Newbury Debating Society, - Anyone interested in debating the EU? Options

[Andy Capp]

Why?

Surely coalitions (otherwise known as parties) are the problem. In the old days any councillor could bring a proposal to council, other councillors could think about, debate it, get advice from experts, and ultimately decide if it was a good idea or not. The modern system of predefined voting blocks who vote as they are told to vote is fundamentally anti-democratic. It is even worse when the way they should vote is determined with input from unelected party apparatchiks whose motivation is the advancement of the party rather than the benefit of the electorate.

Surely a party will only advance if it is popular? Viz, people vote for them.

The point I make is that I don't think having a house full of independents will achieve the result that it is intended. Each individual will have fewer resources at their disposal, and to that end is likely to get less done.

[Jayjay]

You're certainly not the first to make that suggestion - there may be some truth in it.

It certainly raises one issue that councillors didn't have to face in the old days - constant fiddling by central government. Nowadays councils seem to spend most of their time working out how to do what the latest central government edicts/laws instruct them to do.

They do have freedom of choice. The coalition, requested/bribed councils to go back to weekly bin collections. Newbury council, although matching the incumbent goverment, chose to ignore this.

[blackdog]

They do have freedom of choice. The coalition, requested/bribed councils to go back to weekly bin collections. Newbury council, although matching the incumbent goverment, chose to ignore this.

Yes, they occasionally have choice - especially when they are stuck in a contract that would cost more to change than the bribe on offer.

[blackdog]

Surely a party will only advance if it is popular? Viz, people vote for them.

The point I make is that I don't think having a house full of independents will achieve the result that it is intended. Each individual will have fewer resources at their disposal, and to that end is likely to get less done.

All councillors would have the resources of the council at their disposal - pretty much as they do currently.

Obviously the party system is successful - or we wouldn't have it - I just don't think that the interests of the party match those of the electorate and think that government by a general consensus of the councillors would be better than being forced to accept what is decided by the select few (some elected, some not) who run the local ruling party.

[Andy Capp]

All councillors would have the resources of the council at their disposal - pretty much as they do currently.

Yes through the party machine. I'm talking about canvassing, promotion, and the like.

[Exhausted]

Yes through the party machine. I'm talking about canvassing, promotion, and the like.

Surely though, that only applies at election time and the major cost is the number of stupid Vote Conservative or Vote LibDem signs that seem to proliferate at election time. If candidates all operated from a level playing field and only canvassed their own area without the coloured badges highly visible when you open the door, then I don't see the problem. It also means that the supporters are candidate supporters and not anonymous party hacks.
Once the election is over, the party machine isn't required to finance its elected councillors as far as I know.

[Andy Capp]

Surely though, that only applies at election time and the major cost is the number of stupid Vote Conservative or Vote LibDem signs that seem to proliferate at election time. If candidates all operated from a level playing field and only canvassed their own area without the coloured badges highly visible when you open the door, then I don't see the problem. It also means that the supporters are candidate supporters and not anonymous party hacks.
Once the election is over, the party machine isn't required to finance its elected councillors as far as I know.

I think you might underestimate the work that goes into an election. How is someone going to get elected if they cannot get their message across? I think you would end up with even fewer people voting, which might not necessarily be a bad thing.

[Exhausted]

I think you might underestimate the work that goes into an election. How is someone going to get elected if they cannot get their message across? I think you would end up with even fewer people voting, which might not necessarily be a bad thing.

Point taken, I'm not sure how an individual would be able to finance his/her canditure and worst case scenario would be that the people who get into power would be those with the deepest pockets, but then again, what's the difference today.

[Andy Capp]

Point taken, I'm not sure how an individual would be able to finance his/her canditure and worst case scenario would be that the people who get into power would be those with the deepest pockets, but then again, what's the difference today.

I agree, this is why I am sceptical that we would see much difference to that which we have already.

[blackdog]

I think you might underestimate the work that goes into an election. How is someone going to get elected if they cannot get their message across? I think you would end up with even fewer people voting, which might not necessarily be a bad thing.

We are talking about local elections, where the electorate for each councillor is limited to around 2500. If I were setting the rules I would see that the council printed and delivered (all together) to every household a leaflet from each candidate. The leaflets would all be the same size and style, content provided by the candidate (no mention of party affiliation allowed). The council would provide venues for public meetings where all candidates would have ten minutes to make the case for their election before they all answered questions from the floor. If the candidates want to canvass then they would be free to do so; personally I have only been canvassed a couple of times in the last 30 years so wouldn't miss them if they decide not to. I would ban election posters, or limit them to selected spots, perhaps half a dozen temporary noticeboards in each ward where one could peruse them all together.

My aim would be to create as level a playing field as possible, where the wealth and resources of a rich candidate or a party machine would not give a candidate an unfair advantage.

[Andy Capp]

My aim would be to create as level a playing field as possible, where the wealth and resources of a rich candidate or a party machine would not give a candidate an unfair advantage.

I see that as a good idea, however, to draw an analogy I feel is would be like introducing rules to mitigate the wealth of a top football club in an attempt to create a level playing field, the wealthy club will still have an advantage.

But I do see the current party system failing local governance and democracy.

[Simon Kirby]

I like Blackdog's suggest, but there is a significant risk to freedom and democracy in banning party affiliation so I don't see how this could be made to work. Elections are free and fair so if the electorate vote for party candidates without taking the trouble to think whether they are doing a good job or not that's how it is.

I see the Apolitical Party as a serious possibility - there's a party machine for everything that Andy Capp says is good about the party system, but it's a party that actively discourages party loyalty and encourages healthy debate and voting with conscience.

[Andy Capp]

I like Blackdog's suggest, but there is a significant risk to freedom and democracy in banning party affiliation so I don't see how this could be made to work. Elections are free and fair so if the electorate vote for party candidates without taking the trouble to think whether they are doing a good job or not that's how it is.

I see the Apolitical Party as a serious possibility - there's a party machine for everything that Andy Capp says is good about the party system, but it's a party that actively discourages party loyalty and encourages healthy debate and voting with conscience.

Perhaps that is the problem, people tend to vote with the heart, instead of the head!

[Simon Kirby]

Perhaps that is the problem, people tend to vote with the heart, instead of the head!

Labour were once a credible party in West Berks, and now the Lib Dems are, so change can happen. It's an uphill struggle for a new party, but support for the tories and lib dems is declining so there is a niche if they could recruit enough local activists - people like us.

[Cognosco]

Labour were once a credible party in West Berks, and now the Lib Dems are, so change can happen. It's an uphill struggle for a new party, but support for the tories and lib dems is declining so there is a niche if they could recruit enough local activists - people like us.

The Vexatious Party?

[NWNREADER]

The Parties always have one eye on the next election and how to get people behind them. Whatever the majority Party does the oppositions rubbish it and find fault. Nothing wrong with scrutiny, but the constant trashing of even what they themselves would do is boring.

Populists government delivers what everyone wants - politics for all. Life isn't like that.
Governments that do the right thing become popular, Politics isn't like that....

[user23]

Labour were once a credible party in West Berks, and now the Lib Dems are, so change can happen.

Labour have had just one councillor in West Berks / Newbury District in the last forty years.

Labour were only a credible party when the Liberal Party didn't field any candidates for a period of years. I'd love to know the story behind why this happened, does anyone know?

[Simon Kirby]

Labour have had just one councillor in West Berks / Newbury District in the last forty years.

Labour were only a credible party when the Liberal Party didn't field any candidates for a period of years. I'd love to know the story behind why this happened, does anyone know?

Thanks, "credible" was perhaps over-stating it.

[blackdog]

I like Blackdog's suggest, but there is a significant risk to freedom and democracy in banning party affiliation so I don't see how this could be made to work. Elections are free and fair so if the electorate vote for party candidates without taking the trouble to think whether they are doing a good job or not that's how it is.

I see the Apolitical Party as a serious possibility - there's a party machine for everything that Andy Capp says is good about the party system, but it's a party that actively discourages party loyalty and encourages healthy debate and voting with conscience.

There is a real and active threat to freedom and democracy - the party system. I guess you can't ban party affiliation, but you can ban it being mentioned in any election literature, posters etc.

As for the Apolitical Party - its still a party.

There is a theory that the best way to elect representatives is by lot - everyone would have their names go into the hat, those whose names were pulled out would form the council, whether they liked it or not. This is the way the ancient Greeks did it - and they invented democracy (though I guess their slaves' names didn't go into the hat). The theory is that the worst people to have in government are those who want to be there - and I can see a lot of merit in that.