jgharston: On the doorstep and in messages on the Forum I find a lot of people don't realise that Sheffield has annual elections to council, electing one third of councillors in each ward, three years in every four. Typical comments are: Fred lost, how come you're still a councillor (I was up /last/ year); Fred's up for election, do I have to vote for you too (no, I was elected /last/ year); So, we can't change this council for four years (no, there's another election next year) But I voted for you last year, why do I have to vote again? (there's elections /every/ year) The Local Government and Public Involvement In Health bill going through parliament will allow Metropolitan Councils (such as Sheffi eld) to move to all-up four-yearly elections instead of having elections in thirds. All Metropolitan Councils currently have to have elections by thirds. All County Councils and most non-Met Councils have all-up elections every four years. What is people's opinion here? Do you prefer electing only one of your three councillors each year, or would you prefer to elect all three of them all at once every four years? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greybeard: I'm for all-up elections, it would hopefully eradicate much of the silly party political manoeverin g that councillors waste much of their time on. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- blusky: Personally I think we need to have a radical re-think on how we vote in local elections. But more importantly you (the local politicians) need to look at why people are not voting or engaged in the process. I do agree that a lot of people are completely oblivious to whom their local councillor is and the minutia of how/when a local councillor is elected. An all-out vote every four years would certainly achieve a degree of simplicity. It would also give more of a mandate to rule for either yourselves (Lib Dems) or the Labour Party. I voted for the third option though, because I do not agree that simply changing the election cycle will encourage more debate/under standing/voting nor indeed accountability. I have posted elsewhere on the forum about looking at the elected mayor option and encouraging more independent candidates. I know that your party (Lib Dems) have always been incredibly innovative and dilligent in looking at different voting methods to encourage fairness/more proportional representation and I suppose voter turn-out. However, in Sheffield you have also been a little naughty at exploiting the political system too. Don't worry I'm not going to sling a load of mud at you because the other parties are guilty to a degree too. The problem I see is that you deliver thousands of leaflets/letters etc to places like Hillsborough/Walkley/Gleadless/Dore but nothing to places like Manor/Handsworth/Shiregreen etc. And hardly anything at all to places like Stocksbridge, Stannington, Ecclesfield because you have very safe seats there. What annoys me is as a resident when I receive a leaflet with a banner on it saying 'working all year round not just at election time' it annoys me because it is not true in certain areas. You only work all year round in pre-planned places where you are looking for votes. You also contain some very negative campaign messages which allude to the fact that another party has no chance of winning so dont bother voting for them. This is aimed at the Conservatives in some areas, Labour in others and most annoyingly at the Greens (I am not a member or campaigner for them but like the idea of having a degree of Green representation on the council). Your ruthless spin/propoganda exploits the weaknesses in our political system to your own advantage. SORRY, I dont mean to make it a have-a-go session because you have started an intelligent, measured thread for political debate, but your party gets on my nerves. Mind you a lot of them do. The irony is that changing the election cycle to every four years or even going the whole mile and introducing a form of proportional representation would actually cost you(Lib Dems) a lot of votes in this city - and deliver a Labour administration forever. My advice is to quit while you are ahead. But none of this addresses the real issue of voter apathy, decreased community involvement nor improved accountability. All politicians have a bad image at the moment. Perhaps you ought to look at your own parties actions in trying to improve the overall picture. I wish you luck. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- zetagi: politicians are nothing more that white collar criminals. will the last person leaveing sheffield p lease turn out the light. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- masonsarmsfc: our local councillor alf meade let us down in the school merger! so i voted tactics lib dems, to tr y to save wisewood it did work for a while !! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- blusky: Originally Posted by masonsarmsfc: >> our local councillor alf meade let us down in the school merger! so i >> voted tactics lib dems, to try to save wisewood it did work for a >> while !! I know you did masons and I cant fault you. But you can probably see now how the Lib Dems used you to get closer to power. Fair play to them, they said what you wanted to hear and kept by their election promise. But if they had been a properly run political party they would have come up with their own (costed) plan and would have been able to save your school properly. They let you down as much as the Labour party did. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- masonsarmsfc: Originally Posted by blusky: >> I know you did masons and I cant fault you. But you can probably see >> now how the Lib Dems used you to get closer to power. >> >> Fair play to them, they said what you wanted to hear and kept by their >> election promise. But if they had been a properly run political party >> they would have come up with their own (costed) plan and would have >> been able to save your school properly. >> >> They let you down as much as the Labour party did. we used them as they used us , but it got our point across as labour did not want to know wot parents was saying in s6 area !! but the fight goes on and on !!lol -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meaks: I'm all up for elections every four years - get them out quicker and in one go. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- AtticusFinch: I prefer the current system because it enables continuity. If you have all councillors facing elections simultaneously, you could end up with significantly changed councils after the elections, who then feel no need to continue the work of the previous councillors. Having staggered council terms provides a link between the pre-election and post-election councils, which is very important for a functioning administration. Yes there are people who don't understand/don't bother to understand how the system works, but then I'd hazard a guess that they're probably the same people who don't bother to vote. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Longcol: Originally posted by blusky: >> Personally I think we need to have a radical re-think on how we vote in >> local elections. But more importantly you (the local politicians) need to >> look at why people are not voting or engaged in the process. >> >> I do agree that a lot of people are completely oblivious to whom their >> local councillor is and the minutia of how/when a local counc illor is >> elected. An all-out vote every four years would certainly achieve a >> degree of simplicity. It would also give more of a mand ate to rule for >> either yourselves (Lib Dems) or the Labour Party. >> >> I voted for the third option though, because I do not agree that simply >> changing the election cycle will encourage more debate/under >> standing/voting nor indeed accountability. I have posted elsewhere on the >> forum about looking at the elected mayor option and encour aging more >> independent candidates. >> >> I know that your party (Lib Dems) have always been incredibly innovative >> and dilligent in looking at different voting methods to enc ourage >> fairness/more proportional representation and I suppose voter turn-out. >> >> However, in Sheffield you have also been a little naughty at exploiting >> the political system too. Don't worry I'm not going to sling a load of >> mud at you because the other parties are guilty to a degree too.
>> >> The problem I see is that you deliver thousands of leaflets/letters etc >> to places like Hillsborough/Walkley/Gleadless/Dore but nothi ng to places >> like Manor/Handsworth/Shiregreen etc. And hardly anything at all to >> places like Stocksbridge, Stannington, Ecclesfield because you have very >> safe seats there. What annoys me is as a resident when I receive a >> leaflet with a banner on it saying 'working all year round not just at >> election time' it annoys me because it is not true in certain areas. You >> only work all year round in pre -planned places where you are looking for >> votes. You also contain some very negative campaign messages which allude >> to the fact that another party has no chance of winning so dont bother >> voting for them. This is aimed at the Conservatives in some areas, Labour >> in others and most annoyingly at the Greens (I am not a member or >> campaigner for them but like the idea of having a degree of Green rep >> resentation on the council). Your ruthless spin/propoganda exploits the >> weaknesses in our political system to your own advantage. >> >> SORRY, I dont mean to make it a have-a-go session because you have >> started an intelligent, measured thread for political debate, but your >> party gets on my nerves. Mind you a lot of them do. >> >> The irony is that changing the election cycle to every four years or even >> going the whole mile and introducing a form of proportiona l >> representation would actually cost you(Lib Dems) a lot of votes in this >> city - and deliver a Labour administration forever. >> >> My advice is to quit while you are ahead. >> >> But none of this addresses the real issue of voter apathy, decreased >> community involvement nor improved accountability. All politici ans have >> a bad image at the moment. Perhaps you ought to look at your own parties >> actions in trying to improve the overall picture. >> >> I wish you luck. So in a nutshell the Lib - Dems promise to be all things to all people. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- redrobbo: jgharston and myself have exchanged views on this idea - during the last local election campaign! Sheffield is in the minority of councils that elects its councllors by thirds. This system has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that it keeps the political parties constantly in touch with the electors. It forces councillors and the politica l parties to continuously campaign and thus brings them closer to the voters and their views and opinions. For example, tear-off reply slips on leaflets, doorstep and telephone canvassing , plus street stalls and street meetings, and leafleting allow the voters to express their concerns, and hopefully, get them addressed! The disadvantages include the fact that constant year round campaigning tends to a large extent to concentrate in the key marginal seats - as blusky mentioned. This applies to Labour as well as the Lib-Dems by the way. As soon as one election has finished, the next campaign begins. I've already received one leaflet and a letter from one party - and polling day isn't until next May! I was deli vering leaflets last Saturday in another ward, and will be doing so again next week. That's on top of preparing a newsletter to deli ver in my own ward. It takes a whole week to deliver a leaflet or newsletter in my ward - which gives you an idea of the scale of the task. It takes even longer when it rains by the way! It also means that councillors from other wards are drafted in to help fight the key marginals - when their time might be better spent concentrating on the issues and problems in their own wards! There is also the question of voter fatigue, e.g., "What! Not you lot again?". I was first elected to the city council in 2003. Because of boundary changes, I then sought re-election in 2004. I then had to seek re-election in 2007. In theory, I don't have to campaign again until 2011, but in practice I'm already pounding the streets because I wish to support my fellow councillor who faces re-election next May, as I did for my other fellow councillor last year. It takes up a great deal of most councillor's time campaigning in what often feels like non-stop elections. All out elections, once every four years like most councils have, would mean that councillors could concentrate more on their own ward issues, plus have additional time for more effective scrutiny and similar council functions. I've been involved in scrutinising graffiti and fly posting problems, and lately anti-social behaviour problems - to try and examine these problems in depth and see if the council can come up with any new ideas to tackle these problems. These are probably more useful functions that a councillor can undertake than delivering yet another batch of leaflets in an area miles from your own ward - and eleven months before polling day! What do other forummers think though? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Longcol: Personally I'm not too bothered about the cycle - I would like to see the Tories canvass in my loc ality though - my dog could do with summat new to chase. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- redrobbo: Originally Posted by AtticusFinch: >> I prefer the current system because it enables continuity. If you have >> all councillors facing elections simultaneously, you could end up with >> significantly changed councils after the elections, who then feel no need >> to continue the work of the previous councillors. Having staggered >> council terms provides a link between the pre-election and post-election >> councils, which is very important for a functioning administration. >> >> Yes there are people who don't understand/don't bother to understand how >> the system works, but then I'd hazard a guess that they're probably the >> same people who don't bother to vote. The current system doesn't necessarily provide continuity though. At the most recent council elections (in May) Labour lost control, and the council became a hung council withno overall control. Although Labour subsequently formed the administration, it is a minority administration. It could be argued (indeed it has already been argued on another thread), that this leaves the minor parties (2 Greens, I Conservative and 1 Independent) determining council policy - and out of all proportion to their respective representation on the council. On the other hand, it can also be argued that no council policy can be adopted without some minor party agreement, which means that some proposals are tempered in order to gain majority support or consensus. (I am trying very hard to retain an objective and even-handed analysis of the issues here!) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- redrobbo: Originally Posted by Longcol: >> Personally I'm not too bothered about the cycle - I would like to see >> the Tories canvass in my locality though - my dog could do with summat >> new to chase. Insert: laughing smillie! (nb the Forum Technophobe has managed to disable all his smillies!) During my recent election campaign, my partner nobikejohn gave me a hand delivering election leaflets. He'd never been involved in an election campaign before, and it was an eye-opener for the poor man! We split up to deliver leaflets on a very pleasant cul-de-sac of somewhat expensive properties. When we met up, nobikejohn was incan descent with rage! He'd handed an election leaflet to a lady in her front garden. "What's this about?" she enquired. nob ikejohn informed her it was an election leaflet from me. "Who's he?" the lady asked. "Your Labour candidate" rep lied nobikejohn. "Aarrghh!" she exclaimed, "We don't want that sort of stuff at this house" and ceremoniously ripped up my leaflet into tiny shreds before his eyes! [Insert: laughing smillie] nobikejohn pleaded with me to come and talk to the lady and persuade her of my good intentions and the error of her ways. I explaine d that you win some and you lose some, and you can't possibly expect every voter to mark their cross on the ballot paper against your name. My only concern was that she had disposed of my shredded election in her blue bin! [Insert: rolling eyes smillie] As for dog attacks - I've never been bitten yet, but I've seen some councillors nursing nasty wounds. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- redrobbo: Originally Posted by blusky: >> Personally I think we need to have a radical re-think on how we vote in >> local elections. But more importantly you (the local politicians) need to >> look at why people are not voting or engaged in the process. Although I have mentioned voter fatigue as one reason why electors don't become engaged in the political process, it can only account for a small proportion of those who don't vote. The reality is, as blusky has mentioned elsewhere in his post, if you live in a 'safe' seat - you can be ignored by all the parties if they so choose, including the sitting councillors. Those voters who reside in marginal seats, on the other hand, are constantly bombarded with political leaflets - because their votes can affect who controls the council. So, Labour will probably concentrate on trying to win Walkley, as the Lib-Dem majority is now down to 36, and the Lib-Dems will probably concentrate on Gleadless Valley, as the Labour majority is now down to 49. In my own ward, I was the only candidate (out of 4) to ensure that every voter received my election leaflet. I was told by a Lib-Dem councillor that his party regarded my seat as safe for Labour, and I was criticised from within my own party for even bothering to leaflet. These observations exemplify the fact that the electorate can be taken for granted by both major parties - if your ward is regarded as a 'safe' seat. Whether we feel that changing to all out elections or keeping elections by thirds is the best option, I am firmly of the opinion tha t to countract voter apathy, we must change the voting system itself. I recognise that I am a minority within my own party, but neve rtheless a growing minority, that believes some form of proportional representation or alternative voting system needs to be adopted. That way, every vote in every ward would count. I think that jgharston and myself would both agree on that proposal! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- blusky: Originally Posted by Longcol: >> So in a nutshell the Lib - Dems promise to be all things to all people. Yes. But they still seem to keep winning. Its abit like watching Man Utd playing footie. Its interesting to watch but you hate it when they win. --------------------------------------------------------------------------