Once upon a time local elections were held every year, when a third of the councillors stood down or sought re-election. It is surprisingly difficult to find out when this practice came to an end in Brighton & Hove. To judge from the composition of the separate councils of the two towns, it was in the late 1970s but it could have been later. Since the creation of the unitary authority on 1 April 1997 elections have been held every four years, a policy that was last decided by the council in October 2000, as confirmed in a memorandum by the city council to the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions and published by the House of Commons with the Select Committee's report on 10 April 2002. The report's conclusion: 'A great deal of time, money and effort has gone into changing the political management arrangements of local authorities with apparently little change to the overall quality and credibility of local government.'
It is up to councils to decide how often elections are held, either once every four years or annually for three years of a four year cycle. There is no nationally imposed standard. In 1986 the Committee of Inquiry into the Conduct of Local Authority Business (the Widdicombe Report, Cmnd 9797) recommended single-member wards with elections every four years, similar to the parliamentary model, but this was rejected by the government of the day. In fact, at this Thursday's elections, 20 out of the 45 contested unitary will be electing only a third of the council. (This appears to be an increase in the number holding partial elections compared with eight years ago.)
There are arguments for and against each system that are cogently presented in a consultation paper from the Electoral Commission in 2003. This noted among other things that is costs less to hold elections every four years rather than annually. Solution: never hold elections if cost is an issue. MORI research for the Commission found widespread ignorance and confusion about the timing and frequency of elections, especially among the young.
However, the Commission's report in January 2004 recommended that clarity was needed in the system and because of the problem of creating wards of approximately equal size, all councils should hold elections every four years. This is all getting a bit technical but it is probably largely forgotten today that (small) wards were introduced in the middle of the 19th century to ensure that local authorities represented a cross-section of the social classes: if the electoral areas were too large, the lower orders would have an unassailable advantage. As parliamentary elections have shown ever since, the argument doesn't hold much water.
If clarity is the issue, holding elections every May is clearer than remembering in which fourth year they will be held; the Electoral Commission argued against holding all local authority elections at the same time so as to preserve a differentiation between different tiers of authority. Which means there are local elections somewhere every year, a fact reflected in news and current afairs programmes to add to the confusion. How perverse can you be?
There is, for Grumpy Old Voter, one overwhelming argument in favour of annual elections: to allow the electorate to feel more powerful. Local government, more than national government, is about issues that affect the day-to-day lives of citizens. A system that is more responsive to the public mood about the conduct of affairs on their behalf would increase the power of electors and, marginally perhaps, diminish the power of politicians. And that is a fundamental principle of democracy. We, the voters, are already too marginalised, as the steady decline in the average turnout at elections shows. Danes are twice as likely to vote at local elections than the English, who are bottom of European turnout league. Grumpy Old Voter reckons hat makes the Danes twice as democratic.
Sources:
Memorandum by Brighton and Hove City Council (LGA 30).
Electoral Commission: The Cycle of Local Government Elections in England, Report and recommendations (January 2004).
'Local elections: The key battlegrounds' in The Guardian, 5 February 2007
Sunday 29 April 2007
What they tell us, 3: Brighton & Hove Independents
Days to election: 4
Another brochure, this one from Brighton & Hove Independents. Four-page A5, four colour. Mildly imperfect punctuation (one of the candidates is a deputy head) but it could have been much worse. Was it just a leaflet drop or did someone ring the bell for a chat? If the latter, a beautiful Saturday afternoon is not the best time to catch me, or anyone else, at home.
The pitch is that the party will bring a fresh approach, free of party lines and party whips, ensuring that decisions made are non-party political.
On specific policies the non-party party has party lines on the following:
Re-evaluation of A23 layout to 'protect pedestrians, cyclists, drivers and visitors'.
More visible local and community policing, with more neighbourhood watch schemes.
All children are 'entitled to a high quality education irrespective of political calculations and machinations'.
Support for new community football stadium.
Search for solutions to help people park outside their homes without damaging side effects.
More litter bins in public parks and open spaces.
Wider recycling schemes to include other waste.
Opposition to school admissions lotteries 'which the Conservatives helped to devise and only opposed when it was too late'.
Opposition to inefficiency and widespread use of expensive consultants. 'We will monitor the Council's use of tax payer's money to ensure there is no unjustified waste.' (Is there justified waste?)
Opposition to hospital and ward closures.
Opposition to council tax re-valuation.
A typical set of policies some or all of which (could) have come from any or all the parties. Brighton & Hove Independents has six candidates standing in three wards, one solid Labour, one solid Conservative and one mixed. Obviously not enough to gain control but potentially in a position of influence if the differences between seats held by the main parties are narrow. If they win seats. The big question: is the 'non-party' approach credible and sufficient when the policies are not much differentiated from the other party lines? The statement that 'each candidate has a proven record of service to the local community' has some substance, without provoking the cynical reaction of 'yes, but as a member of such-and-such a party'.
Leaflet count to date
Conservatives 2, B&H independents 1, others 0
Canvassing to date
None
There is truth in the statement, made without comment in the B&HI leaflet (except punctuationally), that 'the decision you make on 3rd May will affect us all for the next 4 years!!!' Grumpy Old Voter will be happy to provide the comment. Watch for the next exciting post in this blog.
Another brochure, this one from Brighton & Hove Independents. Four-page A5, four colour. Mildly imperfect punctuation (one of the candidates is a deputy head) but it could have been much worse. Was it just a leaflet drop or did someone ring the bell for a chat? If the latter, a beautiful Saturday afternoon is not the best time to catch me, or anyone else, at home.
The pitch is that the party will bring a fresh approach, free of party lines and party whips, ensuring that decisions made are non-party political.
On specific policies the non-party party has party lines on the following:
Re-evaluation of A23 layout to 'protect pedestrians, cyclists, drivers and visitors'.
More visible local and community policing, with more neighbourhood watch schemes.
All children are 'entitled to a high quality education irrespective of political calculations and machinations'.
Support for new community football stadium.
Search for solutions to help people park outside their homes without damaging side effects.
More litter bins in public parks and open spaces.
Wider recycling schemes to include other waste.
Opposition to school admissions lotteries 'which the Conservatives helped to devise and only opposed when it was too late'.
Opposition to inefficiency and widespread use of expensive consultants. 'We will monitor the Council's use of tax payer's money to ensure there is no unjustified waste.' (Is there justified waste?)
Opposition to hospital and ward closures.
Opposition to council tax re-valuation.
A typical set of policies some or all of which (could) have come from any or all the parties. Brighton & Hove Independents has six candidates standing in three wards, one solid Labour, one solid Conservative and one mixed. Obviously not enough to gain control but potentially in a position of influence if the differences between seats held by the main parties are narrow. If they win seats. The big question: is the 'non-party' approach credible and sufficient when the policies are not much differentiated from the other party lines? The statement that 'each candidate has a proven record of service to the local community' has some substance, without provoking the cynical reaction of 'yes, but as a member of such-and-such a party'.
Leaflet count to date
Conservatives 2, B&H independents 1, others 0
Canvassing to date
None
There is truth in the statement, made without comment in the B&HI leaflet (except punctuationally), that 'the decision you make on 3rd May will affect us all for the next 4 years!!!' Grumpy Old Voter will be happy to provide the comment. Watch for the next exciting post in this blog.
Friday 27 April 2007
Democracy and responsiveness
Let's go back to that pledge the Conservatives made to have for 'a listening council'. The statement was as follows: 'We want true democracy and will run an open and accessible Council where everyone can contribute.'
The nearest the world has ever come to true democracy is probably the Icelandic Althing of the early Middle Ages (or even earlier, whatever that period is called), when all citizens could gather together on the plains of Thingvellir. It is clearly impractical for everyone to gather physically in the council chamber at the town hall but an electronic town meeting is eminently possible. It just needs to be set up. Easy peasy.
An 'open' council presumably means one that works transparently. An 'accessible' council is presumably one in which all the members are easily and readily contactable. But the final part, 'where everyone can contribute', is almost certainly at best a pious wish, at worst a blatant deceit. Anyone with experience of civic activity knows that things don't work like that. Even well organised lobbies and pressure groups—even people with official positions, such as school governors—often fail to make an impact or even to be heard.
Imagine the Conservatives win a majority at the election and start to implement a car-friendly policy. Thousands object, preferring to see money spent on cheaper and more efficient public transport for all. Which are the Conservative councillors more likely to say: 'We agree. We'll change our policy' or 'We are pursuing our declared policy and see no reason to change, however strong the opposition'? Remember Tony Blair, rebuked by the courts for failing to run a proper consultation about nuclear power, saying there would be a new consultation but it wouldn't change the policy?
In a way, it is not unreasonable for a political party to stick to the principles and plans declared before an election (assuming they are clear and precise). Once upon a time, especially in the days of two-party politics, the choice could be broadly characterised as, say, right or left, capitalist or socialist, elitist or plebeian. In these days of diversified interests we are moving towards a political structure in which the voters have more interest in individual policies than factions with comprehensive packages, take it or leave it. More and more we leave it, which consequently means leaving the elected-by-a-minority bunch to screw things up as often as they get things right.
Councils can make easy pledges about being open and accessible, but how often can they claim to be flexible and responsive? Which will be the first to give up (some) power to let citizens in? Don't hold your breath.
The nearest the world has ever come to true democracy is probably the Icelandic Althing of the early Middle Ages (or even earlier, whatever that period is called), when all citizens could gather together on the plains of Thingvellir. It is clearly impractical for everyone to gather physically in the council chamber at the town hall but an electronic town meeting is eminently possible. It just needs to be set up. Easy peasy.
An 'open' council presumably means one that works transparently. An 'accessible' council is presumably one in which all the members are easily and readily contactable. But the final part, 'where everyone can contribute', is almost certainly at best a pious wish, at worst a blatant deceit. Anyone with experience of civic activity knows that things don't work like that. Even well organised lobbies and pressure groups—even people with official positions, such as school governors—often fail to make an impact or even to be heard.
Imagine the Conservatives win a majority at the election and start to implement a car-friendly policy. Thousands object, preferring to see money spent on cheaper and more efficient public transport for all. Which are the Conservative councillors more likely to say: 'We agree. We'll change our policy' or 'We are pursuing our declared policy and see no reason to change, however strong the opposition'? Remember Tony Blair, rebuked by the courts for failing to run a proper consultation about nuclear power, saying there would be a new consultation but it wouldn't change the policy?
In a way, it is not unreasonable for a political party to stick to the principles and plans declared before an election (assuming they are clear and precise). Once upon a time, especially in the days of two-party politics, the choice could be broadly characterised as, say, right or left, capitalist or socialist, elitist or plebeian. In these days of diversified interests we are moving towards a political structure in which the voters have more interest in individual policies than factions with comprehensive packages, take it or leave it. More and more we leave it, which consequently means leaving the elected-by-a-minority bunch to screw things up as often as they get things right.
Councils can make easy pledges about being open and accessible, but how often can they claim to be flexible and responsive? Which will be the first to give up (some) power to let citizens in? Don't hold your breath.
Thursday 26 April 2007
Into the last week
Days to election: 7
One week from now the polls will be closed and David Dimbleby will be presenting the television results programme that will largely aggregate the whole of the United Kingdom, effectively diminishing the significance of the local nature of the election. For the next seven days, however, the elections will be fought at local level.
Or will they? So far this household has received two Conservative leaflets. And that's it. Nothing from any of the other four parties contesting the ward. No door-step canvassers, no telephone calls, no e-mails, no personal letters from candidates or even from Tony Blair or David Cameron.
There is still time for parties and candidates to try to influence my vote. But I don't think I am being peevish for believing that as far as politicians go, I really don't matter, any more than voters in all but marginal wards and constituencies have mattered for some elections past. Funny then that the only ones to make the effort at communication around here are the incumbents. If they are afraid of losing, the evidence so far is that have little to fear. Unfortunately.
Friends in different wards of the city have told me during the past few days that they have had visits from Conservative, Green, Lib Dem and Labour canvassers (each in a different ward, it should be said). One received a Labour leaflet. Maybe the parties are regarding the outcome in this ward as a foregone conclusion. They shouldn't take so much for granted. Even if they have limited resources for electioneering, they should be making an effort.
Perhaps by not canvassing they are actually hoping to avoid disturbing the air of apathy that they have worked so hard to engender. Then they can be elected by a percentage of the electorate that could sink to single figures. Work it out: one out of five candidates can be elected with 21 per cent of votes in a typical turnout of 30 per cent. That's 6.3 per cent in favour of the winner. Even in the unlikely even of a candidate getting half the votes in a five-way contest barely amounts to 15 per cent support. That is shameful and outrageous.
So here's my dilemma: if candidates can't be bothered to tell me that they exist, still less what their policies might be, should I even consider voting for them? Vote I certainly shall, as I always have. But the degree of resentment I feel towards politicians will go up yet another notch, my trust in politicians and the efficacy of 'democracy' will be eroded still further. Just as, I suspect, it has been for the vast majority of the electorate who probably won't go out and vote next Thursday. We shall have only ourselves to blame. We get the politicians we deserve and as of now I don't think we deserve any of them. We'll still get them.
One week from now the polls will be closed and David Dimbleby will be presenting the television results programme that will largely aggregate the whole of the United Kingdom, effectively diminishing the significance of the local nature of the election. For the next seven days, however, the elections will be fought at local level.
Or will they? So far this household has received two Conservative leaflets. And that's it. Nothing from any of the other four parties contesting the ward. No door-step canvassers, no telephone calls, no e-mails, no personal letters from candidates or even from Tony Blair or David Cameron.
There is still time for parties and candidates to try to influence my vote. But I don't think I am being peevish for believing that as far as politicians go, I really don't matter, any more than voters in all but marginal wards and constituencies have mattered for some elections past. Funny then that the only ones to make the effort at communication around here are the incumbents. If they are afraid of losing, the evidence so far is that have little to fear. Unfortunately.
Friends in different wards of the city have told me during the past few days that they have had visits from Conservative, Green, Lib Dem and Labour canvassers (each in a different ward, it should be said). One received a Labour leaflet. Maybe the parties are regarding the outcome in this ward as a foregone conclusion. They shouldn't take so much for granted. Even if they have limited resources for electioneering, they should be making an effort.
Perhaps by not canvassing they are actually hoping to avoid disturbing the air of apathy that they have worked so hard to engender. Then they can be elected by a percentage of the electorate that could sink to single figures. Work it out: one out of five candidates can be elected with 21 per cent of votes in a typical turnout of 30 per cent. That's 6.3 per cent in favour of the winner. Even in the unlikely even of a candidate getting half the votes in a five-way contest barely amounts to 15 per cent support. That is shameful and outrageous.
So here's my dilemma: if candidates can't be bothered to tell me that they exist, still less what their policies might be, should I even consider voting for them? Vote I certainly shall, as I always have. But the degree of resentment I feel towards politicians will go up yet another notch, my trust in politicians and the efficacy of 'democracy' will be eroded still further. Just as, I suspect, it has been for the vast majority of the electorate who probably won't go out and vote next Thursday. We shall have only ourselves to blame. We get the politicians we deserve and as of now I don't think we deserve any of them. We'll still get them.
Monday 23 April 2007
What they tell us, 2: The Conservatives take 2
Days to election: 10
The second leaflet arrived today. Four page A4, four-colour. From the Conservatives again. And rather more information this time, effectively making the previous leaflet redundant (and therefore a waste of trees).
Pledges:
On education, the candidates would 'monitor the future growth of the school population and plan accordingly'. An addition secondary school in the city is a possibility.
Leaflet count to date
Conservatives 2, others 0
Canvassing to date
None
The second leaflet arrived today. Four page A4, four-colour. From the Conservatives again. And rather more information this time, effectively making the previous leaflet redundant (and therefore a waste of trees).
Pledges:
- to control council tax through a four-year detailed plan, to protect the elderly, vulnerable and people on low incomes.
- to introduce 'integrated schemes to enhance the local environment' (rather non specific).
- to 're-develop the Brighton Centre, carefully manage the West Pier re-generation, restore the Regency bandstand, ensure Brighton and Hove Albion FC gets a new fit-for-purpose stadium, and introduce a unified box-office for all key venues'.
- to establish a Tree Trust Fund to renew city trees.
- to work with tenants to bring all council housing up to the Decent Homes Standard and encouraging council house ownership.
On education, the candidates would 'monitor the future growth of the school population and plan accordingly'. An addition secondary school in the city is a possibility.
Leaflet count to date
Conservatives 2, others 0
Canvassing to date
None
Saturday 21 April 2007
Traffic
Three of the four main parties are willing to consider congestion charging as a way of controlling traffic. The Tories are opposed. 'The council is relying too much on trying to keep cars out,' Conservative group leader Brian Oxley has said (Leader, p9, incorrectly dated Thursday 20 April*).
Clearly the council's policy, as characterised by Mr Oxley, is failing, as the queues of traffic in London Road attest. On some recent days vehicles have been slow-moving all the way from Hassocks, according to bus drivers who were running over half an hour late. Despite the benefit of bus lanes, the 5/5A route can take 45-60 minutes to get from Withdean Park to Western Road (scheduled time 23 minutes). This is only partly caused by the westbound closure of North Street, as the delays occur long before there. The closure of the short bus lane to the east of the war memorial gardens in Old Steine was a shortsighted step; some routes could have continued to use it, instead of requiring all buses to negotiate the main stretch of Old Steine and line up to get to the stop between St James's Street and the seafront. Who decides these things, temporary though they may be? (Temporary in this case means around nine months.)
Brighton did not develop in a way that makes traffic management easy. But allowing cars to have priority over pedestrians and public transport is not the way forward. It's local politicians, working with council staff, who have to find and implement solutions. Who knows, maybe the public has good ideas. So, the Conservatives need to come up with a better idea than congestion charging, if there is one.
Note to self: write something about public consultations.
*The rest of the pages are OK. Editors notice these things, as that is likely to be one of the first errors they fail to spot as trainees. I know. I was that trainee. But I did once spot that two consecutive issues of The Beano, for which I had checking responsibility, had the same issue number.
Clearly the council's policy, as characterised by Mr Oxley, is failing, as the queues of traffic in London Road attest. On some recent days vehicles have been slow-moving all the way from Hassocks, according to bus drivers who were running over half an hour late. Despite the benefit of bus lanes, the 5/5A route can take 45-60 minutes to get from Withdean Park to Western Road (scheduled time 23 minutes). This is only partly caused by the westbound closure of North Street, as the delays occur long before there. The closure of the short bus lane to the east of the war memorial gardens in Old Steine was a shortsighted step; some routes could have continued to use it, instead of requiring all buses to negotiate the main stretch of Old Steine and line up to get to the stop between St James's Street and the seafront. Who decides these things, temporary though they may be? (Temporary in this case means around nine months.)
Brighton did not develop in a way that makes traffic management easy. But allowing cars to have priority over pedestrians and public transport is not the way forward. It's local politicians, working with council staff, who have to find and implement solutions. Who knows, maybe the public has good ideas. So, the Conservatives need to come up with a better idea than congestion charging, if there is one.
Note to self: write something about public consultations.
*The rest of the pages are OK. Editors notice these things, as that is likely to be one of the first errors they fail to spot as trainees. I know. I was that trainee. But I did once spot that two consecutive issues of The Beano, for which I had checking responsibility, had the same issue number.
Thursday 19 April 2007
What they tell us, 1: The Conservatives
Only one election leaflet has been stuffed through this letterbox to date, from the Conservatives. Four page A5, four-colour printing. The front proclaims a list of words that are 'key issues' for the ward: schools, parking, planning, roads, football and traffic. The list could apply to almost any town, city or county. Except football, perhaps, as the 'temporary' home of Brighton & Hove Albion is in the area until such time as politicians at levels from village all the way down to Whitehall can end the interminable wrangle about building a new stadium at Falmer. Or anywhere.
Three of the six key words—parking, roads and traffic (carefully spaced out)—are so closely related that it appears someone may have had difficulty finding enough points to make a respectable list. Inside the leaflet is a list of things the councillors have done since 2003. Brightonian Lynne Truss would be as appalled as this professional editor at the use or absence of apostrophes and random capitalisation of words, but that's the general state of literacy for you!
Finally, under the heading The new Way Forward, the back page lists seven statements that are generally devoid of content. Remember, this is the only information being presented to the electorate at large as the basis for making decisions about voting. Detail is excluded or kept to a minimum. To find what some of the statements mean it is necessary to look at the local Conservative Party website for even the smallest clue, if anyone can be bothered. I can. The words in bold below are the statements in their entirety.
A listening Council where everyone is included.
Everyone will be a member of the council? Well, no. This is probably a reference to the idea on the website that the Conservatives would introduce referendums on 'key city-wide issues such as parking schemes and tall-buildings strategies' (www.brightonandhoveconservatives.com/news_detail.php?nid=380).
Council tax Guarantee.
Guarantee that there will be one? That it will be reduced? Abolished? Squandered? The website (same reference as above) says the Conservatives would be 'determined' not to let increases rise above inflation for the four years until the next election.
Commitment to residents on School Admissions.
Clearly a reference to the controversial council policy that the Tories did eventually oppose, but what is the commitment? The website offers this: 'We will work tirelessly to increase standards in all schools, so that no unhappiness arises from the school admissions process.' Worthy but it doesn't exactly explain what would be done in practice to solve a seriously intractable problem. It goes on: 'We will also seek to lower the numbers of teenage pregnancies and reduce the number of placement moves that looked-after young people currently face.' (www.brightonandhoveconservatives.com/news_detail.php?nid=357)
A faster-moving city and an end to parking chaos.
How? The website offers a nod to 'environment-friendly public transport' but says only that 'build-outs that cause needless traffic congestion' would be reviewed. 'Build-out' apparently means fitting out an existing commercial building for a new tenancy. So that's what causes traffic congestion? And here was I thinking it was the volume of vehicles trying to use too little road space. As for parking chaos, no idea. Maybe the problem has something to do with too many cars, but that is not mentioned. However, 'politicians should not dictate the way individuals and their families travel around'. So 4x4s are fine for the school run.
A cleaner, greener city.
Everyone's in favour of green (OK, except Jeremy Clarkson). Here at last the website reveals a few genuine proposals, such as instituting a 'Clean Up Brighton & Hove Day' (citizens do the cleaning). At least the Conservatives' logo is mainly green.
Safer crossing on the A23.
Who could object to safer roads?
A crackdown on antisocial behaviour and drug abuse.
Again, who among the electorate is likely to object? Again, the question is: what would be done?
COMMENT
Overall, the impression is that a handful of vaguely well-meaning sentiments do not rise above the platitudinous. Can't the voters expect candidates seeking our mandate to be more specific about what they intend? Or would that be too much of a hostage to fortune? Because politics is mostly governed by chaos theory, promises are tricky blighters. But politicians want our votes because they think they can do the right thing. Opposition politicians claim they can do better than the incumbents. We deserve to be told how that would work in practice.
Three of the six key words—parking, roads and traffic (carefully spaced out)—are so closely related that it appears someone may have had difficulty finding enough points to make a respectable list. Inside the leaflet is a list of things the councillors have done since 2003. Brightonian Lynne Truss would be as appalled as this professional editor at the use or absence of apostrophes and random capitalisation of words, but that's the general state of literacy for you!
Finally, under the heading The new Way Forward, the back page lists seven statements that are generally devoid of content. Remember, this is the only information being presented to the electorate at large as the basis for making decisions about voting. Detail is excluded or kept to a minimum. To find what some of the statements mean it is necessary to look at the local Conservative Party website for even the smallest clue, if anyone can be bothered. I can. The words in bold below are the statements in their entirety.
A listening Council where everyone is included.
Everyone will be a member of the council? Well, no. This is probably a reference to the idea on the website that the Conservatives would introduce referendums on 'key city-wide issues such as parking schemes and tall-buildings strategies' (www.brightonandhoveconservatives.com/news_detail.php?nid=380).
Council tax Guarantee.
Guarantee that there will be one? That it will be reduced? Abolished? Squandered? The website (same reference as above) says the Conservatives would be 'determined' not to let increases rise above inflation for the four years until the next election.
Commitment to residents on School Admissions.
Clearly a reference to the controversial council policy that the Tories did eventually oppose, but what is the commitment? The website offers this: 'We will work tirelessly to increase standards in all schools, so that no unhappiness arises from the school admissions process.' Worthy but it doesn't exactly explain what would be done in practice to solve a seriously intractable problem. It goes on: 'We will also seek to lower the numbers of teenage pregnancies and reduce the number of placement moves that looked-after young people currently face.' (www.brightonandhoveconservatives.com/news_detail.php?nid=357)
A faster-moving city and an end to parking chaos.
How? The website offers a nod to 'environment-friendly public transport' but says only that 'build-outs that cause needless traffic congestion' would be reviewed. 'Build-out' apparently means fitting out an existing commercial building for a new tenancy. So that's what causes traffic congestion? And here was I thinking it was the volume of vehicles trying to use too little road space. As for parking chaos, no idea. Maybe the problem has something to do with too many cars, but that is not mentioned. However, 'politicians should not dictate the way individuals and their families travel around'. So 4x4s are fine for the school run.
A cleaner, greener city.
Everyone's in favour of green (OK, except Jeremy Clarkson). Here at last the website reveals a few genuine proposals, such as instituting a 'Clean Up Brighton & Hove Day' (citizens do the cleaning). At least the Conservatives' logo is mainly green.
Safer crossing on the A23.
Who could object to safer roads?
A crackdown on antisocial behaviour and drug abuse.
Again, who among the electorate is likely to object? Again, the question is: what would be done?
COMMENT
Overall, the impression is that a handful of vaguely well-meaning sentiments do not rise above the platitudinous. Can't the voters expect candidates seeking our mandate to be more specific about what they intend? Or would that be too much of a hostage to fortune? Because politics is mostly governed by chaos theory, promises are tricky blighters. But politicians want our votes because they think they can do the right thing. Opposition politicians claim they can do better than the incumbents. We deserve to be told how that would work in practice.
Wednesday 18 April 2007
Making the voter the v in .gov
Local and regional elections are coming up in much of the UK in just over two weeks' time on 5 May.
This blog has been started initially to track the local elections being held for Brighton & Hove City Council. I hope to make it as positive as possible but, given the subject matter, that might be an uphill struggle. Of course, what is written here, even if it were read by millions, will not make a blind bit of difference to anything. Yet there are tiny flecks of straw in the wind hinting that the attitudes in this blog are not unique, that there is a desire for change, to make politics more accessible and meaningful to us citizens. Let's collect the straws until we have enough for a bonfire.
Brighton & Hove City Council consists of 54 seats: 10 wards with two councillors, 12 wards with three. It is currently run by a minority Labour administration (no overall control, NOC), the seats being held as follows:
Labour 23
Conservative 19
Green 6
Liberal Democrat 3
Independent 2
Vacant 1
This is the line-up as reported on the council's own website (www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=b1000143). In fact, one of the independents is a member of Brighton & Hove Independents, a political party registered with the Electoral Commission.
Net changes since the election in 2003: Labour has lost one seat to Independent and one Conservative resigned. At the previous election in 1999, when there were 78 seats, Labour held 44, Conservative 23, Green 3, Lib Dem 5 and Independent 3.
Of the 21 wards, seven returned only Conservative councillors at the 2003 election, six only Labour and one each only Green and Liberal Democrat. In the remaining six wards votes were split between parties.
Candidates this time round
The four main parties—Conservative, Green, Liberal Democrat, Labour—are each fielding a full complement of candidates in every ward. In seven wards these are the only candidates.
Two local parties are fielding candidates: Brighton & Hove Independents is contesting all the seats in two wards, two of the three in a third ward (where three other independents are also standing) and one of three in a fourth ward. The Protest Vote Party has single candidates in two central Hove wards.
Among other parties, Respect and Socialist Alternative each have two candidates, and there is one each from the Alliance for Green Socialism, English Democrats 'Putting England First!', the Socialist Labour Party and Ukip. Single independent candidates are listed in each of five wards and in one ward are two independents, one of whom is Tracey-Ann Ross, who has been prominent in the campaign against the council's controversial schools admissions policy (see Links). Three independents are associated with the Dump the Dump campaign against the waste sorting facility at Hollingdean.
That makes a total of 236 candidates to choose from.
The Lib Dems hope to win between nine and 12 seats and the Greens are hoping to double their presence to 12 (The Argus, 12 April).
- As someone who has just received his polling card, that makes me a voter.
- As someone who is celebrating 40 years of being able to vote—and who has done so at every opportunity since 1967—that makes me old. Old-ish.
- As someone who is fed up with our electoral system, the cynicism of politicians that infects the electorate (and vice versa), the lack of integrity, forethought and imagination—you name it, I'm fed with it—that makes me grumpy.
This blog has been started initially to track the local elections being held for Brighton & Hove City Council. I hope to make it as positive as possible but, given the subject matter, that might be an uphill struggle. Of course, what is written here, even if it were read by millions, will not make a blind bit of difference to anything. Yet there are tiny flecks of straw in the wind hinting that the attitudes in this blog are not unique, that there is a desire for change, to make politics more accessible and meaningful to us citizens. Let's collect the straws until we have enough for a bonfire.
CURRENT STATE OF PLAY
Brighton & Hove City Council consists of 54 seats: 10 wards with two councillors, 12 wards with three. It is currently run by a minority Labour administration (no overall control, NOC), the seats being held as follows:
Labour 23
Conservative 19
Green 6
Liberal Democrat 3
Independent 2
Vacant 1
This is the line-up as reported on the council's own website (www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=b1000143). In fact, one of the independents is a member of Brighton & Hove Independents, a political party registered with the Electoral Commission.
Net changes since the election in 2003: Labour has lost one seat to Independent and one Conservative resigned. At the previous election in 1999, when there were 78 seats, Labour held 44, Conservative 23, Green 3, Lib Dem 5 and Independent 3.
Of the 21 wards, seven returned only Conservative councillors at the 2003 election, six only Labour and one each only Green and Liberal Democrat. In the remaining six wards votes were split between parties.
Candidates this time round
The four main parties—Conservative, Green, Liberal Democrat, Labour—are each fielding a full complement of candidates in every ward. In seven wards these are the only candidates.
Two local parties are fielding candidates: Brighton & Hove Independents is contesting all the seats in two wards, two of the three in a third ward (where three other independents are also standing) and one of three in a fourth ward. The Protest Vote Party has single candidates in two central Hove wards.
Among other parties, Respect and Socialist Alternative each have two candidates, and there is one each from the Alliance for Green Socialism, English Democrats 'Putting England First!', the Socialist Labour Party and Ukip. Single independent candidates are listed in each of five wards and in one ward are two independents, one of whom is Tracey-Ann Ross, who has been prominent in the campaign against the council's controversial schools admissions policy (see Links). Three independents are associated with the Dump the Dump campaign against the waste sorting facility at Hollingdean.
That makes a total of 236 candidates to choose from.
The Lib Dems hope to win between nine and 12 seats and the Greens are hoping to double their presence to 12 (The Argus, 12 April).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)