Part of Birmingham

Coventry is a smaller city than Birmingham, so will always be overshadowed to a degree. It must sell itself on its own merits for sure, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't co-operate where appropriate. I have said many times that there are some council functions that would be better done on a joint basis, and indeed between 1974-86 they were. WMCC was a far more efficient organisation than any of the seven authorities within it. When they took back those functions after its abolition they made a mess of most of them, and at far greater cost due to the way they were run. I disagree about few people commuting to Birmingham. There have always been lots, I have known plenty over the years. I did it myself for many years, as did my wife. The main reason for leaving Coventry was the unreliable transport links. We lived in the centre of Coventry and she worked in the centre of Birmingham but getting there five days a week on time was impossible, either using roads or public transport. My view is that any city the size of Coventry needs a proper transport system both within and with surrounding towns. You can't pretend Birmingham doesn't exist, yet there appears to be paranoia about it in Coventry among many people.

I`m trying to pick my words carefully, but Birmingham recently had a problem with some schools suffering from inappropriate educational/religious influences, which I understood should have been dealt with by a supine local education authority in that city. Could this infection spread to Coventry schools?

In regards to your earlier post about Manchester trams - they are useful, but when you have to walk around the city centre they're an absolute pain in the ****. The rails just get in the way and create trip hazards and problems for those with mobility issues or with buggies. The overhead power cables and pylons to hold them create far more street clutter than things like traffic lights. And the expense of putting in and maintaining all that is massive. We have modern trams - they're called buses. We had the SPRINT thing which would have been much more cost-efficient and flexible than a tram, and have the advantage that if there's a problem they can go alternative routes. When the trains are held up due to problems what replaces them? Buses. You never get a train-replacement service. Talking of commuters, Flapdoodle didn't say there wasn't any - of course there are. He said the numbers were no more than places in Warwickshire, whose transport links with this city are still terrible, likely due to the WM/Warwickshire jurisdictional problems. And if you do travel to Birmingham (as I myself did for a number of years), what transport would be more efficient than what is already in place? With nothing filling the Meriden Gap a tram is pointless - the local trains make far more sense. They are plenty of major roads and motorways linking them. There are bus services to - about the same number as you get for places in Warwickshire. If Coventry is a part of the WMCA and Warwickshire is not, do you see the WMCA board voting on things like the NUCKLE project etc. being funded? Of course not - the entire thing will be a jurisdictional nightmare and Coventry will be the one to suffer as it will see no investment in helping its natural economic area flourish. Of course we need to have some sort of say in this as there are economic links between this city and Birmingham (and to a lesser extent the rest of the West Midlands) but there are much greater links between Coventry and Warwickshire, and those should be focused on more. The reason we have this situation has nothing to do with those reasons and everything to do with politics. Birmingham and Coventry are predominantly Labour, Warwickshire is more Tory. So they do a deal with their counterparts so as to mutually safeguard their chances of staying in power. Coventry used to be a bigger city than Birmingham. That didn't change because Birmingham accepted it was smaller and the only way it could survive and thrive was if its larger neighbour benefited more and it took the scraps off that..

Just two comments worth noting. Firstly, I would not advocate a tram system connecting Coventry with Birmingham. The train does that. What I suggested is a proper system for Coventry, and one for Birmingham, as you would find in many cities in Europe of similar size. There is no will to invest in a decent transport system in the UK, unlike many in Europe and elsewhere. Coventry became part of the West Midlands in 1974, under legislation passed in 1972 by a Tory government. It worked remarkably well for 12 years as Coventry had far more in common with similar sized places in the West Midlands than the rest of Warwickshire. It was disbanded not because it didn't work but because one woman knew her lot could never win power in the GLC or the Mets, an act of political betrayal if ever there was one. Your idea of a 'deal' is fanciful though. Coventry has actually affiliated far more with Solihull over the last few years in combining functions, despite being of different political persuasions. Remember that only the politicians are affiliated to parties. Officers are the ones who actually do the work.

Hey, let's look at the real figures shall we? 4,000 people commute from Coventry to Birmingham 4,000 people commute from Birmingham to Coventry 10,000 people commute FROM Coventry to Warwick District (i.e. Leamington/Warwick) 4,000 people commute FROM Coventry to Rugby 3,600 people commute to Solihull FROM Coventry (this includes the NEC and business parks there) 5,000 people commute FROM Coventry to Nuneaton (11,000 the other way) 2,000 people commute FROM Coventry to South Warwickshire The figures for the rest of the West Midlands are actually so small they're irrelevant. These figures clearly show that Coventry isn't hugely reliant on Birmingham and, interestingly, for a city 3 times the size, just as many people commute the other. It's actually not really that feasible to commute between the two cities easily unless you live and work by stations, and many jobs in Coventry are not in the city centre. What you have to remember is that these figures are skewed by the fact that Coventry's conurbation crosses boundaries and many people working in 'Rugby' are in fact working at Ansty (which employs thousands) which part of the city's conurbation. The same for other business areas on the outskirts of the city. But it's pretty clear that Coventry/Warwickshire are far more linked than Coventry and Birmingham. And the West Midlands Council was created at a time when Coventry was a city of assembly plants with a high degree of links between Birmingham which was where many components were made. That dependency is no longer there, as Coventry no longer has any car factories. Coventry/Warwickshire has real potential, in my view, the city has not been allowed to sprawl, which keeps it quite compact, and Warwickshire is a desirable place. Birmingham on the other hand is part of an absolutely grim urban sprawl that is one of the most depressing places in the country. Quite why we would want to be part of that is beyond me, especially when we do not have the same problems and issues.

But who actually had the vote on whether Coventry joined the WMCA? People affiliated to political parties, or not? I find this extraordinary. You call my idea of a politically motivated deal 'fanciful', yet believe EXACTLY the same kind of reasoning was the reason the WM was disbanded.

The council have been purely motivated by politics on this, Ann Lucas even referred to Coventry as "a red dot in a sea of blue." Birmingham now is bankrupt and failing. Their new library? They can't afford to maintain the air conditioning or staff it. The council is failing in many fields. It would be a disaster to link with it especially when our natural partnership is with Warwickshire.

The only place I think we can compare our situation to is Greater Manchester where we hear that this and that has been improved in Manchester and all the high class restaurants that have opened in the past few years and how thriving everything is in Manchester but we rarely hear the likes of Bury, Bolton or Rochdale etc mentioned being as prosperous. I think Coventry Council should have sent someone up there on a fact finding mission before agreeing to teaming up with Birmingham, or would this have been too simple?

I think I just caught the drift on the news that anything the Northern Power House can do can be capped by this brilliant Birmingham set up. Is this the real reason i.e the Govt. with EU "prompting" is regionalising and Coventry is caught up willy nilly in something it never had a hope, come what may, in evading i.e, it`s a stitch up. Will we have to wait for Brexit to unpick it?

Towns like Bolton suffer very badly from being in Manchester's shadow. The actual 'City of Manchester' is quite small, about 400,000 people, but it gets all the economic benefits of being in the centre of the region.

There is also the Government backed Northern Powerhouse. I would strongly suggest that Birmingham has made very few demands on the government on the funding it would wish to take control over. This is an EU policy being enacted by a pro-EU chancellor and prime minister, the local Labour Party are trying to achieve a political end through the back door.

My problem with this is that what George giveth, George can taketh away. The £36million a year he has promised might just about cover the extra staffing and admin costs it will need. Then he'll decide he needs some of that budget to fund some other hair-brained scheme and make so many cut-backs that there won't be the funding to drive it forward.

I have no doubt that some functions are better delivered on a regional basis. This was certainly the case under the West Midlands County Council from 1974-86. It was far more efficient than the district councils and far less management-heavy. Sadly it was abolished because of blind political dogma but achieved much in 12 years, a short time in local government terms. The WMCC in no way diminished Coventry's identity and functions best delivered locally were still allowed to do so. Its abolition resulted in a more expensive, less efficient and more top-heavy local government. There is plenty of scaremongering about this new combined authority, yet it will diminish nothing. Some functions are already being combined between authorities to save money and this process just formalises what is already happening The real danger to our services is their destruction by central government, where they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

As Birmingham council is already judged to be failing. In July this year it was reported ~ "A panel set up by the Government said poor leadership by the council's top politicians was holding back attempts to deal with its problems. And it means the council is in danger of being broken up into two or more smaller authorities or simply taken over by the Government, which could send in its own officials to manage services." Plus of course we will now get our Metro Mayor, something the people of Coventry rejected a couple of years ago. This council, under Ann Lucas, has a history of ignoring the wishes of the electorate. I think the cost of this merger will be monumental and lead to the identities of the cities around Birmingham being completely lost as funding and development is lavished on the perceived capital.