for me, please!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tolkny (talk • contribs) .

Electoral system for GLC

The first GLC election was on 9 April 1964, with each of the new boroughs electing a number of representatives ...In 1972 the electoral system was reformed to introduce single-member constituencies

What was the original voting system? The 'single non-transferable vote', or the 'limited vote', or some other system? There's a big difference so the article should specify.

213.202.141.1 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Multi member first past the post. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the term "Multi member first past the post" can refer to any of the following

• bloc vote
• limited vote
• single non-transferable vote (SNTV)

It's not clear which the GLC used for its elections.

Iota (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the correct term is, but each borough returned a number of councillors, and each elrvtor had as many votes as there were seats in the borough. The candidates who topped the poll won the seats. Here are the results for GLC elections [1] Just looking at one at random, Barnet returned 4 councilors in 1964 - 1973. In each case they were four Conservatives, with never more than 1,800 votes between their top and bottom candidate. Next came four Labour candidates with only 3,000 odd votes between the top and bottom candidates, then followed by 4 Liberals and then by various others. What is clear is in most cases electors were using their 4 votes to vote for 4 candidates of the same party. Not a very representative system as we can see that with about 45% of the vote in 1964 the Tories got 100% of the seats. AFAIK, it's still a system widely used in district council elections where they elect the whole council every four years.Lozleader (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

JUst read those three articles linked above. It would seem to fit the definition of bloc vote.Lozleader (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In each case they were four Conservatives, with never more than 1,800 votes between their top and bottom candidate. Next came four Labour candidates with only 3,000 odd votes between the top and bottom candidates, then followed by 4 Liberals and then by various others. What is clear is in most cases electors were using their 4 votes to vote for 4 candidates of the same party. Not a very representative system as we can see that with about 45% of the vote in 1964 the Tories got 100% of the seats.

Yeah, those results are pretty telling. I guess that's why they call it "bloc voting", because you usually get a slate of candidates, all from the same party, elected en bloc.

It surprises me that the SNTV system never seems to have been used in the UK. It is incredibly simple, very similar to bloc voting and first-past-the-post with which voters are familiar, but achieves a quite good level of proportional representation. (It would be a much easier sell to the public than the more sophisticated PR systems). Iota (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Horace Cutler.jpg

There is a concern that the rationale provided for using File:Horace Cutler.jpg in this article may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be removed from this article by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with the "Enforcement" section of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Earlier use of 'Greater London Council'

William A. Robson in The Government and Misgovernment of London 1939/1948, in the section on the reform of London Government (Section III, Chapter 8) makes reference to the intended body as the Greater London Council - with broadly the same extent as that which presently exists. Jackiespeel (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

"as that which presently exists" ? What exactly are you referring to ? The GLC that was abolished in 1986 or the present GLA which is unlikely if he was writing in the 1930's/40s ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As in geographical extent. Jackiespeel (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Well in any case it is in an insignificant use of the term and I advise you to read this journal paper which details how the GLC was created:[2]. QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Given the author's connection to London government reform 'worth a mention' on this talk page for those so interested. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)