Democracy? Don't be daft

mark starr · 05-09-2006, 04:43 PM

I f as a car owner you are not allowed to vote on park and ride neither should anyone who uses public transport since they are likely to be extremely biassed.
In other words no councillor should be permitted to vote on such an issue since they will all have a particular preconceived view.

One Londoner · 05-09-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

Other than the SBE can you tell me what controls are in place?

In case of criminal activity (eg. hand in till) - the police
In case of improper use of resources by a ruling party - District Auditor
In case of general misconduct - local Standards Committee

If voters are daft enough to keep electing an idiot who abides by the rules, that is their problem. Frustrating, but that is democracy.

brian lee · 05-09-2006, 05:04 PM

I cannot understand Aardvark's view. The regulations, and I have looked at them, allow unelected people to decide what matters elected councillors can discuss. The definition of prejudicial interest is whatever the local standards officer decides.

A big issue in Southend is the Conservative Council's policy of promoting a super casino, although this is not supported by the electorate. As opposition to the casino was a major part of the UKIP candidates' manifestos, had they been elected they would have been prevented from representing the electorate. They were aware of this and were ready to take to the streets in defence of democracy.

This is nothing to do with corruption, but the prevention of a person being elected on a particular issue from being allowed to promote the cause he was elected on.

Aardvark · 05-09-2006, 06:59 PM

Police will investigate hand in the till type offences, but using the council resources for your party is still something that goes to SBE. The local Standards Committee act on referrals from SBE or monitoring/legal officer (paid employee). I don't recall the Standards Committee acting independently. The District Auditor is again a paid employee or contractor. His recommendations can carry wait, but it is difficult for him to pick up on the sort of things that are being referred to the SBE, although the DA can refer people to SBE.

I agree, it is ridiculous that people are being told what they might collectively discuss. Under the old system, and I believe it might still be the case, a council could allow people to remain and vote if their absence would change the make up of the council. I recall when I was a Tory councillor we all left the room when the DC bought the Conservative Club and HQ for redevelopment. The advice given was wrong. It made a minority Lib/Lab opposition into the majority.

I'm not saying that the SBE is right; I'm saying that UKIP should have a policy other than abolition. As with all of the things highlighted by the press, sensationalism might sell papers but does not reflect the positive things that the SBE can do in terms of training or guidance.

There has to be an independent way of removing/punishing corrupt councillors between elections. Having sat for 4 years on WODC and 7 years on Carterton TC, and knowing many councillors of different parties on different authorities it has saddened me that a tiny minority of councillors view doing things for their personal advantage as the norm. Somebody has to remove these people and, oddly, the misinformed and partisan electorate are not the people. 25% turnout when I last stood; most electors couldn't name the sitting Tory before his leaflets went out.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-09-2006, 04:43 PM	#11 (permalink)
mark starr Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 642	I f as a car owner you are not allowed to vote on park and ride neither should anyone who uses public transport since they are likely to be extremely biassed. In other words no councillor should be permitted to vote on such an issue since they will all have a particular preconceived view.

05-09-2006, 05:04 PM	#13 (permalink)
brian lee Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: South Essex Posts: 613	I cannot understand Aardvark's view. The regulations, and I have looked at them, allow unelected people to decide what matters elected councillors can discuss. The definition of prejudicial interest is whatever the local standards officer decides. A big issue in Southend is the Conservative Council's policy of promoting a super casino, although this is not supported by the electorate. As opposition to the casino was a major part of the UKIP candidates' manifestos, had they been elected they would have been prevented from representing the electorate. They were aware of this and were ready to take to the streets in defence of democracy. This is nothing to do with corruption, but the prevention of a person being elected on a particular issue from being allowed to promote the cause he was elected on.

05-09-2006, 06:59 PM	#14 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,973	Police will investigate hand in the till type offences, but using the council resources for your party is still something that goes to SBE. The local Standards Committee act on referrals from SBE or monitoring/legal officer (paid employee). I don't recall the Standards Committee acting independently. The District Auditor is again a paid employee or contractor. His recommendations can carry wait, but it is difficult for him to pick up on the sort of things that are being referred to the SBE, although the DA can refer people to SBE. I agree, it is ridiculous that people are being told what they might collectively discuss. Under the old system, and I believe it might still be the case, a council could allow people to remain and vote if their absence would change the make up of the council. I recall when I was a Tory councillor we all left the room when the DC bought the Conservative Club and HQ for redevelopment. The advice given was wrong. It made a minority Lib/Lab opposition into the majority. I'm not saying that the SBE is right; I'm saying that UKIP should have a policy other than abolition. As with all of the things highlighted by the press, sensationalism might sell papers but does not reflect the positive things that the SBE can do in terms of training or guidance. There has to be an independent way of removing/punishing corrupt councillors between elections. Having sat for 4 years on WODC and 7 years on Carterton TC, and knowing many councillors of different parties on different authorities it has saddened me that a tiny minority of councillors view doing things for their personal advantage as the norm. Somebody has to remove these people and, oddly, the misinformed and partisan electorate are not the people. 25% turnout when I last stood; most electors couldn't name the sitting Tory before his leaflets went out.