While Government Ministers are just beginning to learn to cope with online national petitions - we have our very own in Lewisham.
There is a campaign to abolish the executive Mayor position and revert to the system of every other London Borough of having just elected councillors. The campaign has a petition which you can apply to sign here: http://www.bringbackdemocracy.org.uk
The trouble with online petitions is that it gives no opportunity for people to vote against the proposal or decide either way via an ongoing discussion. So here is a poll you can vote to keep or not keep an elected Mayor. Even more important - you can say why.
Whether anyone will take a blind bit of notice is another question ...
Admin
PS You will need to login to vote.
Abolish the Mayor of Lewisham?
Abolish the Mayor of Lewisham?
Last edited by admin on 21 May 2007 18:22, edited 1 time in total.
What madness allowed us to have 2 mayors in the first place? At a local level we have at least 5 layers of government;
London Mayor
London assembly
Lewisham mayor
Lewisham Mayor’s cabinet
Lewisham Councillors
Apparently even that isn’t enough as they only do half the job, you also have a whole host of government agencies (such as the one in charge of redeveloping Crystal Palace park). Plus the Department of Local Government (or whatever it is called these days) who make the final call on any number of matters; planning apps (like Bell Green), capping budgets, setting targets etc..
If you ask me, getting rid of the Mayor is only the start. It is no wonder that everything takes forever to happen as there are so many people involved. And all being pay for by you, the tax payer.
London Mayor
London assembly
Lewisham mayor
Lewisham Mayor’s cabinet
Lewisham Councillors
Apparently even that isn’t enough as they only do half the job, you also have a whole host of government agencies (such as the one in charge of redeveloping Crystal Palace park). Plus the Department of Local Government (or whatever it is called these days) who make the final call on any number of matters; planning apps (like Bell Green), capping budgets, setting targets etc..
If you ask me, getting rid of the Mayor is only the start. It is no wonder that everything takes forever to happen as there are so many people involved. And all being pay for by you, the tax payer.
Kster - very inventive but, with respect, we simply don't have 5 layers of local government. In fact, we have a very sparse and direct democracy.
In Lewisham we have the Mayor and Cabinet (a total of 8 people) who make all the decisions affecting local services such as social services, education, waste disposal, local roads etc Our local councillors are glorified community workers who play no part in actually decision making unless they are on the planning committee. The whole reason for going over to the mayoral sytem was to make decision-making very direct - too direct for many people who claim the mayor doesn't have to pay any heed to anyone else and is a virual dictator.
The London Mayor and GLA are a strategic planning authority overseeing transport, "A" roads, strategic policing etc - things that simply cannot be done at local council level but are too "particular" to be dealt with by Parliament. All major political parties are agreed that a mayor and GLA are necessary. Surely we need a body planning London's roads and rail networks?
In Lewisham we have the Mayor and Cabinet (a total of 8 people) who make all the decisions affecting local services such as social services, education, waste disposal, local roads etc Our local councillors are glorified community workers who play no part in actually decision making unless they are on the planning committee. The whole reason for going over to the mayoral sytem was to make decision-making very direct - too direct for many people who claim the mayor doesn't have to pay any heed to anyone else and is a virual dictator.
The London Mayor and GLA are a strategic planning authority overseeing transport, "A" roads, strategic policing etc - things that simply cannot be done at local council level but are too "particular" to be dealt with by Parliament. All major political parties are agreed that a mayor and GLA are necessary. Surely we need a body planning London's roads and rail networks?
Can some of those people who have voted to abolish the mayor please state their reasons here?
I have lived in Lewisham only for a year but so far I find the lewsiham council to be a bit better than others in London that I have experienced and seems to have more of a 'face' to it.
I voted against the option for having a borough mayor when I lived in Southwark but my experience of Lewisham is swaying me in favour.
Is there something I don't know...?
Maybe its my love and appreciation of 'Ken' the mayor of London that's unduly influencing my views on our local version!!
I have lived in Lewisham only for a year but so far I find the lewsiham council to be a bit better than others in London that I have experienced and seems to have more of a 'face' to it.
I voted against the option for having a borough mayor when I lived in Southwark but my experience of Lewisham is swaying me in favour.
Is there something I don't know...?
Maybe its my love and appreciation of 'Ken' the mayor of London that's unduly influencing my views on our local version!!
If you look at the link in the first post http://www.bringbackdemocracy.org.uk that pretty much sums up the reasons.
As an additional point, there seems to be too many different organisations / levels involved, some of which are unelected. For example, the “regeneration” budget of £2million that Sydenham is currently bidding for, is coming from TFL. Who elected TFL? Not you or me, but they are getting funding from us (via our taxes) - a quick look at the TFL website shows that almost half their income comes from grants, so they are spending our money but who are they answerable to? The same goes for Crystal Palace Park, that used to be owned by the elected Council and now the responsibility has been passed to another unelected agency. There are “consultations” but they can be ignored by the agencies, that isn’t what I call democracy.
Nadaroc argues that Councillors don’t do much unless they are on a committee. Surely that means that we have too many, so why not reduce the number of councillors to the number that are required to do the job?
As an additional point, there seems to be too many different organisations / levels involved, some of which are unelected. For example, the “regeneration” budget of £2million that Sydenham is currently bidding for, is coming from TFL. Who elected TFL? Not you or me, but they are getting funding from us (via our taxes) - a quick look at the TFL website shows that almost half their income comes from grants, so they are spending our money but who are they answerable to? The same goes for Crystal Palace Park, that used to be owned by the elected Council and now the responsibility has been passed to another unelected agency. There are “consultations” but they can be ignored by the agencies, that isn’t what I call democracy.
Nadaroc argues that Councillors don’t do much unless they are on a committee. Surely that means that we have too many, so why not reduce the number of councillors to the number that are required to do the job?
Kster, wrong again. I'm not sure you understand the basic democratic structure that you live under.
TFL are under the direct control of the GLA. The GLA is directly answerable to you through the ballot box. You have an opportunity to elect both the London Mayor (currently Ken Livingstone) and our GLA representative (currently Len Duvall ) at regular intervals.
If you think TFL are some remote undemocratic organisation, consider the following:
1. Len Duvall is an occasional contributor to this forum - if you have any questions to ask him why not put them up on this forum and I'm sure he'll answer them. He's a regular attender of local meetings such as the Sydenham Regeneration Forum. You may disagree with him and his organisation but he's hardly a remote figure and stands for election on a regular basis.
2. The head of the TFL train division, Peter Field, was in Sydenham two weeks ago giving us details of the the new ELL line, Oyster cards and proposed take over of our local stations. He's asked anyone to contact him or his staff directly if they have further questions. I don't agree with many of his views but he's accessible and reasonably transparent.
3. TFL are currently implementing a scheme of Living Streets in Sydenham Road. The exercise has been accompanied by a plethora of meetings, surveys, public consultations etc etc. Frankly, I personally wish they'd spend less time consulting and get on with the building work. But consultations of this type, showing broad local agreement with the plans are required by TFL before they hand over the cash. It's hardly the sign of an organisation that wants to run away from the public and their views.
Of course, you say none of this is democracy - but what do you actually want? After all, aren't these people making themselves available to meet the public and account for their actions? Isn't this the very heartbeat of democracy?
If we did away with councillors as you suggest, you'd be the first to complain that we don't have local democracy. Who would you turn to if you have a problem with paving or lighting in your road - the Prime Minister??
What system of democracy do you actually want in place of the one we have already? Our democratic structures surely couldn't be more direct and simple - it's just that I don't think you understand them, frankly.
In response to people like you arguing that we wanted more accountability and direct democracy, we did away with the old committee structure for Lewisham and directly elected a mayor. Now people want to get rid of the directly elected mayor. What's going on?
TFL are under the direct control of the GLA. The GLA is directly answerable to you through the ballot box. You have an opportunity to elect both the London Mayor (currently Ken Livingstone) and our GLA representative (currently Len Duvall ) at regular intervals.
If you think TFL are some remote undemocratic organisation, consider the following:
1. Len Duvall is an occasional contributor to this forum - if you have any questions to ask him why not put them up on this forum and I'm sure he'll answer them. He's a regular attender of local meetings such as the Sydenham Regeneration Forum. You may disagree with him and his organisation but he's hardly a remote figure and stands for election on a regular basis.
2. The head of the TFL train division, Peter Field, was in Sydenham two weeks ago giving us details of the the new ELL line, Oyster cards and proposed take over of our local stations. He's asked anyone to contact him or his staff directly if they have further questions. I don't agree with many of his views but he's accessible and reasonably transparent.
3. TFL are currently implementing a scheme of Living Streets in Sydenham Road. The exercise has been accompanied by a plethora of meetings, surveys, public consultations etc etc. Frankly, I personally wish they'd spend less time consulting and get on with the building work. But consultations of this type, showing broad local agreement with the plans are required by TFL before they hand over the cash. It's hardly the sign of an organisation that wants to run away from the public and their views.
Of course, you say none of this is democracy - but what do you actually want? After all, aren't these people making themselves available to meet the public and account for their actions? Isn't this the very heartbeat of democracy?
If we did away with councillors as you suggest, you'd be the first to complain that we don't have local democracy. Who would you turn to if you have a problem with paving or lighting in your road - the Prime Minister??
What system of democracy do you actually want in place of the one we have already? Our democratic structures surely couldn't be more direct and simple - it's just that I don't think you understand them, frankly.
In response to people like you arguing that we wanted more accountability and direct democracy, we did away with the old committee structure for Lewisham and directly elected a mayor. Now people want to get rid of the directly elected mayor. What's going on?
I agree with nasaroc on this one. Although in theory it would be lovely to consult every single tax-payer on every single decision involving their money, in the real word that would be impossible.
Having a mayor is sort of based on the idea that its better to have a 'benevolent dictator' so that decisions can get make quickly without having to consult miriad committees.
And then if you don't like the particular mayor in question it is easy enough to vote for another one.
Having a mayor is sort of based on the idea that its better to have a 'benevolent dictator' so that decisions can get make quickly without having to consult miriad committees.
And then if you don't like the particular mayor in question it is easy enough to vote for another one.
Nasaroc, TFL is a large organisation with many stakeholders including the GLA, I’m not complaining about its core business and I do think it was good of them to turn up the other week and explain the effects of ELLX (much more community minded than Southern Rail…). But why does it control a town centre regeneration budget which accounts for minute proportion of its spending? Why can’t the budgets from public money be administered directly from the GLA to the council rather than being funnelled through a 3rd party, and in this case it is a 3rd party who has many far bigger and more pressing concerns.
If Sydenham doesn’t get any money for regeneration and I want to register my protest on polling day, I can’t, because it wasn’t the decision of anyone I can vote for i.e. GLA, either mayors or Lewisham council. If that money was distributed by the GLA or the council then I could vote for someone else (or visa versa if we get the funding). That is what I call democracy.
I didn’t suggest that we did away with all the councillors, I suggested that we should have as many as is needed, you are the one who pointed out that there are some that do very little.
If Sydenham doesn’t get any money for regeneration and I want to register my protest on polling day, I can’t, because it wasn’t the decision of anyone I can vote for i.e. GLA, either mayors or Lewisham council. If that money was distributed by the GLA or the council then I could vote for someone else (or visa versa if we get the funding). That is what I call democracy.
I didn’t suggest that we did away with all the councillors, I suggested that we should have as many as is needed, you are the one who pointed out that there are some that do very little.
Kster - I don't understand the point you make. The GLA (TFL is its "transport arm") is wholly responsible for distributing money for projects like Living Streets. If you don't like the way that's happening don't vote for the present GLA member and current London mayor, vote for someone else.
We shouldn't confuse this with the issue of "stakeholders" i.e. groups with a stake in their activities. All elected bodies (and many non-elected ones) have stakeholders. But that doesn't remove the fact that the GLA is the only body completely in control politically. The GLA is absolutely NOT a stakeholder in TFL, as you claim. they are their political masters, in the same way that Darien Goodwin (head of transport LBL) is employed by Lewisham council.
If you don't mind me saying so, and I say this with all respect, you seem to simply not understand the political structures that you are living under. I'm sorry that this sounds patronising.
The point I was making about local councillors was in response to your claim that there were too many layers of decision making. I was merely pointing out that a directly elected mayor had effectively removed one layer of decision-making in local govt democracy - the one between the local electorate and the person who makes decisions - the mayor. For this reason, people like you who support "flatter" structures should welcome the directly appointed mayor, shouldn't you?
I don't want to do away with councillors. They should be performing a vital role in taking up local issues on behalf of the community. Councillors should be leading the way on issues of local transport, business development etc etc. re Whether they are doing this is quite another matter.
To the question in hand, I'm for a directly elected mayor. It cuts red tape and we can see just who is in charge and making decisions. Those who claim it is undemocratic point to issues like the new school in the north of the borough and Ladywell pools - both issues that our local mayor was forced to "bend" on. That's democracy.
We shouldn't confuse this with the issue of "stakeholders" i.e. groups with a stake in their activities. All elected bodies (and many non-elected ones) have stakeholders. But that doesn't remove the fact that the GLA is the only body completely in control politically. The GLA is absolutely NOT a stakeholder in TFL, as you claim. they are their political masters, in the same way that Darien Goodwin (head of transport LBL) is employed by Lewisham council.
If you don't mind me saying so, and I say this with all respect, you seem to simply not understand the political structures that you are living under. I'm sorry that this sounds patronising.
The point I was making about local councillors was in response to your claim that there were too many layers of decision making. I was merely pointing out that a directly elected mayor had effectively removed one layer of decision-making in local govt democracy - the one between the local electorate and the person who makes decisions - the mayor. For this reason, people like you who support "flatter" structures should welcome the directly appointed mayor, shouldn't you?
I don't want to do away with councillors. They should be performing a vital role in taking up local issues on behalf of the community. Councillors should be leading the way on issues of local transport, business development etc etc. re Whether they are doing this is quite another matter.
To the question in hand, I'm for a directly elected mayor. It cuts red tape and we can see just who is in charge and making decisions. Those who claim it is undemocratic point to issues like the new school in the north of the borough and Ladywell pools - both issues that our local mayor was forced to "bend" on. That's democracy.
I do understand the current structure. Transport for London should make the decisions and run transport for London and report to Ken / GLA on that basis. This is a major decision using public money to develop public spaces and should, in my humble opinion, be made by directly elected representatives rather than being outsourced to a “transport arm”.
All this is a separate argument to the fact that the decisions that do make it to our council are not done in a democratic way (a double whammy). Personally, I think that a mayor (or prime minister for that matter) should lead a cabinet/council/parliament and not be able to overrule one. In our current situation the mayor has overall power, even though his party do not have a majority. To me that doesn’t seem right. Getting someone with absolute power to “bend” on a couple of issues isn’t really democracy, not giving them absolute power in the first place is. Hitler was persuaded to change his mind on a couple of issues, but I wouldn’t call Germany in the late 30s/early 40s a democracy.
All this is a separate argument to the fact that the decisions that do make it to our council are not done in a democratic way (a double whammy). Personally, I think that a mayor (or prime minister for that matter) should lead a cabinet/council/parliament and not be able to overrule one. In our current situation the mayor has overall power, even though his party do not have a majority. To me that doesn’t seem right. Getting someone with absolute power to “bend” on a couple of issues isn’t really democracy, not giving them absolute power in the first place is. Hitler was persuaded to change his mind on a couple of issues, but I wouldn’t call Germany in the late 30s/early 40s a democracy.
Kster - Your response is once again totally confused and shows you don't actually understand the structures of government.
Of course we need "experts" (road engineers, town planners) to devise and plan the Living Streets scheme. The alternative would be for our politicians to run around with clipboards and shovels.
These experts - the people drawing up the plans for Living Streets - are all employed by the GLA/TFL and they have to get all of their plans approved by the GLA/TFL transport committee which consists of elected representatives. No money is actually spent without our elected GLA representatives on this committee (and ultimately the London Mayor)giving the go-ahead. One of the things that was emphasised in the public forums is that the GLA/TFL will not hand out money willy-nilly without the politicians being convinced that it is good value for money and has local support.
You quite falsely appear to suggest that all of the decisions are being "outsourced" to a non-politically controlled transport "arm". Quite the contrary. The politicians will, naturally, take the advice of their employees quite seriously but they (the politicians) are ultimately in control. Cabinet ministers relate to their civil servants in exactly the same way.
I know of no other democratic structure in the world which operates differently.
Of course we need "experts" (road engineers, town planners) to devise and plan the Living Streets scheme. The alternative would be for our politicians to run around with clipboards and shovels.
These experts - the people drawing up the plans for Living Streets - are all employed by the GLA/TFL and they have to get all of their plans approved by the GLA/TFL transport committee which consists of elected representatives. No money is actually spent without our elected GLA representatives on this committee (and ultimately the London Mayor)giving the go-ahead. One of the things that was emphasised in the public forums is that the GLA/TFL will not hand out money willy-nilly without the politicians being convinced that it is good value for money and has local support.
You quite falsely appear to suggest that all of the decisions are being "outsourced" to a non-politically controlled transport "arm". Quite the contrary. The politicians will, naturally, take the advice of their employees quite seriously but they (the politicians) are ultimately in control. Cabinet ministers relate to their civil servants in exactly the same way.
I know of no other democratic structure in the world which operates differently.
On the question of the directly elected mayor. Could Steve Bullock really act like a dictator. In theory, possibly; so too could the British PM in many circumstances.
But look at the reality. SB has had to "bend" (change his decision, in actual fact) on the two major issues where any degree of opposition faced him - the swimming pool and the schools issue. Who made him change his mind? The oppposition groups, or opposition parties? Not on your nelly. He was persuaded by his cabinet that this was the "expedient" decision. And so, more often than not, is the British PM.
Furthermore, the Labour Party has entered into an unofficial pact with the Greens giving them a majority of elected councillors to go with a directly elected mayor. What's undemocratic about that?
There are (admittedly a small number) of directly elected mayors around England. Tell me one of them that's acting like a dictator. (I do not think that the comparisons you make with Hitler, Kster, are very helpful).
What's the alternative? A return to the smoke-filled rooms of the committee system where groups of tin-pot, ill-informed local councillors make slow, very very slow decisions usually on the basis of a three-line whip from their party.
Give me the directly elected mayor any day of the week.
But look at the reality. SB has had to "bend" (change his decision, in actual fact) on the two major issues where any degree of opposition faced him - the swimming pool and the schools issue. Who made him change his mind? The oppposition groups, or opposition parties? Not on your nelly. He was persuaded by his cabinet that this was the "expedient" decision. And so, more often than not, is the British PM.
Furthermore, the Labour Party has entered into an unofficial pact with the Greens giving them a majority of elected councillors to go with a directly elected mayor. What's undemocratic about that?
There are (admittedly a small number) of directly elected mayors around England. Tell me one of them that's acting like a dictator. (I do not think that the comparisons you make with Hitler, Kster, are very helpful).
What's the alternative? A return to the smoke-filled rooms of the committee system where groups of tin-pot, ill-informed local councillors make slow, very very slow decisions usually on the basis of a three-line whip from their party.
Give me the directly elected mayor any day of the week.
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
I've just seen <this item> on the News Shopper site.
-
Nick Ingham
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 11 Apr 2006 14:53
- Location: Catford
More details of this council meeting can be found here
http://www.bringbackdemocracy.org.uk/bb ... elease.asp
with the opposing view available on the local Labour party website here
http://www.lewisham.labour.co.uk/ViewPa ... Page=21381
Nick
http://www.bringbackdemocracy.org.uk/bb ... elease.asp
with the opposing view available on the local Labour party website here
http://www.lewisham.labour.co.uk/ViewPa ... Page=21381
Nick
-
Nick Ingham
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 11 Apr 2006 14:53
- Location: Catford
nasaroc
I think its worth mentioning that the committee system is long dead having been abolished by the Local Government Act 2000.
This Act forced all councils to adopt an executive model of governance with all decisions being made by an executive which consists of either (a) directly elected Mayor and cabinet or (b) Leader and cabinet or (c) directly elected Mayor and council manager. Option (c) is likely to be abolished by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health bill if this is enacted.
Councillors who are not appointed to the executive have very limited powers other than the right to sit on an overview and scrutiny committee which can question (but not overturn) the decisions of the executive.
Very few decisions now require a full vote of council but approving the budget is one of those decisions hence the reason Labour needed the support of another party to pass the motion approving the budget.
For most other decisions the Mayor can make decisions single handed.
Nick
I think its worth mentioning that the committee system is long dead having been abolished by the Local Government Act 2000.
This Act forced all councils to adopt an executive model of governance with all decisions being made by an executive which consists of either (a) directly elected Mayor and cabinet or (b) Leader and cabinet or (c) directly elected Mayor and council manager. Option (c) is likely to be abolished by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health bill if this is enacted.
Councillors who are not appointed to the executive have very limited powers other than the right to sit on an overview and scrutiny committee which can question (but not overturn) the decisions of the executive.
Very few decisions now require a full vote of council but approving the budget is one of those decisions hence the reason Labour needed the support of another party to pass the motion approving the budget.
For most other decisions the Mayor can make decisions single handed.
Nick
Sorry "52" isn't the answer I was looking for - I really shouldn't try cleaning my keyboard whilst replying to a posting!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All very well Nick but Steve Bullock was elected by a large majority. The combined votes of the second and third candidates for mayor just about equalled Bullock's vote.
You stood as a candidate for councillor in Rushey Green and were rejected by the electorate, receiving a total of 323 votes.
It's called democracy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All very well Nick but Steve Bullock was elected by a large majority. The combined votes of the second and third candidates for mayor just about equalled Bullock's vote.
You stood as a candidate for councillor in Rushey Green and were rejected by the electorate, receiving a total of 323 votes.
It's called democracy.
-
Nick Ingham
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 11 Apr 2006 14:53
- Location: Catford
Totally agree. He won the Mayoral election fair and square and whatever happens Steve Bullock will remain as Mayor of Lewisham until he has served out his term of office. That's laid down in secondary legislation namely Section 9 4(a) of Statutory Instrument 2001/1003.
The debate is about whether we think the directly elected Mayoral system should continue after 2010 and/or whether you think there should be a new referendum on the issue given the problems with the 2001 referendum.
The debate is about whether we think the directly elected Mayoral system should continue after 2010 and/or whether you think there should be a new referendum on the issue given the problems with the 2001 referendum.
Nick - I'm impressed by anyone who can quote "statutory instruments" in arguments on web forums. It's a testament to our political system that such people are thankfully seldom allowed to hold any meaningful political office.
The electorate simply aren't interested in such high-blown arguments. The vast majority of voters want efficient local government that removes their garbage and cleans their streets. They like the directly elected mayoral system because it gives them a single person at the top who they can hold responsible and re-elect or throw out at regular intervals.
The attempt to paint Steve Bullock as a tyrant just doesn't fit. Are we really expected to believe that this rather rotund, quietly spoken middle-aged man who we see regularly at public meetings and padding through the streets of Forest Hill is really an autocrat? I've attended at least half a dozen "meet the Mayor" meetings. I've heard lots of questions put - but never one on the mayor as tyranical despot. It's a question for political bores like you and me Nick - the rest of the population just aren't interested.
The alternative to the directly elected mayoral system - a return to slow-moving bureaucracy with a bunch of untalented, ill-informed, time-serving councillors having a major say? No thanks!
We've had a referendum. It decided (albeit narrowly) that Lewisham electors wanted a directly elected mayor. We've had a vote - we elected S Bullock by a huge majority - twice. The only people who are pressing for another referendum/relections are people like you Nick who didn't achieve power through the ballot box and now want to overturn the democratic will of the electors by the back door.
Incidentally, I'm not connected to any political party.
The electorate simply aren't interested in such high-blown arguments. The vast majority of voters want efficient local government that removes their garbage and cleans their streets. They like the directly elected mayoral system because it gives them a single person at the top who they can hold responsible and re-elect or throw out at regular intervals.
The attempt to paint Steve Bullock as a tyrant just doesn't fit. Are we really expected to believe that this rather rotund, quietly spoken middle-aged man who we see regularly at public meetings and padding through the streets of Forest Hill is really an autocrat? I've attended at least half a dozen "meet the Mayor" meetings. I've heard lots of questions put - but never one on the mayor as tyranical despot. It's a question for political bores like you and me Nick - the rest of the population just aren't interested.
The alternative to the directly elected mayoral system - a return to slow-moving bureaucracy with a bunch of untalented, ill-informed, time-serving councillors having a major say? No thanks!
We've had a referendum. It decided (albeit narrowly) that Lewisham electors wanted a directly elected mayor. We've had a vote - we elected S Bullock by a huge majority - twice. The only people who are pressing for another referendum/relections are people like you Nick who didn't achieve power through the ballot box and now want to overturn the democratic will of the electors by the back door.
Incidentally, I'm not connected to any political party.
-
Nick Ingham
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 11 Apr 2006 14:53
- Location: Catford
I laughed out load at the polical bore comment. However ...
The argument that campaigning for a new referendum is trying "to overturn the democratic will of the electors by the back door" simply doesn't hold water.
Firstly. its just an ad hominem argument rather than an argument about the issue.
Secondly, as I've already said, an incumbent Mayor will see out his/her term of office. No change can come into effect until the next election planned for 2010.
Thirdly, it cannot be said that a vote for Steve Bullock was a vote in favour of the Mayoral system. (Although if you want to play statistics, at the last election the number of votes for pro referendum candidates outweighed the vote for no change candidates).
Fourthly, the democratic will of the Lewisham voters was that they wanted a council under no overall control. What they got was a council that remained under the control of one political party owing to the new system.
Fifthly, it's a strange argument to say that because people voted in favour of a system back in 2001, they are stuck with that system forever and are not to be allowed another vote on the issue.
I could argue that those opposed to a new referendum are the ones who are not interested in the democratic will of the people. As Cllr Chris Flood and others have said “if you think the new system is so great then why not let local people have their say”.
And I haven't even started on the problems with the last referendum ...
Cheers
Nick (the political boar)
The argument that campaigning for a new referendum is trying "to overturn the democratic will of the electors by the back door" simply doesn't hold water.
Firstly. its just an ad hominem argument rather than an argument about the issue.
Secondly, as I've already said, an incumbent Mayor will see out his/her term of office. No change can come into effect until the next election planned for 2010.
Thirdly, it cannot be said that a vote for Steve Bullock was a vote in favour of the Mayoral system. (Although if you want to play statistics, at the last election the number of votes for pro referendum candidates outweighed the vote for no change candidates).
Fourthly, the democratic will of the Lewisham voters was that they wanted a council under no overall control. What they got was a council that remained under the control of one political party owing to the new system.
Fifthly, it's a strange argument to say that because people voted in favour of a system back in 2001, they are stuck with that system forever and are not to be allowed another vote on the issue.
I could argue that those opposed to a new referendum are the ones who are not interested in the democratic will of the people. As Cllr Chris Flood and others have said “if you think the new system is so great then why not let local people have their say”.
And I haven't even started on the problems with the last referendum ...
Cheers
Nick (the political boar)