|
|
Post by Phillip Badger on Apr 2, 2014 10:17:23 GMT
One of the DRP's founders, Robert Battison, has often pledged that local councillors should be independent of political parties to ensure that they work for the local community.
Do you agree with Robert? Help the debate by responding to this petition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl John on Apr 2, 2014 12:29:24 GMT
There's obviously two sides to this argument. With support of the political parties, influence can be brought to bear. This is because the current system is skewed away from local government by local people.
I certainly agree with Robert that local government must work for the local community. If insisting they are independent of a political party gets the job done, then we should follow that route.
|
|
|
|
Post by hairyloon on Apr 12, 2014 1:08:24 GMT
If you ban political affiliations from local government, then all you will do is drive those affiliations underground.
Isn't it better that any affiliation is clear and transparent?
There is also the small point that quite often there is a struggle to get anyone to stand for local government.
|
|
fossn
New Member
Posts: 10 
|
Post by fossn on Jul 24, 2014 15:42:33 GMT
Local govt aping national govt is counter productive.
Local issues require local solutions. Local councils should strive to provide the best possible local services without subscribing to a fixed ideology.
Ideally party politics should cease at all levels. It is the driver of centralising power concentrated in as few hands as possible.
If govt changes to bottom up party politics disappears. There is no left or right, rather there is right and wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Parsley on Sept 26, 2014 20:24:00 GMT
I lived on the Channel Islands for a number of years and there was no political parties...but there were groups of friends if you know what I mean. Therefore living under what could be described as that system, in reality it does not work and as hairyloon says it could drive such affiliations underground (as is the case in the Channel Islands).
I think what is required is something to ensure local councillors are representative of their local communities first and foremost and not necessarily their political egos
|
|
|
|
Post by Phillip Badger on Oct 2, 2014 21:43:33 GMT
It raises an interesting point. What is a political affiliation and what is a local affiliation? I think the focus of Rob's point when he expressed it to me was that people often see a logo on the ballot paper, and assume their feelings will be managed based on ticking that box.
I will give you the example of the election I ran in Crofton Park.
Myself and Karl put time in to knock on doors and discuss the issues they felt were most prevalent, and we gained some good feedback, we only had time to speak to 1% of the ward at best.
We didn't have enough for the Labour whirlwind in Lewisham because they went out to smash Lib Dem votes in the Borough, even though the present Labour Councillors didn't need to attend meetings for their part to win policy decisions. In short, many voices remained unheard.
Now Lewisham, as a Borough, is 53 Labour seats and 1 Green. I worry about how many people are being misrepresented now.
Simply put, how can it be possible to realistically represent local attitudes in this example?
|
|
|
|
Post by Parsley on Oct 3, 2014 22:10:34 GMT
Firstly I do not think 59 votes is a bad result for a first outing when people were determined to give the Lib Dems a bloody nose in these elections. It has taken the Green Party decades to get anywhere, and People Before Profit, who I also believe put in a lot of work in prior and during these elections, also failed to get anyone elected. TUSC have had some abysmal results as well.
I think if you combine the determination to give the Lib Dems (or any party/individual) a bloody nose with hereditary voting patterns this is what happens. At the end of the day the biggest problem is people have disengaged from politics and are not willing to look beyond the cover of the book. More localised neighbourhood councils and decision making I feel may help bring politics closer to them and a completely different result.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl John on Oct 12, 2014 6:09:14 GMT
Parsley, I agree that people have disengaged from politics. Yet, UKIP and Farage manage to attract their votes. Why do you think UKIP is having the success that they are? Can you put it down to a single factor?
|
|
|
|
Post by Parsley on Oct 12, 2014 15:21:43 GMT
Parsley, I agree that people have disengaged from politics. Yet, UKIP and Farage manage to attract their votes. Why do you think UKIP is having the success that they are? Can you put it down to a single factor? I don't think there is a single factor, but several contributing factors. 1) Media coverage putting UKIP in the public eye. 2) The image (albeit false) of UKIP being an 'anti-politics' party. 3) Protest votes. Combine all 3 and you have a recipe for success amongst voters who do not understand politics and underlying issues. That may sound arrogant, but it's all down to the disengagement of people from politics, with the main parties and their careerist politicians responsible for this. I would like to see far more community engagement in politics, meetings of residents with smaller workshops to discuss issues and then bring them back to the floor for general discussion. This may help reconnect people to politics. |
|
