Sally Maltby said...
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." that's such a great quote.
I think that local elections should only be for independant canditates that way one can assess the person rather than the party and know that they will act according to their own conscience rather on party lines.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
40 comments:
Good idea. But why limit it to just local elections?
Of course, people can stand as Independents. I believe that Swanage Town Council was once entirely composed of Independents. But like-minded people tend to band together because they share similar views and/or for mutual support. Living in a democracy means allowing different groups their say (as well as Independents). But - in a democracy - you couldn't forcibly prevent groups standing. But by all means let's have more independents standing. Let'have anyone standing. But even more importantly let's have more than 30% of the population turning out to vote. I hope none of the other 70% ever complain about the council, becuase as they've had no say in its election, I believe they don't deserve the right to criticise.
Maybe some of the 70% didn't vote, Mr Hadley, because the candidates and parties are all pretty hopeless.
I mean I didn't recieve any election material from any party. As a 25 year old I doubt I'm cared about by those running locally. They don't seem to want my support, so why should I give it?
I think that the councillors act according to their own conscience rather than follow party lines anyway. All three main parties said they would support the Swanage Railway at the last election. When it came to the vote three of the Liberal councillors voted against the £3 million grant for resignalling and one Conservative did not turn up.
A mediocre Conservative candidate can win at Swanage because the party organisation is much better with the Conservative club and the resources of the party. To win as an Independant or as a Labour, Liberal candidate you would have to be much better, very well known in the community and have the finances and helpers to support your campaign.
I think it is wrong to use the Conservative resources to get elected and then to move to the Liberal party without seeking reelection.That person would have been voted in because he was a Conservative and if he does not agree with that party's policicies he should have stood as an Independant.
Generally the existing Councillors have acted in what they believe to be in the best interest of the community regardless of which party they belong to. Sometimes the level of debate is very poor and it is clear that some councillors have not got much idea about what they are talking about whereas others are very effective.
I would rather choose between policies. We have seen too much of the politics of personality. It is far to easy for a plausible rogue with a lot of money to spend to fool 51% of the voters on one day every four or five years.
The electorate have only what the media tells them to go on, and as we are seeing with the ongoing News International situation, parts of it pride themselves on their ability to persuade us to vote for their favourite.
I would rather the representatives I have voted for acted according to their manifesto than go off on a policy jaunt of their own and do things they have not been elected to do. If conscience is a problem they should resign.
All is good robin aka dave furmage aka the postman has spoken :)
I will not defer. I've come before you to resolve this attack on our town now. I was not elected to watch my people suffer and be forced to move out of town while you discuss this invasion in a committee! If this body is not capable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed. I move for a vote of no confidence in The conserative leadership.
Who would you like to replace David Cameron? I think Boris Johnson would be a good leader.
Think of this person as if he was talking about politicians in the UK. He's on the right track:)
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=GB#/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk
Who would you like to replace David Cameron? I think Boris Johnson would be a good leader.
A good strong right winger thats what we need. stand up for us in europe and around the world.
We do have the ability to try and turn things around, and here are five suggestions:
1. Insist on a council-wide manifesto every election: If the parties can’t list their priorities for a council area as a whole, then why should people vote for them?
2. Get each candidate to answer questions on their area: This works very well on sites such as BlogPreston. If people don’t respond, then leave it to the public to make up their own minds.
3. Empower the public: Think surveys. What are the issues which matter to readers? Lets not assume that the things the local politicians might be talking about are the big talking points. Jobs may be a big issue, but it’s a bit vague for politicians to say ‘we’ll work for more jobs.’ Get them going on specific points. That’s how the Lancashire Evening Telegraph ended up asking Tony Blair about oversized hedges in 2005. Seasoned political hacks might mock – but it was the question which got asked more than any other by readers.
4. Do fact check journalism: At Journal Register Company, the digital first news organisation in America, many newsrooms now have ‘fact check’ journalists – not dissimilar to the fact-checking stuff done by Channel 4 and The Guardian. This could work brilliantly at a local level – how much power does Albert Bore really have to create new jobs? Answer: Not much, probably.
5. Constantly give the public a say: The elections happen on a set day, but the decisions the winners make take place all year. We have so many tools at our disposal – polls, Twitter, Facebook, email even – to get the views of people on the issues which impact on them, that it’s easier than ever to make sure the voices of voters are heard all year round. The more we do that, the more people should see through national vote blindness.
Several times on the radio today there’s been talk of Cameron and Clegg having to appease backbench MPs after a poor night at the polls. But that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy – if Westminster treats the local elections like an annual popularity contest, then it’s no surprise that voters end up doing the same. And we’re all losers then.
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Brecht
Of course, it's the people who are the problem! We're generally apathetic about local elections and all the stuff David Furmage wrote sounds great - it just needs organising.........we need to take it seriously which is easier to do with independant candidates, it's the character and drive of the individual to be assessed not the party allegance. Before the next local election we need to set up some sort of voters network....
The next Purbeck District Council meeting will be the annual council meeting on Tuesday 15th May at 19:00. Among the subjects to be discussed will be the Swanage Railway, waste management, the police and crime panel and the attendance record. Where did I see these on the election addresses? If you go to the meeting you will see how our elected independent or main party representatives perform.
"Before the next local election we need to set up some sort of voters network...."
In other words set up a party and select your preferred candidate. A voters party. No doubt I am missig shome subtle point. Reminds me of when there was some strange schism in the tories and we had someone running as "retired lifeboat crew" or sometihng of the kind. Natrually they were swept in to office by the voters of Swanage North who we all know love novelty and change.
No, just something like Facebook etc. where people can talk about various candidates and they too can talk back - discussion and involvement!
Nothing wrong with using facebook and you could set that up quite easily and email the party branches inviting their candidates to contribute although it has nothing to do with whether they are running as independents. A blog like this would also do the job. By the way, how do you think candidates should be funded? Although there is a cap on spending in council elections printing leaflets and things still costs a lot and if they did not get party branch support it would be restricted to the wealthy. With no voluntary party workers to address and deliver it would be even more expensive than it is now and you would receive less information because of the spending cap.
If you want to get elected as an independent direct contact with the public would be far more effective than contact through a computer. I would suggest setting up a table outside the Co-op and find out what the public wants. Before the election you could put up posters on the windows near the polling station and tell people to vote for you from a loudspeaker van. I am not sure how much power the Council has. The campaigns to rebuild the Swanage Railway, to get an NHS dentist and to eliminate antisocial behaviour were at grass route level. Swanage Town Council could not have been more hostile to the Swanage Railway but we forced the Council to hold a refendum and to make a complete U turn.
Thing is the only way people can get into a party in Swanage is to be a blue or a conserative. And as for funding I think councillors should not be paid at all. They should do it as volunteers.
Ton and District councillors don't get paid. I thought everybody knew that. I was talking about election expenses. Something a little more than getting on your soapbox is advisable.
Persuading the council to have their plenary and committee meetings in the evenings so that people who work can attend more easily would help reduce the one party statelet nature of Swanage.
Swanage Town Councillors do not get paid. They have allowances and expences. I would like all volunteers in Swanage to get paid as recognition for the hard work they do.I do not understand what motivates people to become councillors whether it is a vocation to help other people, because it looks good on their CV or whether it is step on the ladder to higher things.
I think you can get things done just as effectively outside the Council as you can within it.
Ok so they don't get paid , though they should not get expenses either if they become councillors. Works well in Switzerland I think where all PM's do it as voluteers. This day and aged I think that would win peoples vote for sure
Also what about having a speakers corner like in London , where certain folk get up and talk. Something a bit different
"they should not get expenses either if they become councillors"
Why?
As they say, he who pays the fiddler calls the tune" and if you want your affairs in the hands of people who are either pensioners, wealthy or picking up "consultants fees" from those hoping to benefit from influencing decision making good luck to you.
I would rather vote for someone who is honest and not corrupt , we are going to have to face facts one day that money is really the root of all evil. We need to change our attitudes on how we want things run and money should not govern this but ordinary people like you and myself should.
It does not seem to have occurred to you that everybody wants the candidates they vote for to be honest and not corrupt. The more those in elected positions are paid they harder it is to corrupt them. I would have thought this was obvious. The same goes for public officials. You only have to look at the level of corruption in countries where they are paid a pittance.
There is a very strange attitude in this country. Either we want the most competent people in office and have to be prepared to pay them or we hand the nations affairs over to nincompoops. You do not need to look further than the quality of some elected councillors. As honest as they come and motivated by the highest ideals but good decision makers? I would rather not be represented by someone who does it for the same reason they help in a charity shop. I suppose it is good old fashioned English hypocrisy. Look at the furore over MPs being issued with tablet computers. Endless stories from journalists who rightly expect their employers to equip them for their work but want us to think MPs should still use quill pens.
"Give us the tools and we will finish the job" as the patron saint of conservatism put it.
"we are going to have to face facts one day that money is really the root of all evil."
You could set up a political party to campaign on this. Oh, just remembered it would also have to campaign against its own existence. This sort of campaign has the fundamental weakness of not attracting enough cash to be able to get its message across. How are you going to overcome this?
It's all about money , typical conservatives making sure they look after themselves , rich getting richer , poor getting poorer , cuts. Or maybe labour voters , spend borrow and spend even more and not listening to millions of people who took too the streets to speak up about a war that had nothing to do with us
Not sure i fancy the 2 above to be honest. We need a change , nowt wrong with that is there ?
Seems to work well and is a true democracy.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland#section_1
The simplest way to clean up politics at all levels of government would be to have a one term limit.
Get elected; serve a term; go home.
Let others have a chance.
Is that too complex?
Why would that "clean up politics"? It merely sounds like a recipe for always having inexperienced people in office. They would swing two ways. Those with "ideas" would bang away with their loony toons ideas, like several members of the present government are doing but with added urgency, or they would rely on their officials or political advisors who would have a lot more experience of running things.
Keep media bosses out of politics and money. That would clean up politics. Ohh and tell America to fight their own battles they are big enough country.
I seem to recall it was Mr Blair who supplied the bogus evidence that Saddam was harbouring WMDs....the 'Dodgy Dossier'.....he seemed to be quite keen to egg on George Bush with come questionable claptrap produced by British Intelligence.
Maybe Dave's point should be directed toward government ministers and DOD officials who seem keen to tag along on Obama's military adventures. I think the US can fight their battles alone.
This is NOT a criticism of the brave soldiers, sailors and airmen (and women) who defend this nation - just their leaders in Whitehall.
"Keep media bosses out of politics and money."
Another statement of the blindingly obvious, and one from which nobody is going to dissent. Perhaps the author of these sentiments can tell how this is to be achieved. No doubt all we will hear is some cliche about us all needing to change our attitudes. The media have been influencing politics ever since the invention of the steam press and with more effect with every new communications technology. You don't think politicians like this do you? One moment a rule the world meglomaniac, the next a starring role in a "love rat" tabloid story. Do you have any concrete suggestions?
I too found it hard to understand why the UK ruched to the side of the US in its middle east wars. Let me propose an explanation which, while sounding like a piece of conspiracy theory, may explain the facts.
You will recall that spot of military bother Thatcher had in the South Atlantic. The US was in alliances with both ourselves and the Argentine and came under pressure from both to support them. The Monroe doctrine would normally have applied and they would have sided against intervention in the estern hemisphere by a European power. Instead they gave inteligence and logistical support to the UK. What was the price for this. The details have never been revealed. I posit that there ere secret clauses in the agreement for support pledging the UK to support the US in its wars in furure. Remeber that in the early 80s lack of our support in Vietman still wrankled the US. Blai may simply have had no option and so adopted a posture of enthusiastic support to bulldoze domestic opposition. Such secret treaties and clauses are a common feature of diplomatic agreements and it is harde to believe that there was nothing than that the US ould have siezed the opportunity the Falklands crosis presented to do itself some good, even though the value of UK military support was largely propagandist and the US military have had to come the the rescue of inadequate forces more than once.
Sorry, got into a typing tangle. "hard to believe the US would not have siezed the opportunity"
What do these people have in common?
United Kingdom
Shirley Williams
Paddy Ashdown
Ed Balls (2006),
Peter Carington,
Kenneth Clarke
Denis Healey
Peter Mandelson
John Monks
George Osborne
David Owen
Malcolm Rifkind
David Hannay, Baron Hannay of Chiswick
Tony Blair (1993),[85][66] Prime Minister 1997-2007
Gordon Brown (1991),[86] Prime Minister 2007- 2010
Margaret Thatcher (1975),[88] Prime Minister 1979-1990
They are living British policitcians who are members of the Bilderberg Group.
While that alone does not imply a conspiracy theory, it is evidence of a 'club' that exists between a number of the most influential people who run the world.
Why did someone mention the " C " word? Puts head in hands;)
"Why did someone mention the " C " word? Puts head in hands;"
Its not a conspiracy though, just an example of secret diplomacy. Other explanations of the events have to account for Blair being willing to destroy the electability of his party as well as the credibility of his government and all appear to reduce the matter to simplistic "good man, bad man" categories, making it matter of a private whim. By the way, it was not me who raised the matter of the Iraq war in this thread. Who as it...
War was mention yes I agree , though a conspiracy, we could be stepping into dangerous water here ;)
Possibly. I made the posting in question with the caveat that it might well look like a piece of conspiracy theory but as I have also said it is not one. We know, from their subsequent release, that secret clauses are a common feature of international agreements. I think it is fanciful to think that American support over the Falklands came with no price. Their track record has tended to be to bargain hard. Blair's endorsement of the Iran war needs to be explained. It came close to destroying his government and caused Robin Cooke's resignation. How else do you explain it?
Post a Comment