Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2019 21:14:48 GMT
Is that a joke? Changing the voting system would be a fundamental change to the current democracy deficit but it wouldn't solve it in one fell swoop. The lack of democracy in this country needs more than a change in the voting system
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 26, 2019 8:01:29 GMT
Is that a joke? Changing the voting system would be a fundamental change to the current democracy deficit but it wouldn't solve it in one fell swoop. The lack of democracy in this country needs more than a change in the voting system Could be we use a different definition of where the "democracy" part of the problem starts and ends. There are many problems with local government in this country that would not be solved by PR, but the democratic deficit is a structural problem that would be solved by it (or at least by STV in good sized wards). There would still need to be a lot of effort to get people to engage properly, but at least they would have the opportunity to be properly represented. It is ridiculous that next year all the councillors in Hallam may be Lib Dem with the views of Labour, Green and Tory voters not represented (and indeed nationalists). With no chance of an overall majority Parties would have to learn to work together. That might be the hardest problem...
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 26, 2019 8:47:11 GMT
I simply don't think that STV would help. Its major problem is its ability to promote pork-barrelling and winning votesp by populist promises. By all means look at ways to ensure one party states don't emerge but not STV or any other preference system voting.
I'm also unconvinced about "parties working together". They are under no obligation to do so, and personally I would prefer to stay in opposition than enter coalitions which would not work. In Sefton we had a hung council for years. Under the cabinet system all parties were on the cabinet. It was ludicrous. Essentially the cabinet members tried to implement their ideas as it was impissibke to find agreement between the parties. What actually happened was that the political leadership of the council was a charade, it happened, but the reality was that officers made the decisions and controlled everything that went on.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 26, 2019 9:54:35 GMT
I simply don't think that STV would help. Its major problem is its ability to promote pork-barrelling and winning votesp by populist promises. By all means look at ways to ensure one party states don't emerge but not STV or any other preference system voting. I'm also unconvinced about "parties working together". They are under no obligation to do so, and personally I would prefer to stay in opposition than enter coalitions which would not work. In Sefton we had a hung council for years. Under the cabinet system all parties were on the cabinet. It was ludicrous. Essentially the cabinet members tried to implement their ideas as it was impissibke to find agreement between the parties. What actually happened was that the political leadership of the council was a charade, it happened, but the reality was that officers made the decisions and controlled everything that went on. 'Pork barrelling' can quite easily happen under majority systems, it isn't a feature of PR per se. The purpose of STV would simply be to break up one party states. It has done this in Scotland, but against expectations there are also one party administrations if a party can command widespread support. Some parties still can't get elected.
Parties work together when they have to but it doesn't have to involve all parties. And when NOC councils started to become more common in the 80s and 90s it was generally used to depose long standing Tory administrations particularly in the shires. Witness the "Cheshire agreement". Any form of PR in local government would inevitably lead to joint administrations/ multi party agreements, so there's no getting away from that I'm afraid.
And again officers are quite capable of making decisions and controlling everything under one party rule. Just depends on the strength and depth of political leadership.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 26, 2019 10:18:08 GMT
I simply don't think that STV would help. Its major problem is its ability to promote pork-barrelling and winning votesp by populist promises. By all means look at ways to ensure one party states don't emerge but not STV or any other preference system voting. I'm also unconvinced about "parties working together". They are under no obligation to do so, and personally I would prefer to stay in opposition than enter coalitions which would not work. In Sefton we had a hung council for years. Under the cabinet system all parties were on the cabinet. It was ludicrous. Essentially the cabinet members tried to implement their ideas as it was impissibke to find agreement between the parties. What actually happened was that the political leadership of the council was a charade, it happened, but the reality was that officers made the decisions and controlled everything that went on. I dont agree re pork barrelling at all. That is what happens when a majority Party seeks to keep control under FPTP. Much more difficult under NOC and under STV things would be more stable (other than the safe one party fiefdoms) at a ward level anyway, without the tipping points of FPTP I can't comment on Sefton council but I suspect there are other views out there.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 26, 2019 10:28:28 GMT
I simply don't think that STV would help. Its major problem is its ability to promote pork-barrelling and winning votesp by populist promises. By all means look at ways to ensure one party states don't emerge but not STV or any other preference system voting. I'm also unconvinced about "parties working together". They are under no obligation to do so, and personally I would prefer to stay in opposition than enter coalitions which would not work. In Sefton we had a hung council for years. Under the cabinet system all parties were on the cabinet. It was ludicrous. Essentially the cabinet members tried to implement their ideas as it was impissibke to find agreement between the parties. What actually happened was that the political leadership of the council was a charade, it happened, but the reality was that officers made the decisions and controlled everything that went on. 'Pork barrelling' can quite easily happen under majority systems, it isn't a feature of PR per se. The purpose of STV would simply be to break up one party states. It has done this in Scotland, but against expectations there are also one party administrations if a party can command widespread support. Some parties still can't get elected.
In Scotland the seats are often 3 member which is too small to give full representation, and unfortunately encourages Parties not to offer a real choice of candidates. Still much better than FPTP imo. Under any electoral system if one Party can succeed in commanding more than 50% of the votes, then they should get majority control.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 26, 2019 11:19:40 GMT
I simply don't think that STV would help. Its major problem is its ability to promote pork-barrelling and winning votesp by populist promises. By all means look at ways to ensure one party states don't emerge but not STV or any other preference system voting. I'm also unconvinced about "parties working together". They are under no obligation to do so, and personally I would prefer to stay in opposition than enter coalitions which would not work. In Sefton we had a hung council for years. Under the cabinet system all parties were on the cabinet. It was ludicrous. Essentially the cabinet members tried to implement their ideas as it was impissibke to find agreement between the parties. What actually happened was that the political leadership of the council was a charade, it happened, but the reality was that officers made the decisions and controlled everything that went on. I dont agree re pork barrelling at all. That is what happens when a majority Party seeks to keep control under FPTP. Much more difficult under NOC and under STV things would be more stable (other than the safe one party fiefdoms) at a ward level anyway, without the tipping points of FPTP I can't comment on Sefton council but I suspect there are other views out there. Ireland is the classic example of pork barrelling. But I'm just against any preference voting system. I don't think any credit should be given for being everyone's second favourite, which is why LibDems prefer it. They aren't my second favourite....
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 26, 2019 11:44:27 GMT
I dont agree re pork barrelling at all. That is what happens when a majority Party seeks to keep control under FPTP. Much more difficult under NOC and under STV things would be more stable (other than the safe one party fiefdoms) at a ward level anyway, without the tipping points of FPTP I can't comment on Sefton council but I suspect there are other views out there. Ireland is the classic example of pork barrelling. America is by far the classic example of pork barrel politics. It has also been common im the UK in marginal seats (for example building the new hospital in Halifax not Huddersfield in the 90's, or at least that is the opinion in Huddersfield..) No doubt it occurs in Ireland too, but the idea that it is a special feature of STV is pretty spurious
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 26, 2019 11:53:08 GMT
I dont agree re pork barrelling at all. That is what happens when a majority Party seeks to keep control under FPTP. Much more difficult under NOC and under STV things would be more stable (other than the safe one party fiefdoms) at a ward level anyway, without the tipping points of FPTP I can't comment on Sefton council but I suspect there are other views out there. Ireland is the classic example of pork barrelling. But I'm just against any preference voting system. I don't think any credit should be given for being everyone's second favourite, which is why LibDems prefer it. They aren't my second favourite.... Who knows what would happen if we had PR? Maybe we would discover what people really want instead of the distorted view of what people want least which we get under FPTP.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 26, 2019 11:53:20 GMT
Ireland is the classic example of pork barrelling. America is by far the classic example of pork barrel politics. It has also been common im the UK in marginal seats (for example building the new hospital in Halifax not Huddersfield in the 90's, or at least that is the opinion in Huddersfield..) No doubt it occurs in Ireland too, but the idea that it is a special feature of STV is pretty spurious i would have thought that pork barrelling is a feature of political cultures rather than electoral systems. And political corruption of one sort or another exists everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 26, 2019 12:19:55 GMT
Ireland is the classic example of pork barrelling. But I'm just against any preference voting system. I don't think any credit should be given for being everyone's second favourite, which is why LibDems prefer it. They aren't my second favourite.... Who knows what would happen if we had PR? Maybe we would discover what people really want instead of the distorted view of what people want least which we get under FPTP. I am in favour of electoral reform. But not preference systems and particularly not STV
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 26, 2019 12:57:26 GMT
Who knows what would happen if we had PR? Maybe we would discover what people really want instead of the distorted view of what people want least which we get under FPTP. I am in favour of electoral reform. But not preference systems and particularly not STV Yes, I know. I have been a member of the Electoral Reform Society for about 40 years so it is unlikely we are ever going to agree on this!
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on Aug 27, 2019 12:44:04 GMT
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 27, 2019 12:51:11 GMT
IIRC they said at the time of his arrest they’d received written confirmation of his intention to resign his seat in early September.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 27, 2019 12:55:55 GMT
No press release of any appointment yet (it's the Chiltern Hundreds turn).
Unlike councillor resignation letters, I don't think there's any rule preventing an MP asking to be appointed to a Stewardship on a specific future date.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 27, 2019 13:00:14 GMT
No press release of any appointment yet (it's the Chiltern Hundreds turn). Unlike councillor resignation letters, I don't think there's any rule preventing an MP asking to be appointed to a Stewardship on a specific future date. Again going back to O’Mara’s original statement, and the Treasury comment last week, it ranges from “after the Summer Recess” (O’Mara) to “early September” (Treasury), so maybe a week today as first day back ticks both boxes?
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,129
|
Post by maxque on Aug 27, 2019 13:18:41 GMT
No press release of any appointment yet (it's the Chiltern Hundreds turn). Unlike councillor resignation letters, I don't think there's any rule preventing an MP asking to be appointed to a Stewardship on a specific future date. Didn't a judge ruled against your interpretation of the latter?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 27, 2019 13:38:17 GMT
No press release of any appointment yet (it's the Chiltern Hundreds turn). Unlike councillor resignation letters, I don't think there's any rule preventing an MP asking to be appointed to a Stewardship on a specific future date. Didn't a judge ruled against your interpretation of the latter? I don't think so. The case I think you have in mind is that of Steve Jones, of Bryn ward on Wigan borough council, who sent in a letter to the Chief Executive on 5 January stating that he was to resign his seat on a specified date. The council decided that his resignation was effective immediately and called a byelection; Jones obtained a High Court judgment that he had never resigned. The best explanation of the ruling is here. Jones had written that "as of the 20th of February 2018 I will be resigning". Jones argued that was simply an advance warning that the council would receive his formal resignation on that date. If, however, he had written "I would like to resign my seat, taking effect on the 20th of February 2018" then the latter half would correctly have been ignored and the seat declared vacant immediately. See: towncouncillor.com/4381/can-parish-councillor-give-notice-of-resignation-the-future
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Aug 27, 2019 14:04:58 GMT
Am I correct in thinking that to ‘resign’ via the Chilten Hundreds/Stewrd of Northstend the process can only take place when Parliament is sitting?
Therefore that’s why he needs to wait until next week.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 27, 2019 14:07:53 GMT
Am I correct in thinking that to ‘resign’ via the Chilten Hundreds/Stewrd of Northstend the process can only take place when Parliament is sitting? Therefore that’s why he needs to wait until next week. He could be appointed to a Stewardship on any date, but the byelection can only be called when Parliament is sitting.
|
|