|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 14, 2014 21:30:53 GMT
Interesting. Our Clacton leaflets put the cost of the by-election at £100,000, so clearly we low-balled it.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,887 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 14, 2014 22:49:54 GMT
I assume this thread only refers to the direct costs to the authorities for holding one? These events, rather like weddings, have associated costs that can be enormous when all the various strands are added in to the total cots of everyone associated with the event in any aspect.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 15, 2014 0:14:54 GMT
Tendring Council (or the leader, anyway) claimed that staff were being pulled from building sea walls to count postal votes. This sounds unlikely. He also said it cost around £200k.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,887
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 15, 2014 14:19:35 GMT
Tendring Council (or the leader, anyway) claimed that staff were being pulled from building sea walls to count postal votes. This sounds unlikely. He also said it cost around £200k. Amazing! Building sea walls at night under arc lamps? Must be very urgent work. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 15, 2014 16:24:59 GMT
Tendring Council (or the leader, anyway) claimed that staff were being pulled from building sea walls to count postal votes. This sounds unlikely. He also said it cost around £200k. Amazing! Building sea walls at night under arc lamps? Must be very urgent work. counting of the postal votes wouldn't be at night... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2014 17:10:19 GMT
Validating them wouldn't be, but counting would
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,887
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 15, 2014 17:54:16 GMT
Amazing! Building sea walls at night under arc lamps? Must be very urgent work. counting of the postal votes wouldn't be at night... He is still a lying toad making a specious nonsense statement. If seawall repairs are important.........use other people! |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 16, 2014 0:23:40 GMT
It was £2.5k for a parish ward election in 2008 so quite possibly. I went over the costs and it stacked up- I assumed the district council were making it up.
Incredibly, parish councils can choose not to send poll cards (which was the single biggest cost).
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 16, 2014 0:27:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 16, 2014 7:51:54 GMT
I've heard £15,000 for ward by-elections - and these would be significantly smaller wards than in Wakefield.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,887
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 16, 2014 9:42:46 GMT
It was £2.5k for a parish ward election in 2008 so quite possibly. I went over the costs and it stacked up- I assumed the district council were making it up. Incredibly, parish councils can choose not to send poll cards (which was the single biggest cost). That is an excellent point to raise Neil. Why send out polling cards? They serve absolutely no practical purpose at all. It is the duty of the citizen to acquaint himself with the details of elections and to turn out if he so wishes. Why have a free post of election addresses? That is a matter for the candidate/party. Why not charge for postal votes as they are a direct cost above polling station costs. We could easily bring down the costs. Count next day and avoid overtime/special payments. Etc., etc. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 16, 2014 13:13:59 GMT
I think the reasons are fairly obvious. Because you're in a minority in thinking that a high turnout is a thing to be regretted.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,887
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 16, 2014 13:34:15 GMT
I think the reasons are fairly obvious. Because you're in a minority in thinking that a high turnout is a thing to be regretted. There is nothing at all in what I said to lead you to the conclusion that I think high turnouts are to be regretted. That is just the sort of snide underhand remark that depresses me and makes people turn off from politics and politicians. I like high turnouts and wide engagement. I see no reason to pander to electors or to make voting 'easy'. I deplore having mobile polling stations in every area and inducements to poll. Polling is a civic duty and to be encouraged but not bought or pandered to. People go to great lengths and much expense to attend Arsenal matches, raves, weddings and funerals. Why should occasional voting be regarded as something needing all sorts of inducements and encouragement? If the public felt that each election was intensely meaningful to them and made a real difference to the enjoyment and the success of their lives they would be at the appointed place with no inducement at all. Quite rightly they suspect that casting their vote makes very little difference to anything at all........and often it does appear to make scant difference. People will respond to real choice on real matters, but not to placemen mumbling on-message platitudes, as is so often the case now. There is nothing to turn out for. The abject snideness and cynicism of contemporary politics coupled with a withered arm of political correctness is a major problem that few of you here see to be a difficulty, but it is widely perceived by the public. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 16, 2014 13:43:01 GMT
Mobile polling stations are often because there isn't a suitable place. Believe me, you'd not want to work in one on a hot day!
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,887
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 16, 2014 13:56:43 GMT
Mobile polling stations are often because there isn't a suitable place. Believe me, you'd not want to work in one on a hot day! Yes there is always somewhere, but it might not be within 300-yards of everybody. It is like sub post offices, we are persuaded that it all needs to be very close. As one living a 40-mile round trip from pint of milk, loaf of bread, newspaper or stamp, and 20-mile round trip from polling station, I have organized a postal vote, freeze bread and milk and keep a stock of stamps. I gave up newspapers. People don't need all this coddling. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 17, 2014 7:11:14 GMT
I think the reasons are fairly obvious. Because you're in a minority in thinking that a high turnout is a thing to be regretted. There is nothing at all in what I said to lead you to the conclusion that I think high turnouts are to be regretted. That is just the sort of snide underhand remark that depresses me and makes people turn off from politics and politicians. I like high turnouts and wide engagement. This would explain why you're apparently in favour of abolishing all forms of council engagement with the electorate. I see no reason to pander to electors or to make voting 'easy'. I deplore having mobile polling stations in every area and inducements to poll. Polling is a civic duty and to be encouraged but not bought or pandered to. People go to great lengths and much expense to attend Arsenal matches, raves, weddings and funerals. Why should occasional voting be regarded as something needing all sorts of inducements and encouragement? A polling card is not an inducement. It is a very cheap reminder that there is an election. Do you really think people are going to have the local council website in their bookmarks to check whether or not there's an election? If the public felt that each election was intensely meaningful to them and made a real difference to the enjoyment and the success of their lives they would be at the appointed place with no inducement at all. Quite rightly they suspect that casting their vote makes very little difference to anything at all........and often it does appear to make scant difference. People will respond to real choice on real matters, but not to placemen mumbling on-message platitudes, as is so often the case now. There is nothing to turn out for. Total bollocks. You can care passionately about the outcome of an election even if you've only just found out you have a vote in it that day. And on-message platitudes often drive turnout perfectly effectively. The abject snideness and cynicism of contemporary politics coupled with a withered arm of political correctness is a major problem that few of you here see to be a difficulty, but it is widely perceived by the public. I think there is a time and a place for being snide. When you're pretending not to be in favour of driving down turnout strikes me as exactly the time. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,887
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 17, 2014 12:42:20 GMT
There is nothing at all in what I said to lead you to the conclusion that I think high turnouts are to be regretted. That is just the sort of snide underhand remark that depresses me and makes people turn off from politics and politicians. I like high turnouts and wide engagement. This would explain why you're apparently in favour of abolishing all forms of council engagement with the electorate. I see no reason to pander to electors or to make voting 'easy'. I deplore having mobile polling stations in every area and inducements to poll. Polling is a civic duty and to be encouraged but not bought or pandered to. People go to great lengths and much expense to attend Arsenal matches, raves, weddings and funerals. Why should occasional voting be regarded as something needing all sorts of inducements and encouragement? A polling card is not an inducement. It is a very cheap reminder that there is an election. Do you really think people are going to have the local council website in their bookmarks to check whether or not there's an election? If the public felt that each election was intensely meaningful to them and made a real difference to the enjoyment and the success of their lives they would be at the appointed place with no inducement at all. Quite rightly they suspect that casting their vote makes very little difference to anything at all........and often it does appear to make scant difference. People will respond to real choice on real matters, but not to placemen mumbling on-message platitudes, as is so often the case now. There is nothing to turn out for. Total bollocks. You can care passionately about the outcome of an election even if you've only just found out you have a vote in it that day. And on-message platitudes often drive turnout perfectly effectively. The abject snideness and cynicism of contemporary politics coupled with a withered arm of political correctness is a major problem that few of you here see to be a difficulty, but it is widely perceived by the public. I think there is a time and a place for being snide. When you're pretending not to be in favour of driving down turnout strikes me as exactly the time. That is a useful and illuminating response from a man I usually respect with the reservation that you are far too prone to resort to mean-minded snide points of view. It colours your whole being and your general responses, just as it does a number of your fellow lefties on this site. Virtually all that you say above confirms me in my implaccable opposition to the Labour Party as being a force for damage to democracy. Your attitude to me over this is all of a piece with the trumped up outrage over the spontaneous response to a question by Lord Freud. It shows a willingness to traduce the truth, bend the context, and to create outright lies for a given political effect. It demonstrates the sink of iniquity that parts of the Labour Party will typically sink to with hardly a qualm or a thought. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Oct 17, 2014 18:11:31 GMT
I see no reason to pander to electors or to make voting 'easy'. I deplore having mobile polling stations in every area and inducements to poll. Polling is a civic duty and to be encouraged but not bought or pandered to. People go to great lengths and much expense to attend Arsenal matches, raves, weddings and funerals. Why should occasional voting be regarded as something needing all sorts of inducements and encouragement? It's not about making it 'easy' but rather about accessibility. In cities this is usually ok but in rural areas there would probably need to be mobile polling booths, largely due to the distances required to travel. And unlike in city areas, the public transport can be rubbish. Civic Duty is a two way street, and polling should be made accessible for those who want to cast their vote in person. If this means that mobile polling booths have to be placed for a day or two then so be it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 18:35:14 GMT
I think the reasons are fairly obvious. Because you're in a minority in thinking that a high turnout is a thing to be regretted. There is nothing at all in what I said to lead you to the conclusion that I think high turnouts are to be regretted. That is just the sort of snide underhand remark that depresses me and makes people turn off from politics and politicians. I like high turnouts and wide engagement. I see no reason to pander to electors or to make voting 'easy'. I deplore having mobile polling stations in every area and inducements to poll. Polling is a civic duty and to be encouraged but not bought or pandered to. People go to great lengths and much expense to attend Arsenal matches, raves, weddings and funerals. Why should occasional voting be regarded as something needing all sorts of inducements and encouragement? If the public felt that each election was intensely meaningful to them and made a real difference to the enjoyment and the success of their lives they would be at the appointed place with no inducement at all. Quite rightly they suspect that casting their vote makes very little difference to anything at all........and often it does appear to make scant difference. People will respond to real choice on real matters, but not to placemen mumbling on-message platitudes, as is so often the case now. There is nothing to turn out for. The abject snideness and cynicism of contemporary politics coupled with a withered arm of political correctness is a major problem that few of you here see to be a difficulty, but it is widely perceived by the public. Excellent! The whig side of Carlton emerges. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 17, 2014 19:35:43 GMT
That is a useful and illuminating response from a man I usually respect with the reservation that you are far too prone to resort to mean-minded snide points of view. It colours your whole being and your general responses, just as it does a number of your fellow lefties on this site. Virtually all that you say above confirms me in my implaccable opposition to the Labour Party as being a force for damage to democracy. Your attitude to me over this is all of a piece with the trumped up outrage over the spontaneous response to a question by Lord Freud. It shows a willingness to traduce the truth, bend the context, and to create outright lies for a given political effect. It demonstrates the sink of iniquity that parts of the Labour Party will typically sink to with hardly a qualm or a thought. Quoted so that I could like it more than once |
|
