timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823 
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jul 26, 2021 8:35:07 GMT
Isn't that where all the problems began? With no formal opposition, Labour became its own informal opposition, and splits emerged in the group, and that opened the way to the rise of the City Independents etc? Perhaps someone who knows more about Stoke politics could comment on whether that is broadly true as a summary I think it’s maybe slightly more nuanced than that: there were splits caused by the introduction of Elected Mayors - although opposed in the Group there was disagreement whether to hold a referendum and get it done with, ultimately they narrowly voted not to hold one and pro-Mayoral campaigners found a willing ally in The Sentinel to argue “Labour’s denying you your voice”. There was also a lot of egos in the 60, combined with a schism between some in leadership who were never on the Blair bandwagon and found it easier to blame their problems on national government (I recall the Group overwhelmingly voting to write to Blair warning him that he was “certain” to lose 2001 because of his policies) and a number of the fringe groups were Old Labour leadership walking away from the Party when they lost a policy argument. A more genuine problem was Blair/Brown’s free market policies which allowed the last of the pottery industry to be sold and production outsourced to Far East Asia (Malaysia specifically). Finally there was a huge complacency around elections (much to my frustration as an Agent) - I had an argument with one councillor that two thirds of the Chamber having qualified for 20 years long service badges wasn’t something to be proud of - and actually the door was initially opened to the BNP who kept their national policies under wraps and focussed on community organising and working (they even ran a dog walking service for the elderly), the City Independents etc filled a void of an acceptable recepticle for a non-Labour vote; I guess with the benefit of hindsight this was also the first manifestation of the mood that would lead to a 68% Leave vote in 2016. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jul 26, 2021 10:53:16 GMT
Re. Referenda for Mayors, Leeds and many other cities held them and the idea of an elected Mayor was mostly roundly rejected. But those were referenda whose results could be totally ignored by the Tories..
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,098
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 26, 2021 11:05:08 GMT
That's misrepresenting it somewhat.
The referenda were on moving councils to the executive mayor model from the cabinet system. It included no new powers or money, and only applied to the city itself rather than including surrounding districts.
The metro mayors that have since been created are a completely different type of role, and a far more sensible and meaningful one in my opinion.
You can certainly argue that there wasn't explicit democratic consent for the metro mayors to be created, but it's wrong to suggest it contravenes the democratic mandate for not moving to executive mayors for city councils.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Jul 26, 2021 19:54:34 GMT
That's misrepresenting it somewhat. The referenda were on moving councils to the executive mayor model from the cabinet system. It included no new powers or money, and only applied to the city itself rather than including surrounding districts. The metro mayors that have since been created are a completely different type of role, and a far more sensible and meaningful one in my opinion. You can certainly argue that there wasn't explicit democratic consent for the metro mayors to be created, but it's wrong to suggest it contravenes the democratic mandate for not moving to executive mayors for city councils. No. Just no. |
|
Toylyyev
Mebyon Kernow
CJ Fox avatar
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by Toylyyev on Jul 26, 2021 20:18:26 GMT
That's misrepresenting it somewhat. The referenda were on moving councils to the executive mayor model from the cabinet system. It included no new powers or money, and only applied to the city itself rather than including surrounding districts. The metro mayors that have since been created are a completely different type of role, and a far more sensible and meaningful one in my opinion. You can certainly argue that there wasn't explicit democratic consent for the metro mayors to be created, but it's wrong to suggest it contravenes the democratic mandate for not moving to executive mayors for city councils. No. Just no. Sensory information is subject to focus. (figuratively for the senses other than eyesight) The first part of the call is hence wrong for at least the literal meaning of the word sensible as long as one remains within that realm. May look like nit-picking, but helps me understand why people take the views that they do. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Jul 26, 2021 20:45:24 GMT
Sensory information is subject to focus. (figuratively for the senses other than eyesight) The first part of the call is hence wrong for at least the literal meaning of the word sensible as long as one remains within that realm. May look like nit-picking, but helps me understand why people take the views that they do. You're right. I'll grant that combined authorities are 'meaningful' in that they unlock funding which central government has decided would not otherwise be available. The 'directly elected executive "mayor"' part of the arrangement is definitely far from sensible though. |
|
Toylyyev
Mebyon Kernow
CJ Fox avatar
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by Toylyyev on Jul 26, 2021 20:56:50 GMT
Sensory information is subject to focus. (figuratively for the senses other than eyesight) The first part of the call is hence wrong for at least the literal meaning of the word sensible as long as one remains within that realm. May look like nit-picking, but helps me understand why people take the views that they do. You're right. I'll grant that combined authorities are 'meaningful' in that they unlock funding which central government has decided would not otherwise be available. The 'directly elected executive "mayor"' part of the arrangement is definitely far from sensible though. Just for the sake of completeness, perceptions can also become quite imperative. But such circumstances tend to be exceptional. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jul 26, 2021 21:04:44 GMT
That's misrepresenting it somewhat. The referenda were on moving councils to the executive mayor model from the cabinet system. It included no new powers or money, and only applied to the city itself rather than including surrounding districts. The metro mayors that have since been created are a completely different type of role, and a far more sensible and meaningful one in my opinion. You can certainly argue that there wasn't explicit democratic consent for the metro mayors to be created, but it's wrong to suggest it contravenes the democratic mandate for not moving to executive mayors for city councils. No. Just no. Can't comment on the other ones but the powerless Sheffield City Region one is completely pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 26, 2021 21:22:34 GMT
Can't comment on the other ones but the powerless Sheffield City Region one is completely pointless. And the incumbent is still an MP which demonstrates that there's just nothing to do |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,098
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 26, 2021 21:38:11 GMT
He does actually have powers now, since the devolution deal was signed last year.
For example this summer SCR takes over control of the adult skills system and budget in South Yorkshire, as well as a five year sustainable transport funding settlement worth something like £600 million.
He also basically doesn’t do his job as an MP anymore.
|
|
