By Tony Walley.
Brian Ward
Pits’n'Pots can tonight exclusively reveal that the City Independent Group have voted unanimously for Brian Ward to be their Council Leader candidate.
AT the group AGM tonight Brian received 10 votes out of the 14 councillors in attendance.
The other Independent candidate Ann James received 4 votes.
Brian will become the group leader with immediate effect.
Cllr Terry Follows will become the City Independent Group’s Deputy Leader.
We will bring you a comprehensive audio interview with Brian on Wednesday when he will share his vision for our city should he become the Council Leader.
Alan Rigby decided not to stand.
Thanks god someone is getting their act together.
Yes, congratulations to both Brian and Terry for being recognised by their grouping. They will face a tough task in clearing up the Lib-Lab-Con coalition’s mess after June (hopefully).
I’ve always thought that Brian was unofficial group leader for several years anyway. The public never really hear anything about Ann James, it was always Brian that spoke for the group. I don’t know if she had personal circumstances that contributed to her taking a backseat, but I don’t think I ever heard her speaking for the group on the nights of election counts either, it was always Brian that took to the podium on the groups behalf.
Seems like an all round good choice to me-although it is a shame Alan Rigby didn’t get something. Maybe his place awaits him on the next cabinet?
Thanks for this info Tony.
But being pedantic, a unanimous vote is one where everyone votes the same way (EMB and nodding donkeys spring to mind). This was more of a ‘decisive’ vote perhaps.
Brian Ward should make a great group leader and I very much hope he gets to be council leader. Really looking forward to hearing the audio.
Having said that I have great respect for Ann James, I think she makes valuable contributions and remains an important team member of the CIG.
Alan Rigby is a very good speaker, at a guess he maybe decided it was too soon to stand as leader or his preference was for one of the others.
I’m sure everyone knows my high opinion of Terry Follows. CIG deputy leader, then onwards to strive for greater things.
Tideswellman – agreed! It’s good to see things shaping up.
Well done to Brian and Tery however in support of Nicky i must praise Ann James who as kept this group together for a number of years without her valuable leadership skills the CIG could have been at risks of becoming as disjointed as the coalition (LibLabCon.
Well done Ann for all you have done, look on the brite side you can take it easy for a while now.
As a leader Ann as always made a point to enquire how my dad was due to him been a fellow Indpendant cllr and for that i hold her in high regard.
I just hope whoever becomes the council leader that they don’t become an easy pushover because i’m sure some will just be waiting for the successful candidate to stuff up.
** DELETED UNACCEPTABLE COMMENTS **
I recall Brian Ward’s first election as CIG leader in 2004/5. He had only been on the council for a year and was clearly out of his depth. However he has more gravitas now and comes across reasonably well (I recall he has always had a focus on actually delivering regeneration, frequently reminding Dev Control Committee of its citywide responsibilities, ignoring the parochialism that has dominated that committee for an eternity). The difficulty for him will be to win the vote for Council Leader. Until the existing coalition shows its hand, we have to assume that the Leader will almost certainly be Labour or Ross Irving.
When is the Labour AGM???
Former Town Clerk’s Dept Labour AGM next Sunday 10-30am.
Mick
Mick Salih and Peter Kent Baguley are rumoured to have made a deal to join Brian Ward’s cabinet since neither of them are able to get six councillors to nominate them to stand themselves.
Cheers Mick, should be interesting …
Having not seen a transcript of this evidence I can not tell what context this statement was made in. At one extreme it could have been a statement as to what a decent person this individual always seemed to be and how shocking it was to discover that he had committed such a violent act. At the other extreme (which I doubt it was!) it could have been a statement that this person committed a wholly justified violent act because the other guy deserved it. Or it could have been somewhere in between. Well if it was at the former end of the scale I could imagine that is how I might react in such a circumstance and if it was at the latter end of the scale I would completely disagree.
Given that people do not always hold the same views and nobody is perfect, it is necessary to take an overall balanced view about a person and like you say, Terry Follows does a tremendous amount of good in his ward, although I would not agree with every single one of his views. Nevertheless he certainly has my support and I think he is deserving of deputy leader.
Now I know you are not a BNP member, but you have said you vote BNP. It could be argued that the BNP lack moral fibre because they would condone violent acts in the form of capital punishment and corporal punishment including inflicting that on school children. Now from my standpoint I abhor any kind of physical violence inflicted by one human being upon another, including the Habib Khan example that you mention and the other examples I’ve given from BNP policy. But that does not stop me from commending BNP councillors for some of their good community centred local work and other things that individuals do well.
On my part I value contributions that the vast majority of people make to society, but I doubt I could think of a single person (including myself) that I could not find some fault with.
So that’s my viewpoint on the matter.
Sounds like the makings of a good cabinet to me.
since when have these 2 had casting vote they not got enough support to be nominated, that would be a very poor deal you want deal with larger group, now peter might be considered due to his scrutiny, can’t say same for salih as him and stockley team got city where it is today.
anonmoose any news on labour candidates for leader
It would be interesting to see how their relationships would work – given that they were enemies as Leader and Deputy Leader of Labour when Brian Ward was Leader of the CIG.
Please, we need the LibLabCon OUT!!!
The city is behind an Independent led coalition. If that fails to come about in June, it will be yet another example of how out of touch the majority of city councillors really are.
We have already had our electoral system forcibly changed against our will, we have had a mayor governing us for the last 7 months against our will, we have a coalition that nobody wants or voted for, we have policies that nobody supports. We have had democratic elections cancelled for the forseeable future. What’s the liklihood of ANOTHER Leader coming to power without our support or consent???
Shaun,
“The city is behind an Independent led coalition.” Is it?
“we have a coalition that nobody wants or voted for” – no one disagrees with that.
“What’s the liklihood of ANOTHER Leader coming to power without our support or consent???” Very likely, whoever is elected Leader, as you have observed on many occasions, will not have come to power with the consent or support of the public.
Despite my picky comments, I endorse the spirit of your views! Sorry!!
Er….it was the independents that gave us this style of Governance that the City has rejected in a referendum.
Independents are as guilty as hell.
er no that was residents of this city who signed petion organised by Mike Wolfe and the Sentinel, the City was run by Independent cabinet beofre change to mayor
Independents ran it so well, that a petition was organised to elect an independent as Mayor.
The rest is history and the independent idea of useless party politcs will be put out in the trash can.
Incidentally, the definition of independence is exactly that. The first thing they do once they have shouted their gobs off about corrupt parties, is to form a party and have a group meeting.
Two faced.
Agree with Ian on this one. I guess “Just plain ignorant” was ignorant to that fact.
(Sorry couldn’t resist)
The original Mayor vote was dressed up as a way to get Labour out, however it resulted in firstly the architect of the vote getting the position (Mike Wolfe), then allowing Labour’s Meredith to take control without needing a majority control of the council.
Although that was the year I failed to be re-elected, I actually felt more sad for the Independent group, finally gaining enough support and councillors to form a new administration, but resigned to having to give that up when the Mayor took over.
At that point they didn’t stand a chance, with a Mayor vote in just a few months it was always going to be a lame duck administration.
Any leader worth his salt would want Mick and Peter on the inside rather than on the outside pointing out your mistakes.
I warmly welcome the news on the provisio that Mick and in particular Peter keep up the attitude of exploring every available option rather than going simply for that which the officiers or the national government suggest.
That’s not to say that the officiers/gov’t are always ‘wrong’, but just following the first person to offer advice is part of the problem in the first place. We need an administration prepared to lead, not be guided like sheep.
“The city is behind an Independent led coalition.” Is it?
Thats a fair enough question, former town clerk’s dept.
I should perhaps have said that I believe the city is behind it. However, the other parties must also think so-hence their collusion to cancel a democratic vote until as late as 2011.
This election for Council Leader is more about “Democracy” than “Politics”, and no candidate who thinks otherwise should be considered.
With respect, Ken its the other way around. The vote for the Leader is about ‘politics’-i.e. who commands the most support (or at least the least hostility) from the majority of city councillors. In that sense, democracy has nothing to do with it. Deals will be struck, bargains will be made, negotiations will take place.
The democratic bit comes earlier when the voters get to elect the councillors who choose the leader. The voters choose which group they want to govern by awarding them the largest share of seats.
And that is the problem we have with the present state of afairs. We are going to get the ‘political’ bit in little under a months time; but we will not be getting the ‘democratic’ bit until 2011 at the earliest.
That is wrong, it is undemocratic and it means that the new Leader has NO authority, democratic mandate or right to propose ANY policy upon the city, or raise ANY tax or reallocate ANY budget!
‘The original Mayor vote was dressed up as a way to get Labour out’
I thought the Independents ran the Council?
Just looked at the numbers, Ann James lost to Brian Ward 10-4.
It’s a bit of a kick in the teeth for her to be honest.
After leading the Independents for several years she must be feeling pretty sore at being dumped like this. Brian Ward might have problems with the discontent in his group this may leave.
smile in ignorance
Admin would like to point out that the offending post was removed as soon as possible. It would have been removed earlier had someone hit the report the comment button. This function is there to protect people from libellous comments.
WE appeal to all readers/contributors to report any comment that may cause offence or upset to anyone.
This site should remain a debating platform where people can exchange their views on a range of topics and do so without fear of insult or hurtful comments.
Pits’n'Pots would like to thank Terry Follows for his understanding in this matter.
Please be aware those posters who make insulting or libellous comments will leave themselves open to legal proceedings.
Admin have tonight contacted Mr Craig Pond and asked him to fully retract his comments and to apologise for any offence caused to Mr Follows.
Shaun,
I think there are very serious reasons why I say that this election should be about “democracy” rather than “politics”. Serious contenders, I hope, will have no alternative but to support the opening up the administration to democratic processes. This is not the case at the moment, as you well know. The EMB and the majority of the inplanted senior officers see democratic processes as nuisances and obstacles to be overcome, that is clearly the only way that they can enter into their nefarious “Partnerships” with Quangos and profit-hungry private firms. To our collective shame, our Councillors and our citizens have been unable to stop this railroading. I’ve done all the right things, responded to Consultations, played an active role in certain interest sectors, represented those being made homeless by the RENEW process and taken a close interest in public lobbying of groups such as TAG. I have never yet received any polite acknowledgement to any of my submissions, and it is some understatement to say that I am disillusioned. If that is what is called “politics”, then I’m not interested. Despite this, I promise to continue to try to be a good citizen, and I will always work for the betterment of my City.
I think it is a mistake when you imply that voting is about democracy – there are very many ways of participating in a society other than that, and the fact is that the vast majority of our citizens do not partake in this particular luxury. For myself, I rarely vote unless I feel that the particular candidate has worthy and inspirational qualities, I’ve always refused the “least worst” option and believe that “public opinion” is the creation of the voting process, not its master. I think that the “established” political Parties both nationally and locally have now shown that they are not fit for purpose, and I’m sure that if this election is going to deliver anything good for our people, then Party Politics has got to be laid on one side until democracy is re-established.
No, again it seems some people want to rewrite history.
The campaign for an Elected Mayor took place during the time that the Labour Party were still in power without needing coalition partners.
The referendum was held on the same day as the local council election that finally ended Labour’s grip on power and allowed the Indies to form a new coalition.
I didn’t report it because we make comments about various people and each other all the time on this site. As for the factual accuracy of an event and who said what, it’s more the responsibility of the person stating it to know. I certainly didn’t have the info on that. So, sorry, I didn’t actually think there was anything reportable, otherwise I would have, although I didn’t see it until lunchtime anyway.
Craig expressed an adverse opinion about Terry Follows that I absolutely do not agree with but I figured he was entitled to his opinion. We have a huge range of opinions on here! I thought given that Craig came on here and said what he did about Trentham’s favourite councillor, he must be wanting and/or expecting a rather fierce debate with me and/or the rest of the Trentham community and maybe others. So I thought I could either ignore it or give him debate and I chose the latter!
My comment above doesn’t make a lot of sense now, so you may remove it and this one if you wish (sorry I’m a computer dunce and don’t know how).
That’s very insightful Ken. I’ve done the non-voting thing too. I’m now back in ought to vote even if it’s for the least worst option mode. I agree with you though, I’d like to see democracy triumph over party politics. … I heard on the telly that shares in SERCO are doing very well at the moment…
Nicky,
The trouble with voting for the “least worst” candidate is that there is little incentive for the “Political” Parties to evolve into Parties of the People – you see, the “Politics” get in the way. Our people are seeing away through this “Political” morass. This is the reason why we have a “Transition Board” and the Government intervention here in Stoke-on-Trent. With the growth of the “Independents” (let’s pray that they don’t evolve into a “Political” Party), the establishment is worried that they are losing “Political” control. I look forward to the day when our elected representatives can see themselves as a part of the people, and represent us instead of their “political” masters.
If intelligent people like Brian can play their cards right, I see a great future for our City, our people and our democratic processes.
But the Independents ARE a POLITICAL PARTY!
They have secret meetings, they vote en bloc and choose a winning majority position.
That is the definition of a political party.
Stop trying to pretend otherwise.
But the whole sorry saga of Stoke-on-Trent is put down as a coalition of at least two.
No matter how hard you try,the coalition mess in Stoke is the invention of the Independents.
Wolfe was independent.
The Independents were Independent.
No one explains the notion of Independence and they don’t explain who they are independent of?
The established political parties are independent of each other and there is are no bonus points given to Brian Ward and co for inventing something new.
The fact is they are independent of a National party and have no back up.
The governance commission does not uphold the theory of independence being the best way forward.On the contrary, the Commission calls for greated involvement of National Parties in shoring up local political parties.
No chance is Brian Ward or anyone else under the banner of independence going to bring normality back to this City. Wishful thinking has been the ruinof this City for 9 years.
It will make a few people on theground feel good about themselves though, granted.
Ultimately, a Council Leadership under Brian Ward will be toppled.
100/1 racing certainty.
Just plain ridiculous is correct.
In fact the City Independents have been registered with the Electoral Commission as a political party for some time now:
http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=502&frmType=partydetail
I can see where you’re coming from Ken (although as a member of a party I can’t agree with you entirely on the matter of the ‘least worst option’). I do however have two problems with your anti-party ideal.
First I would say that whilst Independents are a nice,cuddly,fuzzy idea that appeals to many people, in reality they can only really have any effect if they join as a group and have some form of discipline to keep them together. But then they become little more than a political party anyway.
Remember that representation is really about two jobs. Individuals are of course elected to represent their residents as best they can. This is something that Independents can do just as well as any political party and indeed, I suspect that NOBODY but the most extreme anti-politics loonies would have a problem with the way that most elected representatives do their job of ‘representing’.
In effect, this ‘representation’ role is ALREADY independent of party politics. There is no specifically Labour, Tory or Lib Dem way to effectively represent someone. Come to that, there is no specifically Green, BNP, UKIP or Independent way of representing someone either. In a system in which ALL representatives are expected to represent everyone equally and regardless of party, there CANNOT be a difference between them on party grounds when it comes to representation.
Now of course, some individuals will be bad at the job of representation (as the good people of Trentham will no doubt tell us), but that is really because they are poor individuals rather than because or their party.
The second job that our elected representatives must do is the general matter of government. This they MUST do as a collective. They MUST be able to join together to put a policy programme together. This policy programme will only work if they can ensure that it is able to be enacted, and then this facilitates democracy as voters then get the opportunity to choose between competing policy programmes.
Its a very nice idea that voters should be able to pick and choose individual and perhaps competing policies, but in the real world it is not practicable. All we can really choose from is a general direction.
It is in this role that the political parties become absolutely crucial to the system of democracy-and indeed it is a job that CANNOT EVER be done by genuine Independents. Genuine Independents could never get a policy programme through, they could never agree on a general policy direction and they could never effectively ‘manage’ the system. Any independent group that seeks to ‘govern’ must effectively junk all the things that made them Independents in the first place.
Furthermore, supposing we had a democracy in which political parties were banned. Supposing ALL candidates had to stand as Independents. We would end up with an ungovernable country, a mess of competing ideas that could not be reconciled in an effective government agenda. Anarchy.
But it would be even worse than that. Without political parties, voters would’nt have any clue whatsoever as to what the competing Independent candidates in their ward or constituency actually believed in or stood for. They would only know what they were voting for if they really knew the candidate personally (maybe as many as 50 people in a ward of 10,000 would be able to claim that), or if they spoke to the candidate personally (maybe the candidate would get to speak personally to 4,000 people in a ward of 10,000 during the course of a campaign if they gave up any life outside of the campaign).
And perhaps they would only tell each voter what they wanted to hear anyway, so voters couldn’t be really sure of anything even after they had met them for two minutes on the doorstep.
I agree that it would make the candidates really work harder during the campaign, but the vast majority of the voters would really have no idea what to expect from any of the candidates. I suspect that turnout would then plummet even further.
By contrast, even if you don’t meet the candidate personally, under a political party label everyone can have some rough idea of what they can expect, what they roughly believe in and what they’re getting. People are able to cast a democratic vote because they are voting for the principles rather than the individual. Of course, the downside of that is that many candidates simply rely on their party and don’t think that they have to do the work to get elected that they would if they were independent.
So the choice is ours. There are pro’s and con’s with both parties and Independents. Are we voting for a representative or a government? In effect we are voting for BOTH. But genuine Independents cannot really do both without surrendering what made them Independent in the first place. People who always say ‘a plague on all your houses’ and vow never to vote for a political party are really selling themselves and their community short, because they can only ever really have a representative who can do half the job.
By all means vote for the best candidate, but don’t set yourself agains the IDEA of political parties in principle just because you don’t like some of their ideas or the individuals putting them.
Stoke on Trent in a mess because of the Independents? Nothing to do with the balls up that the EMB have made since the Elected Mayor Meredith came to power? Nothing to do with the fact that the electorate have turned away from the mainstream parties in massive numbers?
Perhaps your next post should be written under the name Just Plain Thick!
For some reason, you imply that I defend the EMB or any of the people that serve on it, I don’t.
My point is that the City was pursuaded that the party political system was broke and only an independent view couls save the City.
The people fell form that (honorable?) line and removed party politics from administration.
That somewhat remains the position.
The Independents quickly realised that being truly independent was a flawed wish. They meet as a group now and make collective decisions.
They have the fortune, not to be judged by events in London, unlike Labour and Conservatives who do. Irrelevent as it is.
The path of Independent divinity is rubbish and it should be seen by grown up people that a collective view of a political party, backed up by London is the way forward. It helps that the individual Leaders of those parties have a general appeal to the wider public.
First rule of thumb for an independent, slag off Labour using such words as (keyword)’ They are all useless’.
So, national party executives have sorted out the Labour Party, Conservative Party, Libdems? How so? Do YOU feel better for it? Does Joy?
if you read councils constitution you will learn why an independent group was required.
the political registration is only to enable an icon to be on ballot papers to help voters identify group from others such as conservative alliance.
National Party executives (hostile to fascism/racism/extremism and intentional discrimination) have rallied around to sort out the mess that is Stoke-on-Trent.
Labour,Conservatives and Liberals at the highest level agreed to form a coalition to keep out fascism.
This has now been superceded by the imposed 14 Government recommendations. Like it or lump it.
David Cameron allowed his party to form a secondary link with Independents as the threat grew stronger. He recently warned people of this area to act in the best interests of Democracy and keep out those that will abandon it in favour of fascism and discrimination.
Everyone is commonly agreed that to defend the rights of fascists to speak out, contradicts the desire for equality for everyone, regardless of anything.
So, in answer to your question, the only answer is yes.
Do I feel better for it? I vote in every election and therefore that question is irrelevant to my sort.
Does Joy? Dunno.
“Labour,Conservatives and Liberals at the highest level agreed to form a coalition to keep out fascism.”
I’m sorry but that really is just a laughable attempt to defend the indefensible coalition that we have in this city.
The parties can go on about the coalition keeping out the BNP as much as they like, but nobody believes it. Its rollocks.
The BNP have only a handful of seats on the council. The idea that the Lib-Lab-Con was the ONLY way of stopping them from taking power just doesn’t stand up. In any case, it would have been possible to to have a minority Labour administration that sought the votes of the other parties on an issue by issue basis.
Furthermore, the elected mayor is Labour and is the person who governs the city until the end of their term this June (of course with the officers). Under the terms of the mayoral system that we had, he EMB is only an advisory body and the council is only a scrutiny body. So how on earth could the BNP have taken power if the coalition had not been formed?
The real reason is that the coalition was formed to enhance the power of its lead members in the EMB as well as swell their bank-balances. Lets not pretend that there was any selflessness involved in all this, it was plain and simple self-service.
No, the pro-mayor argument was that having one person directly chosen by the people is better than a Labour party leader voted for by the Labour party (this was back before the EMB coalition).
The campaign was spearheaded by Mike Wolfe who ‘coincidentally’ also ran for Mayor as an independent (small ‘i’, he was not associated with the Independent Council Group).
For the duration of the Mike Wolfe administration, Stoke was controlled by an independent Elected Mayor.
However the second Mayor vote resulted in a win for the Labour party in the form of Mayor Meredith.
No it is not, we currently have a Labour Mayor lead council and the Labour Mayor cleverly muzzled the council (whose primary job is to scrutinise the Mayor) by creating the EMB and appointing members of the Labour, Tory and Lib Dem parties (primarily who lead their respective parties, rather than the general sheep).
Thus the Mayor had full grip on power with hardly any ability for concerned councillors to challenge his decisions.
Actually the City Independent Group has roots going back to before the Mayor option was even on the table. Under the old committee system you were either a member of a group and therefore your group is entitled to committee seats based on the number of members in the group, or you throw yourself to the mercy of the ruling party and hope they offer you an independent (small ‘i’ again) seat on a committee.
Under the old rules an (true) independent councillor would not be entitled to any seats on committess, they would be deemed a ‘party of one’ and therefore not large enough to get any seats.
Obviously this would massively hamper an independent councillor, so they formed a group. It’s only natural that this group would then also work together whenever they have a common interest, however there are plenty of instances where different members of the Independent group have voted different ways.
The only judging I see is when the EMB is poorly judged for it’s individual members ignoring their party political roots and beliefs and block voting for whatever the Mayor asks them to approve.
Personally I would rather see genuine Stoke on Trent people with Stoke on Trent viewpoints representing the people of (you guessed it) Stoke on Trent.
I don’t believe that having a party machine in London is required for a councillor to do their job well. If anything, being able to explore every option without somebody from London curtailing your options is beneficial.
Please explain why, based on that Labour should be villified, not for the Mayor/EMB fiasco but for Gordon Brown!
I’m a Lib Dem party member and I slag off Labour too, having a go at the party in power is not something restricted to just the Independent Group. If a party in power is making a bad job of it, they are right to make a noise about it.
.
.
.
Boy, you know this site is getting very popular when all the trolls start coming out of the woodwork.
Just plain ridiculous & thick labourite(s)? -
“They have secret meetings, they vote en bloc and choose a winning majority position.”
“They meet as a group now and make collective decisions.”
Yes I’m sure they meet and discuss issues and sometimes arrive at a collective view when they agree, but from the point of view of someone who sometimes sees them in council meetings, they do not seem to be subject to party whip and they do not always vote together.
“They have the fortune, not to be judged by events in London, unlike Labour and Conservatives who do.”
Well you do at least admit that is irrelevant. Because I would say that although the labour government are cr*p and the coming tory one does not look like being much better, it is labour and tory EMB councillors LOCALLY who have done way more to descredit themselves and their parties than any national influence.
Shaun,
I take the point about the two roles of a councillor but don’t accept that independents can’t govern. There may be a bit more debate in order to reach a policy decision but that may be no bad thing. They know what’s needed from a ward point of view and can bring that knowledge to bear on decisions. Better than steamrolling crazy decisions through and to hell with the people. Much of what is needed for local government doesn’t need very much ideology other than common sense (… but not ‘common purpose’ which has been hijacked for something else).
From my point of view I don’t reject the idea of political parties as such, but I turned away from them because there just aren’t any decent ones. But now what I find much more interesting than confining to a group of like minded people in a party, (theoretically – not that this seems to be what happens within the political parties in practice) is encompassing a very wide range of views into policies that will work for most people. Now tell me that’s impossible if you like, but that’s what has to be done for society to work with sufficient democracy.
Your views on the term ‘independent’ and Mike Wolfe alarms me.
We’ve been there and bought the tee shirt on Independents and now, a few in the cheap seats, want a return.
Presumably because the trick of party politics-bad and independence-good, is the jingle still running around 9 years after it all started off.
When I look around, all I see is chaos but your attempt at differentiation between this or that independent is open to ridicule.They all piss in the same pot.
You appear to ask me why Gordon Brown is a hinderence to Labour candidates.
This particular set of people are judged by Government actions and blatant press lies and so have a hard slog before the shooting starts. Labour does well when in opposition Circa 1900-2002ish.
A question that proves these points is this:
Which political party kept the Gurkhas out?
If you answer Labour, then you fail the test.
If you answer Conservatives, then you win.
Now tell me what the press version is, Mark?
And of the Independents on the EMB, Nicky? are they OK?
Hoew many of these Independents are closet BNP sympathisers? Just those that Labour expose?
The term independent is a lie.
Brian Ward running an independent party with no whip and then running a Council that has four is a recipie for Mike Wolfeisness.
Bring on the ice rink, single lanes on the A500 for single drivers.
shaun, with the new system there could be few commission needing fewer cabinet members so you could have cabinet of ind, labour, tory, lib, alliance. are you saying that as they all have different views they couldn’t form and pass any policies?
If you want to keep on denying the past and looking back with Labour tinted glasses then so be it.
However given the general positivity in this thread I think you’ll find yourself to be a late arriving minor voice of discontent.
Stoke had around 6 months of an Independent-Tory coalition before the Mayor took over. To view the Mayor as an ‘Independent’ is to misunderstand the situation. Mike Wolfe was a one man maveric, this is entirely different from being run by a loosely aligned group of independent councillors who have their ward constituents needs at heart.
Labour does well circa 1900-2002 in opposition? What planet are you talking about here?
I think what we’re seeing here is the typical party political view that democracy ends at the ballot box and whichever party has the most number of seats should be awarded the cast iron right to run the council however they like and stuff what anybody else thinks.
Fact is we want democracy within the council itself, with consensus decisions being made after *all* councillors (regardless of political colour or viewpoint) have been able to put forward their ideas.
Stoke has had enough of being ruled with an iron fist.
“Shaun, I take the point about the two roles of a councillor but don’t accept that independents can’t govern.”
Yes Nicky, I do believe that its possible for Independents to govern. We can see this hapening in local councils accross the country. However, they have to do it by becoming quasi-parties. They have to operate as a party (however loosley they try to claim their whip is). Then in effect they become a brand new party called “the Independent Party”.
What I’m saying is that whilst there is no natural advantage to having ‘independents’ in politics, it is also not a disadvantage to have regular political parties. The representation role is exactly the same for both models, and the government role is only possible for a consistent organisation such as a party-and Independents who become an effective party.
Therefore, there is no great preference for Independents in theory.
“shaun, with the new system there could be few commission needing fewer cabinet members so you could have cabinet of ind, labour, tory, lib, alliance. are you saying that as they all have different views they couldn’t form and pass any policies?”
No that does not follow because they are parties that form a coalition. This is an established model of government whereby parties negotiate behind the scenes to agree a joint government programme. Each member party then use their cohesive structure and whip system to provide stability for the coalition.
But again, a coalition including ‘independents’ only works if it is the quasi-party form of independents that I described above. It CANNOT include genuine independents because they can only really ever speak for themselves. I suppose its possible for a coalition of two or more parties to invote individual independents to join the coalition because of their talent, but there is never any pretence that those individuals help towards the coalition getting its votes through, and they are not generally critical to the survival of the coalition.
On a personal note, I would be against such a coalition of all the parties that you set out anyway. Like the Lib-Lab-Con it would be a coalition designed to ‘corner the market’. A coalition designed to exclude any real choice and therefore would be undemocratic in itself.
Since the purpose of parties is to facilitate democracy by promoting choice (offering a set of general principles for voters to choose from), it would be UNDEMOCRATIC for all parties to get together to put forward a ‘universal view’.
It would also lead to divisions within those parties, the possible defection of opposing viewpoints from within those parties and the establishment of new parties. Eventually, you then end up back where you started with a governing block and an opposition block. If that governing block then breaks back down into its competing component parts, you then end up with an even MORE fractured and ungovernable system. Thats what has happened in Stoke-on-Trent!!! Are we now to repeat the same mistake and make the system 10 times more fractured?
“the typical party political view that democracy ends at the ballot box and whichever party has the most number of seats should be awarded the cast iron right to run the council”
Frankly, we didn’t have the problems we have now when that was the case in this city (unfortunately for me it was Labour who controlled the city then).
The problem in the last 10 years has been that the system Mark has criticised has NOT been place becuase the party system in the city has been so fractured.
“Fact is we want democracy within the council itself, with consensus decisions being made after *all* councillors (regardless of political colour or viewpoint) have been able to put forward their ideas.
Stoke has had enough of being ruled with an iron fist.”
What Mark is calling for is to replace the ‘elected dictatorship’ whereby the party with the most seats governs in a strong way until they are thrown out and replaced by the people.
In its place he wants to put in place an ‘unelected dictatorship’ where all the parties agree on what needs to be done and then does it regardless of what the voters think. That is the reality of this mythical ‘concensus government’ that he idolises.
Well guess what Mark? We have that ALREADY! We have had it for the last two years. It is called the LibLabCon! It is why voters of the city are to be denied an election until 2011 because the establishment knows the voters will not vote for it.
I know which of Mark’s two systems I prefer. Give me the party with the majority governing with an iron fist any day! How awful it is to have this permanently hung council!
Just plain thick: yes the Highways Agency have been pushing for Traffic Management on the A500 to protect their route to the M1 for a while since the midman report I think, but thats not a local authority route, have Labour submitted any objections to it? err NO
how about bigging up Labour and attempting to prove why they are worth our VOTE instead of attacking others? How about coming out shadows and getting a real name to back up your convictions?
Mark, Shaun,
I think I said previously about voting that “there are very many ways of participating in a society other than that”. Voting is not what makes man democratic, nor is it what makes man man. We have here entered onto fair and useful debate, fair territory for us evolving ideologues. Let’s handle our subject with care and mutual respect, and I feel that we will be able to take it forward.
I think that it is easy to fall into the trap of becoming overly fixated with the minutae of structural democracy. To go beyond that demands an analysis of the purposes of those democratic structures, and I see only two:
1) The liberation of man
2) The containment of the human soul by a disrepectful and dominant class of political masters.
(Which one applies in Stoke-on-Trent at the moment I wonder? ? ? ? ?)
Within those two purposes, there are very many sub-sets of ideas to be examined, two of which are extremely relevant to Stoke-on-Trent at the moment – one is the concept of leadership, and another is the toleration and respect for opposing viewpoints.
A great man once said, during a time of extreme social radicalisation and civil war “Let a million flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend”. That comment had to be seen as ironic at the time, because there was simply no time, constitution or opportunity for rational debate. What is more, such democratic “extremism” fell back in the face of the great man himself, who tens of millions of people held to be leader. But only such democratic extremism could shatter past presumptions and lead to victory against the enemy and a great victory of the people.
You will see from this that I consider the nature of political parties to be restictive both in theory and in practice. That is not to say that there are no perceptive and radical people within these parties, nor that the Parties themselves can not evolve radical ideas from within. What it does say, however, is that ALL the ideas and thoughts of ALL the people, even those parrotted from a corrupt and manipulative mass media, are relevant, true and worthy of unbounded respect. The key to leadership is to harness all this intellectual energy to form a synergised force which will harness and regulate all our productive capability in the interests of the people.
Sorry to be so theoretical, but this debate MUST go forward. And the debate is nearly as fluid as the present political situation in our beloved City.
Sorry Shaun I disagree, the LibLabCon coalition is designed to hold on to that “iron fist” control of the city. It is not a proper ‘consensus’ as the coalition have only half (just) of the council votes.
We don’t have a hung council, the coalition control it.
Once again, Mark, you appear to be deciding the independence of independents based upon personality.
Mike Wolfe thought this City was being strangled by ineptitude.i disagreed then and do so now. But his attack was upon the independents and not some other fall guy you damage in here.
Wolfe went on the attack upon anyone who got in his way.Of course, Labour took up the challenge to oppose him, his structure and his style of leadership (“No one’s telling me what to do, I rule”) Hence, the dismissal of Wolfe by those who propmoted him (The public)has left a lasting vendetta with Labour which Wolfe continues to prosecute).
Independents wanted control of the Civic centre. They got it. We are still in the shit.Blame Labour.
for the record, Mark, when Labour are out of Government Office, they score well locally. Unlike the Conservatives who generally score the same and unlike Lib Dems who no one cares about, in or out of office. In fact, they are unwanted generally and locally. Quite unique, throughout Europe.
So local Labour candidates ARE judged by National standards regardless of whether the public agrees or disaggrees on their local views. They can be identical but voted down because of a tax dodge by a tax dodger in Beckham.
Independents are guilty of screwing it up and damaging the party political structure with absurd and downright lying counter propaganda which was only aimed at raising their inept profiles that saw many of them aligning with the BNP.
GOVERNANCE COMMISSION REPORT(7):
“We strongly RECOMMEND that the NATIONAL PARTY organisations work with the LOCAL PARTIES to develop the way they operate and relate to individuals in the City, in order to engage a broad range of people in politics and Civic activity”.
The hope for this City cannot be laid at the door of a passing independent who may be a bit of a cut above the rest. The fabric and structure of National Political parties and the support for them locally gives everyone a fair hearing.
Independents continue to play a secondary role to the BNP (who mean it for other reasons) in slagging off anything on offer.
The very idea that political party members equals corruption (accusations of murder abound in pits n pots)and deciet is nothing short of playground and bar room nonsense.
Logical and considered opinion is only found in political parties, whom display their disagreements beforehand before settling on a general stance.
There is no such thing as an independent and that very term is contrary to the agreed formula recommended to solve the crisis in this City. To continue to hold out a hand to independents, displays an immaturity that caused this (Wolfe+ Co) disaster in the first place.
But believe me, that crowd still have scores to settle.
Yes Mark, but you have said that you want a more ‘democratic’ system where multiple parties get together to govern by ‘consensus’.
But the LibLabCon is doing just that and things have got much WORSE under them! True it is not a consensus that the majority of the public agree with, and true the council now has a large opposition to the coalition built up over a long time.
But the system you propose is fundamentally the same as the LibLabCon claim they have introduced. Furthermore, it is a fundamentally undemocratic system designed to get all party agreement and thus prevent the voter from choosing anything different.
I prefer the ‘iron fist’ system that you deride in which we agree a ‘contract’ to allow the majority party do as they think fit on the condition that they agree the same if we then decide at a future election to put them out of office.
GOVERNANCE COMMISSION REPORT – also says timeline should be
May 2009 – Mayoral Elections (if required)
May 2010 – Elections for one third of Council seats (under existing system)
May 2011 – First all-out elections
but that too would appear incorrect
Coincidently I have just in the last few minutes submitted a blog on this whole election timeline issue – pending for admin to release.
There aren’t any independents on the EMB.
Shaun
You can carry on repeating the same thing over and over again, but that doesn’t make it true.
The coalition does not rule by consensus. They alienate the other council groups and rule by the ‘Iron Fist’ system that you claim to prefer. Thus the truth that you would prefer an administration that rules regardless of whatever deals they need to make to hold a coalition together.
A proper consensus system would allow all parties to put forward ideas, for ideas to be voted on by their merit. Once passed by a majority of the council they would be enacted upon, but that majority can be any 31+ councillors, be they Lib Lab Con Pot Ind BNP LDL NAL or any other group or individual on the council. THAT is proper consensus government, and the voters have the say in make up of that council. A party is then judged on what decisions it made (be they ones that were implemented or not). There would be no room for those who oppose for the sake of opposing, or for those who do not have ideas. The old excuse of “we’re not the party in power, so it not up to us to think of ideas/think of ideas for the other party to pinch” won’t apply.
At present, full council votes are not binding they are instead recommendations to the office of the Mayor (or in future the office of the Council Leader), therefore what we have now, is NOT consensus rule. It is IRON FIST rule by a coalition of three (out of 8) parties
No doubt you will simply repeat the same nonsense you have already posted several times…