|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jun 25, 2018 16:12:46 GMT
We've touched on this before but this comment by a parish councillor highlights the problem with the current system:
Currently the law is all over the place - Westminster candidates have the option to hide their address with "Address in the [SOMEWHERE] constituency" or "Address in [FOREIGN COUNTRY]" on both the ballot papers & SOPNs, London Mayor & Assembly candidates don't get their addresses at all on ballot papers IIRC but are shown on the SOPNs, council candidates have them shown on both and I don't know about the devolved parliaments.
Surely it's time the law was regularised on this. Why do we require people to make themselves so vulnerable in order to stand?
|
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Jun 25, 2018 16:44:23 GMT
Poll added.
|
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Jun 25, 2018 16:50:10 GMT
Exactly how and why did the practice of publishing candidates' addresses come about in the first place?
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Jun 25, 2018 17:03:59 GMT
Sometimes it's legitimate, arguably. Once when I worked for the Co-op a quite well-known London councillor arranged a funeral in the north east, but than failed to pay for it. We knew she was a councillor, so I naturally consulted the council's website to find out where she lived. Like many others, however, her address was given a c/o the Town Hall. Eventually, I got hold of the SOPN, which did give her address. Don't know whether she eventually paid up! She is now deceased.
|
|
|
|
Post by catking on Jun 26, 2018 9:45:53 GMT
If the rule was extended to council elections, then it should state the ward where they live, not the constituency. Or as a compromise, part of the address could be published not showing house number and street but just the town and post code district.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,468
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 26, 2018 10:21:56 GMT
If the rule was extended to council elections, then it should state the ward where they live, not the constituency. Or as a compromise, part of the address could be published not showing house number and street but just the town and post code district. Yes, seems reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 26, 2018 11:28:48 GMT
We've touched on this before but this comment by a parish councillor highlights the problem with the current system: Currently the law is all over the place - Westminster candidates have the option to hide their address with "Address in the [SOMEWHERE] constituency" or "Address in [FOREIGN COUNTRY]" on both the ballot papers & SOPNs, London Mayor & Assembly candidates don't get their addresses at all on ballot papers IIRC but are shown on the SOPNs, council candidates have them shown on both and I don't know about the devolved parliaments. Surely it's time the law was regularised on this. Why do we require people to make themselves so vulnerable in order to stand? Difficult. I stood in 8 elections for either council or Parliament between 1980 and 2005 and had my address on the ballot paper each time. I was occasionally told that knowing that I lived in a particular area was helpful in determining a vote. I also put my address on numerous newsletters (as presumably many active councillors still do). I can appreciate that the information may be misused, but have times changed so much? Is it anyway the main way in which someone intent on harassment accesses an address? There are pretty easy web tools. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 26, 2018 15:06:56 GMT
I have voted for keeping the address as particularly in local elections it is an important piece of information and I am suspicious of the willingness to commit to the job of any candidate seeking to withhold the information. I do understand that these days sadly there can be abuse of that information, so would be happy with a compromise eg postcode only.
|
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Jun 26, 2018 17:10:32 GMT
One interesting effect of changing the rules might be an increase in the number of candidates. It must take a lot of guts to put your name forward for public election, knowing that people can be as abusive towards you as they like and will suddenly have the right to know exactly where you live.
The other thing about this is that it indirectly promotes the importance of being local. Not everyone thinks this is a primary consideration. My father, for instance, has said that to have lived in one area your entire life isn't necessarily the be all and end all - it can be indicative of having limited experience of life. Travel broadens the mind, so they say.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,504
|
Post by Khunanup on Jun 26, 2018 17:36:25 GMT
Full address, no compromise.
It is ludicrous that parliamentary candidates have the opportunity to hide their address and it creates an utter double standard. Politicians are public servants, representatives of their electorate and people have a right to know in which community they live in and how they are going to be able to represent them. It's about open and transparent politics ultimately.
That being said, resources do need to be made available to the authorities to take seriously occasions when people abuse that information and come down like a ton of bricks on those who are harassed etc. as a result of that information being available.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 26, 2018 17:41:23 GMT
Full address, no compromise. Says a man posting using a pseudonym. Hypocrisy thy name is Liberal Democrat. |
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Jun 26, 2018 17:49:17 GMT
A common feature of election literature is for candidates to say how local they are, whether they are born and bred in one area, whether they have lived in the area for a certain number of years, or maybe have had experience in different parts of the country.
In my opinion, it is for the candidates to give as much away as they choose as to the locality in which they live, and it is for the electorate to attach as much importance to this as they choose when they consider who they might vote for.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,504
|
Post by Khunanup on Jun 26, 2018 19:11:15 GMT
Full address, no compromise. Says a man posting using a pseudonym. Hypocrisy thy name is Liberal Democrat. Every time I have put myself before the electorate I have had my full name and address on the SOPN & ballot paper even on the two occasions when I had the option of obscuring my address. Just for relevant clarity like. |
|
|
|
Post by offshore on Jun 26, 2018 19:33:52 GMT
Full address, no compromise. Says a man posting using a pseudonym. Hypocrisy thy name is Liberal Democrat. Yes, nobody else posting on this forum under a pseudonym (nickname) has stood for election for any party. And definitely not Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 26, 2018 20:10:39 GMT
Full address, no compromise. Says a man posting using a pseudonym. Hypocrisy thy name is Liberal Democrat. Please don't bring your falling out on another thread onto this thread please. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Jun 27, 2018 7:23:06 GMT
Surely postcode area (e.g. M28) or ward name where they live would be a sufficient compromise on this issue. Shows the area where the candidate lives but does not give their exact address.
If candidates wish to put their full address, then fine but that should be optional. And personally I would opt out of that. It only takes one or two nutters with weapons to cause a very serious incident.
Plus I share a house with my partner and should not have to consider the risk to anyone who lives with me when standing for election. And I was sufficiently concerned about that risk to have second thoughts on whether to stand at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 8:31:34 GMT
Plus I share a house with my partner and should not have to consider the risk to anyone who lives with me when standing for election. And I was sufficiently concerned about that risk to have second thoughts on whether to stand at all. This is essentially one of my key concerns with the current rules as well. I think it's reasonable for other occupants of an address to oppose it appearing on the ballot paper (even if they have no legal standing to stop it), and that must put off a few people. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jun 27, 2018 12:54:25 GMT
Surely postcode area (e.g. M28) or ward name where they live would be a sufficient compromise on this issue. Shows the area where the candidate lives but does not give their exact address. If candidates wish to put their full address, then fine but that should be optional. And personally I would opt out of that. It only takes one or two nutters with weapons to cause a very serious incident. Plus I share a house with my partner and should not have to consider the risk to anyone who lives with me when standing for election. And I was sufficiently concerned about that risk to have second thoughts on whether to stand at all. It's not just those of that address though. Here we have a lot of houses split into separate flats, very close properties, flat blocks and so forth, and a lot of people really don't know their neighbours. Experienced canvassers sometimes have massive problems determining which property is a particular address - do we trust "nutters with weapons" to be even better at it? |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 27, 2018 13:23:13 GMT
I really feel if the world has become that dangerous then a lot of people would indeed be put off standing for office. When elected, would you hold surgeries (that to my knowledge carries the biggest risk of encountering "nutters with weapons")? Would you even dare to go out canvassing and actually encounter real people, after all you might meet a nutter or two there? I have seen councillors physically attacked by nutters while actually addressing council - (usually members of the public, though fellow councillors not unknown)- better stay away from council, or at least sit mum and not attract attention to yourself. Where does this stop?
Or are we just exaggerating a risk just a tiny bit? I take the point about collateral damage involving your loved ones, but even so......
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,966 
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jun 27, 2018 14:14:09 GMT
Slightly off-topic but not too remote, I hope ...
When I made my submissions to the boundary review I expected to have to give the BCE my name and home address but I was slightly surprised that my full particulars would be published on the site for all to see.
When I attended one of the local hearings (Romford) to present my proposals, I again had to give my full home address publicly to the meeting. This didn't particularly bother me but I could see that some of the other participants - ordinary members of the public, not councillors or party represtatives - were very uncomfortable about it.
That said, no one has written to me at home about my proposals, and no one has put a brick through my window (yet).
My view is that times have changed, and for a variety of reasons people are much more sensitive than they used to be about putting their personal details in the public domain - hence the disappearance of the telephone directories and street directories that used to be such a familiar feature of everyday life (and does anyone else remember when electoral registers were simply left lying about in public libraries and post offices for anyone to take a look at?).
So my suggestion would be that election candidates (and persons submitting to the BCE) should have their home addresses published only down to ward level (or perhaps only the outward part of the postcode).
|
|
