Talk:Greater Manchester Combined Authority

Manchester Town Hall
I like the recent expansion to the article. But is there any evidence that the GMCA will meet at Manchester Town Hall? --Jza84 | Talk  10:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ive never seen anything about a change of venue, the organisation will almost certainly continue to use its existing rooms at the Town Hall so best to leave it as that until we see otherwise, TfGME will continue to use Piccadilly Gardens, the only one I would wonder about would be the Commission for the New Economy which currently has rented offices, they might possibly move somewhere else but its incorporated as a company with ownership transferring from the Councils to the GMCA so it probably couldnt move into a public building. WatcherZero (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also argue its a Bicameral arrangement. While the TfGMC only has responsibility for transport it is effectivley a second decision making body with voting powers (unlike the commissions) although all its decisions are subject to the approval of the CA (like a commons/lords arrangement), though the two traffic areas devolved from councils would be solely at its discretion and out of reach of the CA. The fact its memberships are entirely seperate but both elected means it cant be a joint commission in the traditional sense of two houses like Lords and Commons or Senate and Representative having members sitting on the same committee unless you consider it a house in its own right or If you argue that its effectivley the local authoritys councillors as a 'house' then that precludes the CA from also being a house as its drawn and elected in the same way. Im quite happy and interested to have this debate as its the first combined authority in the world as far as I can ascertain then the semantics and naming conventions are being shaped as we go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatcherZero (talk • contribs) 11:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Arghh its so open to interpretation, after rereading the relevant sections of the acts, the TfGMC is a joint committee in the sense its the working together with local councils, however its a seperate body for the execution of its duty as the law prevents one authority delegating authority to another for which it is already responsible for that function (so for example Council A couldnt ask Council B to run its street cleaning because Council B is already responsible for running its own street cleaning, you can however delegate both Council A and Council B's street cleaning to Agency C because it is not responsible for street cleaning. TBH we need a constitutional Lawyer to read it all and give us his professional judgement, its just too compled a legal issue for a layman to properly comprehend. WatcherZero (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just how I interpretted it, but reading your first bit I also think you may be right about it being a seperate "house". I was first under the impression that TfGM would be a seperate organisation - with a relationship comparible with the AGMA and the GMPTE. But you're right - TfGM seems to be something more than a committee, and with certain qualities of a seperate house. I'm trying to borrow from the Greater London Authority and Transport for London pages (which deal with them seperately), but this may not be best practice. What do you think?


 * I'm conscious too of us publishing things that aren't yet concrete and getting it wrong for readers. Annoyingly, most of the national newspapers seems to have not reported on the 'super council' - we could do with www.greatermanchester.gov.uk (as I imagine it to be) being set up to clarify.


 * I think too that the GMCA is to be composed of the 10 Exective members and all the bodies under their authority, but I've put in the lead that it is composed only of the 10 members. I'm not sure that's right either. :( --Jza84 | Talk  12:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your idea to use the London Assembly as a base as it is the closest comparison, despite its members being directly elected they also are often (always?) councillors within their representative districts at the same time. The mayoral executive is also comparable to the 10 member executive of the GMCA in that it sets policy direction while the GLA provides the scrutiny ala TfGMC. TfL management is also similar with its board appointed by the Mayor while TfGME chief would be appointed by the CA and its other members while nominally appointed by the TfGMC are subject to the final approval of the GMCA. under this comparison GMCA is a two house (Executive and assembly) body. WatcherZero (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked to pop over and assist (very good with local government). I may ask  (equally as good). Lozleader has access to a vast range of sources which may throw something up?


 * Just as a side issue I wonder if the GMCA will go to the expense of branding itself, building/buying/renting a formal HQ, and even erecting boundary signs for Greater Manchester (as the GM county council did, and I think is required by law when entering any statutory local authority area). --Jza84 | Talk  12:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Im sure it will brand itself with logo, corporate colour (please not purple like AGMA!), its also required by law to conduct an educational campaign to inform of its creation. Sign posts, maybe but we are in frugal times, similarly with HQ I cant see it happening in a 'first term' as the County Council was known for an extravagant HQ and the organisation should be wise to carefully cultivate public perception at the start. In the short to mid term I imagine it will stay at Manchester Town Hall using the same rooms that AGMA/GMITA used (suitable for a small executive with ample access to the committee rooms of the Hall). Another interesting question is would it continue to use Manchester City Council as its banker as AGMA/GMITA/GMPTE did or will it become its own since essentially its been given complete financial freedom (except it cannot borrow to deliver regeneration or housing projects, but thats why the CNE is a seperate corporate entity wink wink). WatcherZero (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. I've had a litle poke around the article and the sources. Just a couple of observations re the lead, and in particular trying to put myself in the position of a reader who is new to the subject:
 * Tense: "is the top-tier administrative body for the local governance of Greater Manchester, England from 1 April 2011". Seems a bit odd. "will be" or "is to be" or something seems more natural. Now I think of it, perhaps "is planned to be" would be better as the order to create the authority has yet to be passed, AFAIK?
 * There seems to be a lot of repetition and/or redundancy in: "ten indirectly elected members, each a directly elected councillor from one of the ten metropolitan boroughs that comprise Greater Manchester". There must be a simpler way of saying that. Also I don't know that the appointment of chairs and vice chairs belongs in the lead. It would perhaps be better to put this down in the "organisation" section.
 * I note from the sources that this is the first Combined Authority created (or planned/approved) under the 2009 Act. Might be worth mentioning in the lead.
 * The sentence (now in the 2nd para) "The authority is to replace a range of single-purpose joint boards and quangos and will provide an integrated upper tier of local governance in Greater Manchester for the first time since the abolition of the Greater Manchester County Council in 1986." is crucial to understanding what GCMA is/will be. I would suggest that it go in the lead. The sentence "The authority will derive most of its powers from the Local Government Act 2000 and Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009" currently in the lead might instead go to the 2nd Para.
 * Other than that, there is perhaps a need to mention that the GMCA will have some powers delegated by the districts, and will exercise some concurrently as mentioned in Part 4 and Schedule 2 of the Draft Order respectively.
 * I'm still scratching my head about the relationship between GMCA and TfGMC. TfGMC is to be a "joint committee" with the same membership and composition (ie a renaming) as the current GMITA. This is 33 district councillors nominated by the 10 boroughs, an arrangement unchanged since 1986 ). I don't think that this is another "chamber or "house" per se, and I don't see anything that prohibits (or compels) a councillor from being a member of both bodies simultaneously. TfGMC appears to be a weaker body than GMITA.
 * The sentence (under "Development") "The Transport for Greater Manchester Commitee would be formed from a pool of 33 councillors allocated by council population" is not supported by the sources. It will be the 33 councillors pure and simple.Lozleader (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The 'pool' is their wording, since the 33 will never sit in the same room at the same time instead being broken up into the different committees as present (and the main reason why I dont argue that its a house in its own right more forcefully), its also worth explaining the allocation weights as a lot of people question why councils like Bury have the same weight as councils like Manchester with 3x the population. I agree the leads confusing, someone seems to have done a pass changing the tenses to be ambigious, the indirectly only appears twice both locations where its relevant so I dont think its a problem. On the concurrently thing, next line "(3) Any requirement in any enactment for a constituent council to exercise such a function may be fulfilled by the exercise of that function by the GMCA." makes me think its more to satisfy their legal responsabilities under any new or past legislation. WatcherZero (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100404151931/http://www.communities.gov.uk:80/news/corporate/1527485 to http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1527485

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091221064416/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_122_09.htm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_122_09.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725175143/http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/ministerial_decision_letter_november_2010.pdf to http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/ministerial_decision_letter_november_2010.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415080805/http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/item_5_deal_for_cities.pdf to http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/item_5_deal_for_cities.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120905052226/http://www.oldhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/1202108_greater_manchester_to_become_first_city_region to http://www.oldhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/1202108_greater_manchester_to_become_first_city_region
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151127194245/http://www.neweconomymanchester.com/ to http://neweconomymanchester.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Cabinet table
The Cabinet table was getting pretty unwieldy, ive redesigned it to hopefully make it clearer and removed the month the office was vacant by adding a died in office note, what do people think of this proposed design? I am open to any suggestions or tweaks before I convert the rest of the council entries but these rows should give a good idea. The way this table works with local elections every year means it will almost certainly get out of hand again after another couple of years.

Colour key (for political parties):

Current office holders are highlighted in bold. ◊ Denotes a change occurred after regular Local Elections ● Denotes a change occurred after a leadership election inside a council † Denotes a death in office. WatcherZero (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I like the party colours running continuously along the bottom of the members' names, that definitely reduces clutter. Removing the vacant period after Greenhalgh's death is good, too, I regret adding/keeping that in. However I'm not sure we need the icons denoting the changes next to the dates, especially as there can be overlap between the causes. Perhaps using an explanatory note for changes that happen outside of the regular election cycle could work better? I'd also recommend ending the rows with the party colours when the table gets to the final two columns, none of those cells will show a party affiliation so it might look a little cleaner?
 * Overall, nice job ! -- M2Ys4U ( talk ) 14:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Make the colour rows the same height, otherwise looks good. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Colour key (for political parties):

I have removed the white rows from the last two columns. For the colour bars I worry that if they are thicker they will visually overpower the other information being presented, for comparison first row is 1:1 ratio, second row a 3:1 ratio, and third row a 6:1 ratio. I personally prefer the original default narrow size or maybe a 6:1 ratio as a compromise. WatcherZero (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I prefer the original, smaller, size too but I think there needs to be an explicit size set - it looks like with auto-sizing some of them can appear larger on different devices (for instance in the top table the last colour bar is taller than the others on my phone, but not desktop). M2Ys4U ( talk ) 17:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I took the liberty of taking that design and playing around with it a little, and came up with this. The main change is removing months from the header, using only years (but still aligning the inner cells to months). The result is a table that's more horizontally compact and (most) of the years are (mostly) the same size (with the notable exception of 2023 although that will probably change as we add to the table in the coming months/years).

Colour key (for political parties):

Thoughts? -- M2Ys4U ( talk ) 01:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Again the colour bars need to be all the same height. There are currently three different heights and no logic as to why they are what they are. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What browser are you using? It works perfectly fine for me in Firefox and Chrome on desktop and mobile. I'll dig out my work MacBook out and test in Safari (it wouldn't surprise me if that was the issue... Safari is trash) M2Ys4U ( talk ) 13:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Safari!! 10mmsocket (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh that is horrendous on Safari isn't it? It screws up the horizontal alignment too 🤦🏻‍♂️. M2Ys4U ( talk ) 18:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup. Any ideas how to fix it? 10mmsocket (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)