|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 20, 2017 16:31:21 GMT
We were all asked if we wanted to be voters when I was with Lloyds Bank, although it was painfully obvious that the "right" people were going to be selected. so are commuter votes effectively controlled by the businesses, if so that needs reform. The actual voters are nominated by their employers, the business ratepayers: City of London (Ward Elections) Act 2002 s. 3Votes at the wardmote are public as it is a public meeting. But in practice there is a poll, and the votes which matter are cast in a secret ballot. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 20, 2017 17:05:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 20, 2017 17:17:05 GMT
they have been making a push in the last couple of years to offer "business votes" at the rate of 6 per company and send out forms all the time. it was tempting. I thought you were a wandering minstrel? only on a non professional basis. have some shreds and patches, though. |
|
|
|
Post by cityslicker on Feb 20, 2017 17:23:34 GMT
We were all asked if we wanted to be voters when I was with Lloyds Bank, although it was painfully obvious that the "right" people were going to be selected. so are commuter votes effectively controlled by the businesses, if so that needs reform. I'd draw to your attention Section 4 of the City of London (Ward Elections) Act 2002: Allocation of appointments A qualifying body which is entitled to appoint more than one person as a voter pursuant to section 6(1)(c) of the 1957 Act shall ensure that the appointments which it makes reflect, so far as is reasonably practicable, the composition of the workforce. Increasingly, firms, especially larger firms, are complying with both the letter and the spirit of the Section 4 requirement. |
|
|
|
Post by cityslicker on Feb 20, 2017 17:26:00 GMT
We were all asked if we wanted to be voters when I was with Lloyds Bank, although it was painfully obvious that the "right" people were going to be selected. Permie, contractor or consultant? In calculating voter entitlement, and in selecting electors, all three types count as being part of the workforce. |
|
|
|
Post by cityslicker on Feb 20, 2017 17:27:41 GMT
I didn't realise that commuters chose the common council. In fact that rather annoys me as I've used to commute to the City a lot and I was never offered a vote and wonder how I could have applied for one (other than getting residence in the City, which would rather defeat the purpose!) the way I understand it businesses get a certain amount of votes dependent on their size which they then give to certain employees. Maybe you were just never chosen? The rational being for every one person that lives in the city 100 odd people work there. Not all of us working in the City are "odd".  |
|
|
|
Post by cityslicker on Feb 20, 2017 17:41:43 GMT
Following on from the thread on the upcoming City of London elections, I thought it would be interesting to have a poll/discussion on whether there is a need to reform local government in the City. As we all probably know, there is a rather unique sui generis structure with 100 Common Councilman and 25 Alderman largely elected by business electors. Many of the detailed rules such as polling hours and the required number of assentors are also different and one must be a Freeman of the City to stand. Time for change, or content with the status quo? Just to let you know, any person qualified to be a candidate but who is does not have the Freedom of the City will, on acting to become a candidate, have the Freedom bestowed on them at virtually no notice and without charge. Having the Freedom of the City is a qualification, but never an obstacle, to be a candidate. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473 
|
Post by peterl on Feb 20, 2017 18:21:28 GMT
Following on from the thread on the upcoming City of London elections, I thought it would be interesting to have a poll/discussion on whether there is a need to reform local government in the City. As we all probably know, there is a rather unique sui generis structure with 100 Common Councilman and 25 Alderman largely elected by business electors. Many of the detailed rules such as polling hours and the required number of assentors are also different and one must be a Freeman of the City to stand. Time for change, or content with the status quo? Just to let you know, any person qualified to be a candidate but who is does not have the Freedom of the City will, on acting to become a candidate, have the Freedom bestowed on them at virtually no notice and without charge. Having the Freedom of the City is a qualification, but never an obstacle, to be a candidate. I know since that is what I did four years ago when I stood with the City Reform Group in the Bassishaw Ward. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 20, 2017 18:41:42 GMT
We were all asked if we wanted to be voters when I was with Lloyds Bank, although it was painfully obvious that the "right" people were going to be selected. Permie, contractor or consultant? I was a permie, was there (at various sites) for around five years. |
|
|
|
Post by londonseal80 on Feb 20, 2017 19:31:39 GMT
Question is, how would the ward of the city of london vote in a council election if it was moved into a neighbouring borough. My guess would be conservative, but certainly not by an overwhelming margin. If it was say abolished in 1964 and put into Tower Hamlets for then onwards my guess would be. 1964 : Ratepayers 1968 : Ratepayers 1971 : Labour 1974 : Labour 1978 : Liberal 1982 : Alliance 1986 : Alliance 1990 : Liberal Democrat 1994 : Labour 1998 : Labour 2002 : Labour 2006 : Conservative 2010 : Conservative 2014 : Conservative |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 5, 2017 23:44:12 GMT
Abolish and put it in with westminster and west central gla constituency. The current model is a ludicrous anachronism that has gone on for far too long. I don't know if I want to be in a position where I am arguing in favor of tradition against a Tory... Not every Tory is wrong about absolutely everything... |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 13, 2017 20:38:52 GMT
In an ideal world, I'd have a local authority conforming to what I think of as central London - more or less the areas inside the Circle Line, with a few minor modifications. This would be part of a general redesign of London boroughs.
Realistically, that isn't going to happen, but the status quo is still a daft anachronism. So it's a question of what the smallest possible acceptable changes would be.
As I see it, the options are:
a) Hive off the residential wards into neighbouring boroughs and leave the rest more or less as is. Not entirely satisfactory and how exactly you get Queenshithe into Westminster (Southwark surely isn't possible?) is a question for finer minds than me, but it'd be in keeping with our tradition of trying to make the inexcusable excusable.
b) Abolish the City entirely, putting all of it (bar possibly some of the residential wards) into a neighbouring borough - there's a case for either Westminster or TH. Yes, business rates are an issue here (though I find it a little amusing to hear that complaint from a City of Westminster councillor), but there's a simple solution to that. The City has always been an exception, so continue that tradition by dictating that X% of the business rates it raises will be hived off to central government and redistributed to councils without the same rates potential. I'd be more than happy to do that with the rest of central London, though I sense at this point I'm really not putting myself on David's good side. Meanwhile you can keep the City of London as a business entity, which doesn't really need a physical footprint. Essentially it is the financial industry's voice in Parliament. It doesn't need to be a local authority to keep doing that (and if you remove the physical boundaries, it could easily expand its reach to take in e. g. companies based in Canary Wharf.)
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Apr 7, 2017 13:58:40 GMT
Perhaps controversially, I'd like to expand the boundaries of the City a bit (think roughly Waterloo Bridge/Kingsway to the West, Clerkenwell Road/Old Street to the North, and Commercial Street/St Katharines Dock to the East).
It would then be just about big enough to function as a conventional local authority, though in all likelihood with a bunch of services shared with a neighbour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 20:12:54 GMT
Following on from the thread on the upcoming City of London elections, I thought it would be interesting to have a poll/discussion on whether there is a need to reform local government in the City. As we all probably know, there is a rather unique sui generis structure with 100 Common Councilman and 25 Alderman largely elected by business electors. Many of the detailed rules such as polling hours and the required number of assentors are also different and one must be a Freeman of the City to stand. Time for change, or content with the status quo? So glad you agree that change is necessary. Mentioned it to Davıd Boothroyd during the election and he thought it should stay the same. Personally I think you need to start with the useless "Ward Moots" and then progress to the abolition of the useless Aldermen. I would definitely like to see the council become more political. Also is it really necessary to have 100 Common Councillors? A maximum 40-50 should do the job as effectively. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 7, 2017 20:55:37 GMT
You're approaching it from the wrong end. The issue isn't whether the various aspects of the City are useful or useless, or unnecessary, but whether they are actually harmful. If the City wants to continue to spend its money on useless irrelevant aspects of pseudo-democracy, why should anyone else stop them?
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,780
|
Post by john07 on Apr 8, 2017 11:11:57 GMT
Glasgow city centre, which is probably the second-biggest city centre in the UK, seems to cope with being part of Glasgow. Oh come off it, that's an utterly misleading comparison. Let's look at just a few of the differences: 1) Glasgow has always had unitary local government. London has never had. 2) The city centre of Glasgow is a commercial and retail place which derives from being the centre of the city. The City of London has very little retail. Could be argued that it is not really the centre of the city, which is more centred on Trafalgar Square. 3) Glasgow is not a historic major international financial services centre (it's trying to be one, which is an admission it isn't at the moment). The City of London is. I agree with your analysis here but I must point out that Glasgow has not always had unitary local government. It was part of Strathclyde Regional Council from 1973 to 1996. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Apr 11, 2017 13:58:02 GMT
Perhaps controversially, I'd like to expand the boundaries of the City a bit (think roughly Waterloo Bridge/Kingsway to the West, Clerkenwell Road/Old Street to the North, and Commercial Street/St Katharines Dock to the East). It would then be just about big enough to function as a conventional local authority, though in all likelihood with a bunch of services shared with a neighbour. aren't the borders continuos with the old style roman wall job, iwould be a shame to lose that just to meet some abitary population target that is deemed 'workable' - I feel the same about the abolition of Welsh districts tbh, I don't care if it's not cost effective to have multiple bin collection departments, its local identity, history and pride more than anything. I believe they faffed around with the boundary in 1899 and quite possibly again in 1965, so it's almost certainly noncoterminous (if indeed that's even a word) with the old London wall. One option on the table in the 1960s, and I'm not sure how seriously it was ever taken, was to do away with the City altogether and just have several sub/urban LAs like wedges meeting in the middle. Holborn, St Pancras, St Marylebone etc. were all swept away in the name of progress so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the City could've gone too. This approach was of course partially fulfilled with urban boroughs extending long fingers deep into the centre. It is, of course, ridiculous that St John's Wood is in the current City of Westminster while Holborn is not. People still struggle to believe that they're in the borough of Camden when you tell them... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 14:19:29 GMT
aren't the borders continuos with the old style roman wall job, iwould be a shame to lose that just to meet some abitary population target that is deemed 'workable' - I feel the same about the abolition of Welsh districts tbh, I don't care if it's not cost effective to have multiple bin collection departments, its local identity, history and pride more than anything. I believe they faffed around with the boundary in 1899 and quite possibly again in 1965, so it's almost certainly noncoterminous (if indeed that's even a word) with the old London wall. One option on the table in the 1960s, and I'm not sure how seriously it was ever taken, was to do away with the City altogether and just have several sub/urban LAs like wedges meeting in the middle. Holborn, St Pancras, St Marylebone etc. were all swept away in the name of progress so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the City could've gone too. This approach was of course partially fulfilled with urban boroughs extending long fingers deep into the centre. It is, of course, ridiculous that St John's Wood is in the current City of Westminster while Holborn is not. People still struggle to believe that they're in the borough of Camden when you tell them... The present boundary of the City of London includes some of the mediaeval suburbs. The map below shows the boundary in 1870, which differs from that today only in detail. The pink zone represents the mediaeval walled area, less the Tower of London and its liberties. The mediaeval wall departed from its Roman predecessor only where it incorporated the Blackfriars precinct in the west. In the east, the Tower complex swallowed areas both inside and outside the old wall. To the south, the riverside has been reclaimed to a considerable distance since Roman times.  |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,759
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 11, 2017 14:59:25 GMT
The boundaries were slightly tweeked in 1993 to take account of defacement (boundaries no longer aligning with physical features): link |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 11, 2017 15:07:01 GMT
I believe they faffed around with the boundary in 1899 and quite possibly again in 1965, so it's almost certainly noncoterminous (if indeed that's even a word) with the old London wall. One option on the table in the 1960s, and I'm not sure how seriously it was ever taken, was to do away with the City altogether and just have several sub/urban LAs like wedges meeting in the middle. Holborn, St Pancras, St Marylebone etc. were all swept away in the name of progress so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the City could've gone too. This approach was of course partially fulfilled with urban boroughs extending long fingers deep into the centre. It is, of course, ridiculous that St John's Wood is in the current City of Westminster while Holborn is not. People still struggle to believe that they're in the borough of Camden when you tell them... The present boundary of the City of London includes some of the mediaeval suburbs. The map below shows the boundary in 1870, which differs from that today only in detail. The pink zone represents the mediaeval walled area, less the Tower of London and its liberties. The mediaeval wall departed from its Roman predecessor only where it incorporated the Blackfriars precinct in the west. In the east, the Tower complex swallowed areas both inside and outside the old wall. To the south, the riverside has been reclaimed to a considerable distance since Roman times. A shame the small size of the lettering makes that map almost unreadable. Some of those tiny "parishes" must have close to zero (if not actually nil) resident voters today? |
|
