|
|
Post by stb12 on Jun 29, 2022 20:43:28 GMT
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 10,478
Member is Online
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jun 30, 2022 9:08:33 GMT
They're not exactly sounding repentant, are they? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 33,327
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 30, 2022 11:15:32 GMT
Must admit, not voting to put yourselves in office when you have a chance to do so would be frowned upon by most parties.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 30, 2022 13:08:26 GMT
Must admit, not voting to put yourselves in office when you have a chance to do so would be frowned upon by most parties. Is this linked to the official stance of coalitions not being allowed - it does appear to be a very small number of councillors to be able to form an effective minority administration? |
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jun 30, 2022 19:44:00 GMT
Must admit, not voting to put yourselves in office when you have a chance to do so would be frowned upon by most parties. Is this linked to the official stance of coalitions not being allowed - it does appear to be a very small number of councillors to be able to form an effective minority administration? Basically the previous SNP Labour administration was unable to be continued due to the no coalition rule from Sarwar so Edinburgh Labour started trying to form a minority administration. The SNP weren’t interested in anything that didn’t give them the leadership, fair enough since they’re the largest party but with no majority Labour looked elsewhere and were able to get enough other parties to vote them in. I agree it’s a bit of a narrow number and there’s a very good chance the administration won’t last long once defections, fall outs, by-elections etc kick in. But under the system where no party won a majority it’s perfectly legitimate, the SNP failed to get enough councillors on board to back them instead it’s the way a PR system can work The objection of the two councillors here seems to be that in return for the Tories’ backing they were given deputy leadership of a couple of non-political committees or something along those lines. I don’t understand party tribalism at the best of times but it would be one thing if it involved putting the Tories into leadership positions in the administration or major policy concessions, not backing your own party to get into power because of a couple of inconsequential jobs just seems like seriously pointless virtue signalling |
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jun 30, 2022 19:45:12 GMT
They're not exactly sounding repentant, are they? They'll be independents or maybe even defected to the SNP or greens by the end of this council term |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 24,459
|
Post by neilm on Jul 1, 2022 10:09:37 GMT
Is this linked to the official stance of coalitions not being allowed - it does appear to be a very small number of councillors to be able to form an effective minority administration? Basically the previous SNP Labour administration was unable to be continued due to the no coalition rule from Sarwar so Edinburgh Labour started trying to form a minority administration. The SNP weren’t interested in anything that didn’t give them the leadership, fair enough since they’re the largest party but with no majority Labour looked elsewhere and were able to get enough other parties to vote them in. I agree it’s a bit of a narrow number and there’s a very good chance the administration won’t last long once defections, fall outs, by-elections etc kick in. But under the system where no party won a majority it’s perfectly legitimate, the SNP failed to get enough councillors on board to back them instead it’s the way a PR system can work The objection of the two councillors here seems to be that in return for the Tories’ backing they were given deputy leadership of a couple of non-political committees or something along those lines. I don’t understand party tribalism at the best of times but it would be one thing if it involved putting the Tories into leadership positions in the administration or major policy concessions, not backing your own party to get into power because of a couple of inconsequential jobs just seems like seriously pointless virtue signalling I agree with the rest of your post but, crucially, with only 13 councillors Labour simply may not have enough members to fill the cabinet, and chair planning, licensing (and sub committees) and other supposedly non political quasi judicial committees. Unless they all want to double or treble job. |
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jul 1, 2022 10:13:59 GMT
Basically the previous SNP Labour administration was unable to be continued due to the no coalition rule from Sarwar so Edinburgh Labour started trying to form a minority administration. The SNP weren’t interested in anything that didn’t give them the leadership, fair enough since they’re the largest party but with no majority Labour looked elsewhere and were able to get enough other parties to vote them in. I agree it’s a bit of a narrow number and there’s a very good chance the administration won’t last long once defections, fall outs, by-elections etc kick in. But under the system where no party won a majority it’s perfectly legitimate, the SNP failed to get enough councillors on board to back them instead it’s the way a PR system can work The objection of the two councillors here seems to be that in return for the Tories’ backing they were given deputy leadership of a couple of non-political committees or something along those lines. I don’t understand party tribalism at the best of times but it would be one thing if it involved putting the Tories into leadership positions in the administration or major policy concessions, not backing your own party to get into power because of a couple of inconsequential jobs just seems like seriously pointless virtue signalling I agree with the rest of your post but, crucially, with only 13 councillors Labour simply may not have enough members to fill the cabinet, and chair planning, licensing (and sub committees) and other supposedly non political quasi judicial committees. Unless they all want to double or treble job. That’s a fair point certainly. And as Boogie mentioned the Scottish Tories don’t seem to be especially demanding when it comes to this kind of thing, they’re simply happy to keep the SNP out of power. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 1, 2022 10:17:05 GMT
Basically the previous SNP Labour administration was unable to be continued due to the no coalition rule from Sarwar so Edinburgh Labour started trying to form a minority administration. The SNP weren’t interested in anything that didn’t give them the leadership, fair enough since they’re the largest party but with no majority Labour looked elsewhere and were able to get enough other parties to vote them in. I agree it’s a bit of a narrow number and there’s a very good chance the administration won’t last long once defections, fall outs, by-elections etc kick in. But under the system where no party won a majority it’s perfectly legitimate, the SNP failed to get enough councillors on board to back them instead it’s the way a PR system can work The objection of the two councillors here seems to be that in return for the Tories’ backing they were given deputy leadership of a couple of non-political committees or something along those lines. I don’t understand party tribalism at the best of times but it would be one thing if it involved putting the Tories into leadership positions in the administration or major policy concessions, not backing your own party to get into power because of a couple of inconsequential jobs just seems like seriously pointless virtue signalling I agree with the rest of your post but, crucially, with only 13 councillors Labour simply may not have enough members to fill the cabinet, and chair planning, licensing (and sub committees) and other supposedly non political quasi judicial committees. Unless they all want to double or treble job. Which is why it is so daft to have a no coalition policy under a PR system. Which is designed to have coalitions. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 10,478
Member is Online
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jul 1, 2022 11:23:42 GMT
Part of the issue is not necessarily the details of the deal with the Tories but the way that things were handled.
As I understand it, the majority of the Labour group would have been quite happy to continue the previous arrangement with SNP or explore other coalitions but were not allowed to.
Then the local leadership promised the group that under no circumstances would the Conservatives be offered anything for their support, before going back a couple of days later to say "Well, actually...
I don't think these 2 were the only 2 unhappy at that, by all reports...
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 24,459
|
Post by neilm on Jul 1, 2022 12:10:43 GMT
I agree with the rest of your post but, crucially, with only 13 councillors Labour simply may not have enough members to fill the cabinet, and chair planning, licensing (and sub committees) and other supposedly non political quasi judicial committees. Unless they all want to double or treble job. Which is why it is so daft to have a no coalition policy under a PR system. Which is designed to have coalitions. A system was which introduced by... ...Scottish Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jul 1, 2022 12:27:17 GMT
Which is why it is so daft to have a no coalition policy under a PR system. Which is designed to have coalitions. A system was which introduced by... ...Scottish Labour. Quite reluctantly to be fair, it was a hard fought concession won by the Scottish Lib Dems in negotiations for the second coalition between them after the 2003 Scottish Parliament election. There was a lot of displeasure from Scottish Labour local government figures at the time because they were still very dominant on most councils back then and introducing PR was basically giving some of that way |
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jul 1, 2022 12:29:59 GMT
Part of the issue is not necessarily the details of the deal with the Tories but the way that things were handled. As I understand it, the majority of the Labour group would have been quite happy to continue the previous arrangement with SNP or explore other coalitions but were not allowed to. Then the local leadership promised the group that under no circumstances would the Conservatives be offered anything for their support, before going back a couple of days later to say "Well, actually... I don't think these 2 were the only 2 unhappy at that, by all reports... The coalition ban is an issue to be unhappy with the national party leadership about though. Surely they'd still be happier with the local leadership trying to get a Labour lead administration or would they have preferred to just leave it to the SNP to form a minority? |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 12, 2022 23:16:57 GMT
This affair in Edinburgh has been brought to my attention by a clip of the MP from Mitcham I think, saying Labour are so adamant they won't do a deal with the Tories they suspended two councillors for not voting with the Tories to get the SNP out.
I get she's trying to make the point about no SNP coalition with a hyperbole. However, isn't this argument no different from the one that led to councillors to being suspended for voting with the Tories. Just different faces saying the same thing
|
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jul 13, 2022 7:43:22 GMT
This affair in Edinburgh has been brought to my attention by a clip of the MP from Mitcham I think, saying Labour are so adamant they won't do a deal with the Tories they suspended two councillors for not voting with the Tories to get the SNP out. I get she's trying to make the point about no SNP coalition with a hyperbole. However, isn't this argument no different from the one that led to councillors to being suspended for voting with the Tories. Just different faces saying the same thing Do you mean with the SNP? The don’t think the Edinburgh Labour issue was so much about getting the SNP out more that they agreed a deal to lead the administration since continuing the previous coalition wasn’t possible, and as said above voting to not put your party into power is clearly going to come with consequences |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 13, 2022 9:26:05 GMT
This affair in Edinburgh has been brought to my attention by a clip of the MP from Mitcham I think, saying Labour are so adamant they won't do a deal with the Tories they suspended two councillors for not voting with the Tories to get the SNP out. I get she's trying to make the point about no SNP coalition with a hyperbole. However, isn't this argument no different from the one that led to councillors to being suspended for voting with the Tories. Just different faces saying the same thing Do you mean with the SNP? The don’t think the Edinburgh Labour issue was so much about getting the SNP out more that they agreed a deal to lead the administration since continuing the previous coalition wasn’t possible, and as said above voting to not put your party into power is clearly going to come with consequences yes sorry Clip here: The argument here isn't about the responsibility of those councillors. We know that there are nuances to decisions made in local government. But this has been turned into a point about not doing deals with the SNP and the point I was making is that argument is no different from the one that led to the suspension of councillors that did do a deal with the Tories a few years back |
|
peterl
Green
God Save the King!
Posts: 7,264 
Member is Online
|
Post by peterl on Aug 13, 2022 18:42:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinf on Aug 13, 2022 20:42:04 GMT
Genuine question - is this council becoming completely dysfunctional? And what if it is ‘hung’ again at next year’s elections? You know more about it than most on here Peter… |
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Aug 13, 2022 20:44:39 GMT
This is very strange: "It was understood the move earlier this year related to Cllr Stribley not seeking the approval of the BCP Conservative Group to propose a motion to express support for the people of Ukraine at a full council meeting." Even if she moved without approval, it's an uncontroversial motion. Seems like a similar power trip to the decision to sack Sam Tarry earlier this year over a minor infringements. |
|
finsobruce
Labour
Everyone ought to go careful in a city like this.
Posts: 39,786
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 13, 2022 20:52:02 GMT
This is very strange: "It was understood the move earlier this year related to Cllr Stribley not seeking the approval of the BCP Conservative Group to propose a motion to express support for the people of Ukraine at a full council meeting." Even if she moved without approval, it's an uncontroversial motion. Seems like a similar power trip to the decision to sack Sam Tarry earlier this year over a minor infringements.
She has been a councillor since 1977 and this story from 2018 may give you a better idea of what is being played out:
|
|
