|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 13, 2023 23:21:56 GMT
My answer would be 'Yes'. If a team for a position like that cannot find even £5000, they have no business contending and are just time wasting and ballot cluttering. There are far too many candidates at all electoral levels in most contests. I would cut out the nomination rituals but require a bond somewhere between £1000 and £50,000 depending on importance; plus a examination of candidates (oral and written) to ensure competence, comprehension and basic knowledge and proof of sanity. Oh yeah - I'm sure that wouldn't very rapidly turn into vetting candidates to make sure they are committed to 'Equality, diversity and inclusion' or that they are not 'climate deniers' or 'covid deniers'. You should be careful what you wish for. |
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,270 
|
Post by peterl on Aug 13, 2023 23:47:50 GMT
I think there is a case for having to show you have a basic knowledge of the political system, and in this case maybe a very basic understanding of how the police force works, but I agree its problematic to ensure it remains apolitical.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Aug 14, 2023 5:29:26 GMT
All these proposed restrictions on who is able to stand suggest to me that those proposing them don't trust the electorate to make rational decisions about who they want to serve them in the post being voted for.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,826
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 14, 2023 5:32:34 GMT
My answer would be 'Yes'. If a team for a position like that cannot find even £5000, they have no business contending and are just time wasting and ballot cluttering. There are far too many candidates at all electoral levels in most contests. I would cut out the nomination rituals but require a bond somewhere between £1000 and £50,000 depending on importance; plus a examination of candidates (oral and written) to ensure competence, comprehension and basic knowledge and proof of sanity. Ah, I didn't realise that you subscribed to the Strephon method of electoral management: "Peers shall teem in Christendom, And a Duke’s exalted station Be attainable by Com-Petitive Examination!" The Fairy Queen, Iolanthe, 1882 |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 14, 2023 8:08:36 GMT
All these proposed restrictions on who is able to stand suggest to me that those proposing them don't trust the electorate to make rational decisions about who they want to serve them in the post being voted for. Quite so. Carlton’s suggestion of having exams for candidates would reduce the electoral process to being a self-perpetuating elite, and excluding any sort of anti-establishment rebels or awkward squad. No doubt Carlton himself would say that’s a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 14, 2023 8:15:19 GMT
My answer would be 'Yes'. If a team for a position like that cannot find even £5000, they have no business contending and are just time wasting and ballot cluttering. There are far too many candidates at all electoral levels in most contests. I would cut out the nomination rituals but require a bond somewhere between £1000 and £50,000 depending on importance; plus a examination of candidates (oral and written) to ensure competence, comprehension and basic knowledge and proof of sanity. Oh yeah - I'm sure that wouldn't very rapidly turn into vetting candidates to make sure they are committed to 'Equality, diversity and inclusion' or that they are not 'climate deniers' or 'covid deniers'. You should be careful what you wish for. The Harry Hayfield/ Carlton 43 alliance would be a thing to fear in all sorts of ways.
Especially if they controlled the Electoral Commission.  |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 14, 2023 8:53:30 GMT
All these proposed restrictions on who is able to stand suggest to me that those proposing them don't trust the electorate to make rational decisions about who they want to serve them in the post being voted for. Well ! Yes. Of course we don't. A third can't be bothered to engage at all. Of those that do it is a small minority that take a close and reasoned interest in even the simplest and broadest political views. Most voters have a crude and insubstantial background in civics, theoretical politics, local affairs, policy issues, and have a woeful level of knowledge of practical economics let alone economic theory. The majority do not know what major political policies are offered by each party, but subsist on scrambled vague feelings embedded in history, culture, tribal antagonism and overt biases and gross untruths. Most have no idea of the nature or qualities of any of the candidates. Many are vacuous enough to like and to support because the person turns up at a flood to gawp and emote, or because she advocates re-opening a railway line they will not be using. It is mostly gormless and ephemeral in the extreme. Democracy has no good points at all in its favour save the one stark fact that it prevents autocracy and single party domination. It never helps the political process or adds anything of any value at all. Usually it muddies the water and leads to competitive bribery and rhetoric of the crudest sort. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Aug 14, 2023 9:00:23 GMT
At candidate selection, I once witnessed a brutal defenestration when Fraser, once of this parish, asked every candidate if they could tell him how many councilors were on Aberdeen Council and how many each party had.
Then he asked them to explain the Single Transferable Vote
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 14, 2023 9:21:06 GMT
All these proposed restrictions on who is able to stand suggest to me that those proposing them don't trust the electorate to make rational decisions about who they want to serve them in the post being voted for. Quite so. Carlton’s suggestion of having exams for candidates would reduce the electoral process to being a self-perpetuating elite, and excluding any sort of anti-establishment rebels or awkward squad. No doubt Carlton himself would say that’s a good thing. He would be very firmly in both camps at the same time for very good and convincing reasons. The authoritarian in me would like to reduce the electorate down to a cadre of intelligent informed citizens equipped to take a full rounded view and to make sensible decisions based on a rational consideration of the broad position and the essential facts. And also to have only sensible erudite practical candidates well versed in all the problems and with firm grounding in politics, economic theory, and pragmatism! |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Aug 14, 2023 16:31:16 GMT
At candidate selection, I once witnessed a brutal defenestration when Fraser, once of this parish, asked every candidate if they could tell him how many councilors were on Aberdeen Council and how many each party had. Then he asked them to explain the Single Transferable Vote Tell him to come back. I miss him. And his crips. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Aug 14, 2023 16:52:15 GMT
All these proposed restrictions on who is able to stand suggest to me that those proposing them don't trust the electorate to make rational decisions about who they want to serve them in the post being voted for. Electorate making rational decisions? What planet are you living on? |
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Aug 14, 2023 20:23:24 GMT
It is of course arguable: the Brexit vote is an example of an irrational decision (in my view, but I accept not in the opinion of plenty of others on this forum). But to take some recent examples: Cameron v Brown - rational; Cameron v Miliband - marginally rational; May v Corbin - rational; Johnson v Corbin - rational; Sunak v Starmer - rational.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 14, 2023 22:15:24 GMT
Then he asked them to explain the Single Transferable Vote Which surplus mechanism? |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Aug 14, 2023 22:19:41 GMT
Brexit was wholly irrational if measured by the metrics that Remainers thought the electorate were measuring it by. Even I know that
But no matter how many times I explain to them the metrics that the electorate was actually measuring it by they still dont understand it. If they did, they would understand that they actually ought to have lost Scotland but for the fact that so many Scots hate the English.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Aug 15, 2023 7:18:50 GMT
It is of course arguable: the Brexit vote is an example of an irrational decision (in my view, but I accept not in the opinion of plenty of others on this forum). But to take some recent examples: Cameron v Brown - rational; Cameron v Miliband - marginally rational; May v Corbin - rational; Johnson v Corbin - rational; Sunak v Starmer - rational.
Irrationality does depend on the criteria one measures anything by, by ones starting point when making that assessment. Start with a different set of criteria and you get a different answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 15, 2023 9:39:49 GMT
There is already a test of the quality of candidates. It's called the election. If you don't like the public officials that produces, take that up with the electorate.
|
|
It used to be Vote 2006
Guest
|
Post by It used to be Vote 2006 on Aug 15, 2023 9:57:21 GMT
What modern precedents are there for replacing a directly-elected body once established with an indirectly elected one to carry out the same functions? (Assuming that reversion to a Police Authority-like structure is what aboltionists are suggesting). The only one I can come up with is the Inner London Education Authority (late 1980s version).
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,341
|
Post by ricmk on Aug 15, 2023 10:05:03 GMT
What modern precedents are there for replacing a directly-elected body once established with an indirectly elected one to carry out the same functions? (Assuming that reversion to a Police Authority-like structure is what aboltionists are suggesting). The only one I can come up with is the Inner London Education Authority (late 1980s version). The first one that comes to mind is the power to call a General Election. Under the Fixed Terms Parliament Act, only a vote of the directly House of Commons could authorise a General Election. Since its repeal, its entirely in the gift of the indirectly elected PM. I know opinions on the FTPA are mixed to put it mildly, but it did take the power back to parliament - to take back control if you will. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 15, 2023 10:11:03 GMT
What modern precedents are there for replacing a directly-elected body once established with an indirectly elected one to carry out the same functions? (Assuming that reversion to a Police Authority-like structure is what aboltionists are suggesting). The only one I can come up with is the Inner London Education Authority (late 1980s version). The first one that comes to mind is the power to call a General Election. Under the Fixed Terms Parliament Act, only a vote of the directly House of Commons could authorise a General Election. Since its repeal, its entirely in the gift of the indirectly elected PM. I know opinions on the FTPA are mixed to put it mildly, but it did take the power back to parliament - to take back control if you will. But in reality given that the PM is leading the majority party it made little or no difference. |
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Aug 15, 2023 10:51:05 GMT
What modern precedents are there for replacing a directly-elected body once established with an indirectly elected one to carry out the same functions? (Assuming that reversion to a Police Authority-like structure is what aboltionists are suggesting). The only one I can come up with is the Inner London Education Authority (late 1980s version). Various directly elected mayors have been abolished (Bristol, Hartlepool, Liverpool, Stoke, Torbay) with powers reverting to the council - in at least some cases a leader and cabinet model. Whilst of course the councillors themselves are elected, they're not elected as leader, and certainly not elected in a whole-region vote. |
|
