timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823 
|
Post by timmullen1 on Dec 13, 2017 14:50:37 GMT
Newcastle council have appointed Paul Sidaway as Acting Returning Officer for the by-elections. He is the City Director at Stoke-on-Trent council (or, as Newcastle's Twitter coyly puts it, "our neighbouring authority") and has brought with him some Stoke staff to make these by-elections work.  And what is a "City Director" anyway? The City Independent Group, now the largest Party on Stoke Council, and running the Council in coalition with the Conservatives, had a manifesto commitment of abolishing the post of Chief Executive. After a brief “review” it was pointed out that you actually needed someone to fulfill a CEO’s duties, so the incumbent, John van der Laarschot, was given A golden goodbye and Mr Sidaway recruited to do the same job, on a similar salary, but with a new title, thus allowing the CIG to claim they had fulfilled their manifesto commitment. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Dec 13, 2017 15:25:20 GMT
Following a stormy meeting of Newcastle-under-Lyme Council tonight, where the CEO and Head of Governance are suspended over electoral issues at the General Election, the Labour Council Leader has resigned and the Conservatives are reportedly forming a Minority Administration. The current composition of the 60 member Council is 24 Labour, 22 Conservative, 3 Liberal Democrat, 1 UKIP, 5 Independent Group, 2 Kidsgrove Independent, 1 Newcastle Independent, 2 Vacant. This should add a little spice to the 2 by-elections next week where Labour are defending both seats. What is it about the Stoke area? Why do their local councils all appear to be so bizarre? In Newcastle’s case the sole Independent was one of two elected as UKIP, his colleague died shortly thereafter allowing Gareth Snell to regain a seat on the council, by which time they’d fallen out with UKIP over the 2915 Parliamentary selection process. The five member Borough Independent Group are a mix of a couple of ex-Lib Dems (including one who was directly elected as a BIG member in the Madeley by-election, Newcastle’s only Green councillor and a former Labour councillor who quit the Party (for reasons I can’t remember off the top of my head). Kidsgrove Independents came into existence in May when the long-serving Labour councillor for Kidsgrove was “encouraged” to retire from her County seat, took offence and, along with her fellow Kidsgrove Labour Borough councillor quit the Party and formed their own KIG. Probably worth mentioning is the role of Paul Farrelly, who seems to model himself on former Chicago Mayor Daley. He tried to prevent Gareth Snell from getting the Stoke Central selection in order to secure the spot for one of his allies, and was lining up support for an internal no-confidence vote in Elizabeth Shenton which prompted her resignation and last week’s shenanigans. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 13, 2017 16:50:42 GMT
She was the Lib Dem candidate in the Crewe & Nantwich by-election wasn't she? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 13, 2017 16:55:20 GMT
She was the Lib Dem candidate in the Crewe & Nantwich by-election wasn't she? Yes. Defected to Labour in May 2013. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Dec 13, 2017 20:05:02 GMT
She was the Lib Dem candidate in the Crewe & Nantwich by-election wasn't she? She was. Very good. (There is somebody on here, cannot recall whom, who will bridle at such a comment.) |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 13, 2017 21:39:53 GMT
a) You cannot feasibly force people to stand more candidates than the seats they expect to win. Any rules can easily be gamed, and where does it leave parties who can't muster enough candidates for a full slate? b) You must have misunderstood me, because it certainly doesn't leave the choice up to the party, except insofar as the party can decide who they select for which ward (and good luck trying to ban that.) Put bluntly, any argument for STV which insists that 'proper STV' is a system that isn't actually used anywhere is a dumb argument. a) It is an electoral system.. It can have any rules that are agreed. I did modify the suggestion to "at least one more candidate than you have councillors" So in the case of Morningside that John07 mentions all four would have to put up two candidates, while the SNP might get a small leg-up by only having to stand one.. (which if it worked would be reversed next time..). b) Yes, it is the fact that the parties select the candidates and the electorate cannot choose between candidates of their own party that I do not like. I advanced a way that would reduce the safeness of seats and the power of the parties somewhat under STV (I agree that the parties would try to "game" any system, but really useless councillors would soon be out if there was choice..) You must have misunderstood me: The STV used in Scottish local elections is infinitely preferable to the FPTP used in English Councils. Four safe seats for four different parties (as in Morningside) is much better than the 3 safe seats per ward for one party that we see in most English Mets. However more councillors per ward than the 3 seen in most Scottish wards (as in the 5 per ward in the NI Assembly) would give more choice and be more proportional. a. That is still incredibly easy to game. Defections are a thing. b. If you've got a collection of single-member wards, and the closest losers are first in line for top-up seats, the electorate have a choice. If you object to this, because some wards have more natural support for a given party than another and it's not fair that parties should select their favoured candidates for their favoured seats, you disagree with the concept of political parties in general. This is a fair enough position, but frankly it's not a tenable one, given that relatively few people want to run an entire election campaign entirely on their lonesome. c. I don't think I've misunderstood you at all. I just disagree. Safe seats are safe seats. They are not more justifiable just because they ensure a council is permanently hung. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 14, 2017 19:03:50 GMT
a) It is an electoral system.. It can have any rules that are agreed. I did modify the suggestion to "at least one more candidate than you have councillors" So in the case of Morningside that John07 mentions all four would have to put up two candidates, while the SNP might get a small leg-up by only having to stand one.. (which if it worked would be reversed next time..). b) Yes, it is the fact that the parties select the candidates and the electorate cannot choose between candidates of their own party that I do not like. I advanced a way that would reduce the safeness of seats and the power of the parties somewhat under STV (I agree that the parties would try to "game" any system, but really useless councillors would soon be out if there was choice..) You must have misunderstood me: The STV used in Scottish local elections is infinitely preferable to the FPTP used in English Councils. Four safe seats for four different parties (as in Morningside) is much better than the 3 safe seats per ward for one party that we see in most English Mets. However more councillors per ward than the 3 seen in most Scottish wards (as in the 5 per ward in the NI Assembly) would give more choice and be more proportional. a. That is still incredibly easy to game. Defections are a thing. b. If you've got a collection of single-member wards, and the closest losers are first in line for top-up seats, the electorate have a choice. If you object to this, because some wards have more natural support for a given party than another and it's not fair that parties should select their favoured candidates for their favoured seats, you disagree with the concept of political parties in general. This is a fair enough position, but frankly it's not a tenable one, given that relatively few people want to run an entire election campaign entirely on their lonesome. c. I don't think I've misunderstood you at all. I just disagree. Safe seats are safe seats. They are not more justifiable just because they ensure a council is permanently hung. They are much more justifiable when between them they represent the vast majority of the electorate. It is nothing to do with hung councils. If the majority of the electorate want a particular party to govern alone, then STV will deliver that |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 14, 2017 22:39:07 GMT
Shevington with Lower Ground turnout 18.7%.
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Dec 14, 2017 22:45:15 GMT
Shevington with Lower Ground turnout 18.7%. Some 1,700 votes |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,309
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Dec 14, 2017 22:46:53 GMT
Seems Prem Goyal won the Aldermanic election in the City.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,309
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Dec 14, 2017 22:47:36 GMT
11.76% turnout in Langworthy, Salford.
EDIT: Should be around 1050 votes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 22:56:31 GMT
11.76% turnout in Langworthy, Salford. EDIT: Should be around 1050 votes. Any result yet? |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,309
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Dec 14, 2017 22:57:41 GMT
11.76% turnout in Langworthy, Salford. EDIT: Should be around 1050 votes. Any result yet? Lab HOLD |
|
andrea
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7,773
|
Post by andrea on Dec 14, 2017 22:59:06 GMT
Langworthy
Lab 601
Con 183
LD 125
Greens 72
Ind 55
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 14, 2017 23:01:39 GMT
Newcastle-under-Lyme turnouts:
Bradwell 16.6%
Newchapel 18.35%
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,309
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Dec 14, 2017 23:02:06 GMT
Langworthy, Salford:
Lab 601 (58.0%; +8,9)
Con 183 (17.7%; +11.2)
LD 125 (12.1%)
Grn 72 (6.9%; +0.9)
Ind 55 (5.3%)
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Dec 14, 2017 23:03:03 GMT
Newcastle-under-Lyme turnouts: Bradwell 16.6% Newchapel 18.35% Around 780 votes in Bradwell and almost exactly 500 in Newchapel |
|
andrea
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7,773
|
Post by andrea on Dec 14, 2017 23:04:12 GMT
Barnsley’s Rockingham is a Labour hold according to John Healey's twitter
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,309
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Dec 14, 2017 23:07:28 GMT
Labour HOLD in Shevington with Lower Ground, Wigan.
552 for Shevington Inds, 492 for Con, 30 for Grn, 15 for LD, ?? for Labour, according to someone.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Dec 14, 2017 23:09:27 GMT
Labour HOLD in Shevington with Lower Ground, Wigan. 552 for Shevington Inds, 492 for Con, 30 for Grn, 15 for LD, ?? for Labour, according to someone. 765 for Labour according to Wigan council. EDIT: Wigan council also have the Conservative vote at 402 rather than 492. |
|
