Democracy? Don't be daft

mkpdavies · 05-09-2006, 11:42 AM

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=2502

Quote:

05-09-2006

The Standards Board of England and Wales has come under fire from the UK Independence Party following revelations that car owning local councillors are to be banned from discussing 'park and ride' schemes.

"What has this Government got against democracy?" asked Gerard Batten MEP. "All they seem to care about is forcing their agenda through, without any thought for the wishes of local people".

The Standards Board, a creation of the disgraced John Prescott, seems to have been designed specifically to neuter local government, by barring anybody with any independent thought or position from having a say in local governance, all to the betterment of appointed bureaucrats. Worse still, it seems to target independent councillors who have no major party backing.

Mr Batten continued: "The abolition of this centralising, anti-democratic quango is at the top of the UK Independence Party's local government agenda. We believe that people should be represented by those they vote for, pure and simple. It is what local democracy is about. Until we trust the people to decide for themselves, we will never create the forward looking, responsive local government we all so passionately believe in. It is just a shame that the main parties seem to hold the views of ordinary people in contempt".

Notes:

The Standards Board can be found here:

http://www.standardsboard.co.uk/

The UK Independence Party Local Manifesto can be found here:

http://www.ukip.org/cgi-bin/axs/ax.p...licies2006.pdf

Another great release.

Aardvark · 05-09-2006, 12:11 PM

You still have to put something in its place. Parts of the Code of Conduct are necessary.

Is it UKIP's position that a person who owns or manages land should sit in judgement on their own or their client's planning application or planning applications that effect the value of their property? Will councillors be allowed to appoint their own relatives to jobs for the council? Will councillors be allowed to use public funds for party political purposes? Will councillors be allowed to victimise their opponents through the planning process? I've complained about similar things locally. I have one success where a Tory was found to have misused a small amount of public funds. I have a complaint in process where a councillor tried to influence the appointment, or rather non-appointment, of her daughter. I know of other corrupt acts, but could not produce enough evidence.

What is UKIP's position?

mkpdavies · 05-09-2006, 12:17 PM

You can't stop corruption completley. But if there is true local accountability, then the people can vote out the rotten eggs as soon as they appear.

You can't do that with quangos.

One Londoner · 05-09-2006, 12:33 PM

Clearly a line has to be drawn somewhere as to what constitutes a personal or financial interest, but where has the Standards Board ruled on car drivers and park and ride schemes? Or is this a ruling by a batty local monitoring officer somewhere? It certainly seems a bit daft. By the same reasoning local councillors who pay council tax could be disbarred from voting on setting the council tax level - which could mean they have a problem reaching a quorum.

Can anyone shed any light on the actual facts of the story?

prober · 05-09-2006, 02:34 PM

The point is being missed. The standards board is not about stopping corruption its about stopping democracy. corrupt behaviour is self evident and controls are in place. The government's wheeze however is to prevent councillors elected on issues speaking or representing the voters on these issues. For example a councillor who won a seat campaigning on stopping school closure is prevented on speaking and voting on such closure.... let alone EU matters impacting on local government.

The government's objective is censor councillors to make them subservient to un elected officials loyal to the government to become joke neutered lap dogs in slavish silent implementation of government policy in those areas where Labour has no democratic mandate.

UKIP must vigorously and noisily fight and obstruct this and UKIP councillors should have UKIP legal backing to refuse to comply with censorship and seek test cases to overthrow gagging orders.

One Londoner · 05-09-2006, 03:26 PM

I couldn't agree more, prober. That is why this story is a gift to us if it is true that the Standards Board have made such a silly ruling - but we need the facts. It is a chance to highlight the problem with the nationalisation of "standards" for local councillors. It's always easier to make the case when there is a clear example to hang it on.

When Ken Livingstone was suspended we had a real crack at it, including a motion before the Assembly (seconded by the Greens):

Quote:

"This Assembly regrets that the Adjudication Panel has the power to suspend or disqualify a democratically elected member of an authority from office when no criminal offence or gross misconduct has been committed, and calls on the government to revoke this power as a matter of urgency".
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/as...15/item10a.pdf

which the Tories foolishly talked out because they wanted Ken suspended to poke him in the eye. But it was a great example which got national media attention of a quango interfering in local democracy.

StGeorge · 05-09-2006, 03:56 PM

A few "Bloody Nasty People" councillors have been in trouble for towing the line, stopping them from doing their jobs with suspensions if they are not politically correct. One way of them ensuring that the system won't be changed from within.

Aardvark · 05-09-2006, 04:13 PM

prober, I've been an elected councillor for 7 years. Other than the SBE can you tell me what controls are in place? I know of none and I have been on both District and Town Councils. The whole point of the SBE is that it replaced other controls. It is not effective in pursuing councillors in general since most complaints, even when proved, require no further action to be taken (read the reports on the SBE site to see how draconian the sentences are - not).

Matt, The idea that the bad eggs will be thrown out by the electorate is laughable. The electorate do not attend meetings and do not take much notice of who represents them. I stood in May against the laziest, least effective, most utterly useless councillor on WODC. He has yet to utter a word in full council in 7 years as a councillor, but, despite assurances that people wouldn't help him, when push came to shove people who didn't even like the guy canvassed for him rather than lose a Tory seat (he did virually no canvassing himself). I got the only swing against the Tories in West Oxon and still lost with 40% of the vote! Donkey, blue rosette!

Even if the bad eggs were to be thrown out by the electorate they would still have 4 years to do their damage. There has to be a system for removing corrupt councillors. At present the SBE is it and it is ineffective.

What has happened, as has been highlighted here, is that local monitoring officers (unelected lawyers in local authorities) make decisions that defy logic. I was allowed to vote on an application for an Orange mast, even though I was a subscriber, because my interest was negligible and was no different to that of an ordinary member of the public. That makes sense. Since in our area 78% of families have access to a car I cannot see how we cannot vote on car parks if required.

Before debating further it would be useful to have confirmation of this story and the authority concerned.

mkpdavies · 05-09-2006, 04:16 PM

Then it's up to you to prove they are a bad egg and tell people.

People are lazy. They need sppon feeding. But if you have the ammo, then feed them!

Aardvark · 05-09-2006, 04:34 PM

It's not that easy. To communicate to 3000 households costs money. The local paper will not run anything until a decision is made so that a complaint by me during an election period didn't get dealt with until 8 months later! The paper are waiting for confirmation that an investigation into one of our other councillors is under way before they will publish anything.

05-09-2006, 12:17 PM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,053 Party: Libertarian Party	You can't stop corruption completley. But if there is true local accountability, then the people can vote out the rotten eggs as soon as they appear. You can't do that with quangos. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

05-09-2006, 04:16 PM	#9 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,053 Party: Libertarian Party	Then it's up to you to prove they are a bad egg and tell people. People are lazy. They need sppon feeding. But if you have the ammo, then feed them! __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

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

05-09-2006, 12:11 PM	#2 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,973	You still have to put something in its place. Parts of the Code of Conduct are necessary. Is it UKIP's position that a person who owns or manages land should sit in judgement on their own or their client's planning application or planning applications that effect the value of their property? Will councillors be allowed to appoint their own relatives to jobs for the council? Will councillors be allowed to use public funds for party political purposes? Will councillors be allowed to victimise their opponents through the planning process? I've complained about similar things locally. I have one success where a Tory was found to have misused a small amount of public funds. I have a complaint in process where a councillor tried to influence the appointment, or rather non-appointment, of her daughter. I know of other corrupt acts, but could not produce enough evidence. What is UKIP's position?

05-09-2006, 12:33 PM	#4 (permalink)
One Londoner Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: London Posts: 468	Clearly a line has to be drawn somewhere as to what constitutes a personal or financial interest, but where has the Standards Board ruled on car drivers and park and ride schemes? Or is this a ruling by a batty local monitoring officer somewhere? It certainly seems a bit daft. By the same reasoning local councillors who pay council tax could be disbarred from voting on setting the council tax level - which could mean they have a problem reaching a quorum. Can anyone shed any light on the actual facts of the story?

05-09-2006, 02:34 PM	#5 (permalink)
prober Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 854	The point is being missed. The standards board is not about stopping corruption its about stopping democracy. corrupt behaviour is self evident and controls are in place. The government's wheeze however is to prevent councillors elected on issues speaking or representing the voters on these issues. For example a councillor who won a seat campaigning on stopping school closure is prevented on speaking and voting on such closure.... let alone EU matters impacting on local government. The government's objective is censor councillors to make them subservient to un elected officials loyal to the government to become joke neutered lap dogs in slavish silent implementation of government policy in those areas where Labour has no democratic mandate. UKIP must vigorously and noisily fight and obstruct this and UKIP councillors should have UKIP legal backing to refuse to comply with censorship and seek test cases to overthrow gagging orders.

05-09-2006, 03:56 PM	#7 (permalink)
StGeorge Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 416	A few "Bloody Nasty People" councillors have been in trouble for towing the line, stopping them from doing their jobs with suspensions if they are not politically correct. One way of them ensuring that the system won't be changed from within.

05-09-2006, 04:13 PM	#8 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,973	prober, I've been an elected councillor for 7 years. Other than the SBE can you tell me what controls are in place? I know of none and I have been on both District and Town Councils. The whole point of the SBE is that it replaced other controls. It is not effective in pursuing councillors in general since most complaints, even when proved, require no further action to be taken (read the reports on the SBE site to see how draconian the sentences are - not). Matt, The idea that the bad eggs will be thrown out by the electorate is laughable. The electorate do not attend meetings and do not take much notice of who represents them. I stood in May against the laziest, least effective, most utterly useless councillor on WODC. He has yet to utter a word in full council in 7 years as a councillor, but, despite assurances that people wouldn't help him, when push came to shove people who didn't even like the guy canvassed for him rather than lose a Tory seat (he did virually no canvassing himself). I got the only swing against the Tories in West Oxon and still lost with 40% of the vote! Donkey, blue rosette! Even if the bad eggs were to be thrown out by the electorate they would still have 4 years to do their damage. There has to be a system for removing corrupt councillors. At present the SBE is it and it is ineffective. What has happened, as has been highlighted here, is that local monitoring officers (unelected lawyers in local authorities) make decisions that defy logic. I was allowed to vote on an application for an Orange mast, even though I was a subscriber, because my interest was negligible and was no different to that of an ordinary member of the public. That makes sense. Since in our area 78% of families have access to a car I cannot see how we cannot vote on car parks if required. Before debating further it would be useful to have confirmation of this story and the authority concerned.

05-09-2006, 04:34 PM	#10 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,973	It's not that easy. To communicate to 3000 households costs money. The local paper will not run anything until a decision is made so that a complaint by me during an election period didn't get dealt with until 8 months later! The paper are waiting for confirmation that an investigation into one of our other councillors is under way before they will publish anything.