|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 15, 2013 16:35:25 GMT
The amount of acrimony that is happening with both the conservatives and labour in london over deselections prior to 2014 perhaps shows why the all-outs system does not benefit either party. With the thirds system, you get the odd deselection here and there but nothing that causes arguments like those that are going on in certain london boroughs for both parties. Would it be erasonable to assume that the level of councillors' allowances in London councils plays some part in this? In Worthing, where a basic allowance is about £4.5k, it's not much to get worked up about - if it's into 5 figures, though, I can imagine that after four years, staying on in any form might appear preferable to losing that. That makes some sense, but doesn't explain why the same sort of arguments don't seem to crop up quite as often/badly in the Mets, many of which have higher allowances than the London Boroughs. I'm trying to think of possible reasons for the difference 1) It does happen just as much in the Mets. But because it only affects a third of the councillors in any one year, it's not as obvious 2) Deselections are more likely in all-outs than they are by thirds 3) There's a different local party culture in the Mets than in London (meaning either deselections are rarer, but not because of the electoral system, or that Met councillors are less likely to kick up a fuss if deselected). There are probably a few other plausible explanations, but these are the ones that came to mind. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,729 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 15, 2013 17:15:04 GMT
James - What you are saying is that for County or Unitary Councillors, allowances are something people can become dependent on, whereas for District Councillors they are not. Well, being alive does cost money, and many councillors on a Unitary Authority (or sitting on both tiers of a two-tier authority) don't have time to do another job, what with covering for all the lazy b***rs who have nice comfortable outside jobs that means they don't have time do to any council business. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,381
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 15, 2013 21:59:15 GMT
Intrigued to know what @trident thinks about being placed in the centre with all the LibDems
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,996
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 15, 2013 22:48:53 GMT
Intrigued to know what @trident thinks about being placed in the centre with all the LibDems It's economics only remember Mike. Old Labour Right have always been pragmatic with finance. If we had any raving Blair or Brownites on here they'd probably be around Timrollpickering! |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 15, 2013 23:23:00 GMT
The amount of acrimony that is happening with both the conservatives and labour in london over deselections prior to 2014 perhaps shows why the all-outs system does not benefit either party. With the thirds system, you get the odd deselection here and there but nothing that causes arguments like those that are going on in certain london boroughs for both parties. I know what you mean, but I'm not so sure it's true. While I agree that London should elect in thirds like most places to keep all parties on their toes, there are generally a lot of people who want to be selected (all parties) and this would probably happen even if elections were held in thirds. Witness that councillor in Lewisham who won the recent by election and has already been apparently de-selected. Membership is higher, public scrutiny is higher. It's just a different ball game. For 2014 it will certainly disadvantage the conservatives in London, as those de-selected have previously not really had anywhere to go except the independent route, (which is a much more difficult route to election in london than most other places) but now they have UKIP. Witness the UKIP groups springing up round the capital after another borough's Tory Association(s) go through the process.This happened to a certain extent with Labour to Lib Dem defections before the last election. It would be interesting to look at why some de-selected councillors defect and others don't, even though they must be aggrieved or at least disappointed. |
|
|
|
Post by mrhell on Jul 15, 2013 23:24:01 GMT
Intrigued to know what @trident thinks about being placed in the centre with all the LibDems What about us being stuck with trident  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 16, 2013 7:45:03 GMT
Ah so that's what Nick Harvey was banging on about this morning
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 9:08:48 GMT
Left: SlicesofJim, Merseymike, Jimboo, cibwr, pimpernal, GreenChristian, rlemkin, benjamin, Sibboleth, ,Centre Left: ianrobo, catholicleft, john07, tonyotim, david boothroyd, east anglian lefty, the bishop, JamesDoyle, Tony Greaves, ruralradical, Centre: MarkSenior, Crimson King, trident, HarryHayfield, Mboy, Khanunup, Erland, Tricky,
Centre-Right: Stepney, Jim, cogload, carlton, Fraser, Thirdchill, DocB, Timrollpickering, Gwyn, Swanarcadian, John LoonyRight: Iain, Boogie, MarkGoodair, joe, armchair, Richard Allen, Pete Whitehead, arnietetc, ArthurFiggis
Ok, Slices and Jimboo should be in dark red with Jimboo quite possibly in the centre left. His Socialist credentials are historic tribalism from which he has partially departed. Pimp I would move right, he is not as left wing as he wishes to believe. Other than them, I would agree with you to within a margin of one or two at most. Sibboleth I would perhaps consider moving left but it might just be tribalism. Robo likewise has moved to the right on economic matters in the course of this Forum as his dafter arguments have been exposed even to himself. He remains utterly tribal and still daft but if you are measuring purely on economics I would take him to the right of Johnny7. CL I think you have bang on. DB is hard to place. I think you have placed CK to the left of reality purely on NHS grounds. he is the Forums most successful capitalist. Gwyn I think you may have factored in his Euroscepticism, which is not (or is it?) an economic issue. Dok you may have factored in his tribalism, which is currently softening his anti Conservatism and sharpening his anti Labourism. JohnL is a big government special pleading Tory. You could slide him one to the left. I am very happy to be placed adjacent to Iain but would rather have been flanked other side by Richard. Ignore that, its not relevant. If however you regard support for a free market in the movement of Labour and in the right to build homes on land you own without interference as economic liberalism then I move to the far right. Pete may not be as right wing on economic matters as his impeccable right wingery on libertarian, patriotic and immigration matters suggest. Arthur is about right. I orignally had Sibboleth further to the left (almost certainly too far) and Robo further to the right but was dissuaded by Mr. Whitehead (I can see both sides on this). You were probably the hardest poster of all to place (maybe excepting JohnLoony for obvious reasons) and I could have easily put you further to the right. I thought you were more or less where I am on most issues so just hedged my bets. I think Pete is very right wing in pretty much any sense of the word. Would you like me to slide you to the right? |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,381
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 16, 2013 9:30:33 GMT
You're all correct. I'm currently at a conference related to some educational work I am involved with. So far all I have heard is meaningless corporate garbage.
So much time wasted for so little of any worth or meaning.
Still intrigued to know why I'm placed where I am, given that I hardly ever post on economics
|
|
|
|
Post by Tangent on Jul 16, 2013 11:41:29 GMT
Bloody hell, I thought that my preference campaign against a now-MEP was spiteful. What did Charles do to upset you? It was in the late 90s and was at the height of concerns about us being too close to Labour (which from our mutual time in Lib Dem Youth and Students he always seemed to be close to). I don't have any problems with him now. He may have posted on the previous versions on this forum as "bullseye", as he used to on PB. |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jul 16, 2013 12:08:47 GMT
Intrigued to know what @trident thinks about being placed in the centre with all the LibDems All a bit Stealers Wheel... |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 16, 2013 12:10:23 GMT
Pete['s] impeccable right wingery on libertarian, patriotic and immigration matters |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 12:41:20 GMT
Kudos to Joe - I don't visit this part of the forum much but this is fascinating stuff.
I would agree that I should be on the far right of the Centre-Right, but I would be quite comfortable on the far left of the Right. I'm somewhere in this range. A little shocked about being placed to the left of some of the LibDems members though.
|
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Jul 16, 2013 13:18:14 GMT
In Electoral Reform Society elections, I usually list all candidates in order of preference anyway. Even if I don't, I make a point of putting "666" next to Michael Meadowcroft. Surely that results in you spoiling your ballot paper? As long as there is a valid set of preferences in consecutive ascending order starting with 1 it is valid. so 1-37 then 666 would result in the first 37 being counted. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jul 16, 2013 13:35:39 GMT
I otoh can't understand why children are allowed out of schools at lunchtime to make crap choices with respect to food and tobacco (and don't lets go down the litter and nuisance road) - I never was I wasn't allowed to go out at lunchtime until sixth form. It was either packed lunch or the canteen. Even in sixth form, we were not allowed to go to the chippy. Pasties were banned too, although I think that was because of the smell rather than for health reasons. The main chain of bakeries round Liverpool at the time was called Sayers and their pasties used to smell like really bad body odour when heated. Still going is Sayers, quite a few round Manchester too. Like you we could not go out at lunch until we got to Sixth Form. That's what surprised me about the junk food farrago with Jamie Oliver in Rotherham- why were the kids allowed out and when did fish and chips become any other than a weekend treat? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,838
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 16, 2013 13:52:50 GMT
The school in Rotherham MBC where the parents revolted against healthy meals is actually in Rawmarsh, where UKIP won a council seat off Labour recently. One hesitates to say the two things may be connected......or maybe not  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 15:55:39 GMT
I just returned to live in Lancashire after 12 years and had my first Pudding, Chips and Gravy since then - it was bloody lovely and astoundingly expensive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 16:11:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 16, 2013 18:42:28 GMT
I wasn't allowed to go out at lunchtime until sixth form. It was either packed lunch or the canteen. Even in sixth form, we were not allowed to go to the chippy. Pasties were banned too, although I think that was because of the smell rather than for health reasons. The main chain of bakeries round Liverpool at the time was called Sayers and their pasties used to smell like really bad body odour when heated. Still going is Sayers, quite a few round Manchester too. Like you we could not go out at lunch until we got to Sixth Form. That's what surprised me about the junk food farrago with Jamie Oliver in Rotherham- why were the kids allowed out and when did fish and chips become any other than a weekend treat? I never went out of school at lunchtime. Sayers were never strong in the Manchester area until they took over Hampsons. My sister used to work for them. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 16, 2013 20:37:26 GMT
Interesting to see Arthur's comments on there (bottom of page 2) |
|
