|
|
Topic Originator: Socks
Date: Fri 6 May 00:01
Any interest in these elections? They were remarkable for me in one sense, in that I spoke to a candidate at the door a few weeks ago, something that has never happened before.
As someone who has long been interested in the various voting systems, it was a bit embarrassing to realise a few days ago that I didn`t fully understand the workings of the STV system. Having now familiarised myself with all the details, it`s clear that STV is by far the best of all the voting systems we use. It`s just incredibly sensible, particularly the bit that means that when a candidate has much more support than the minimum required to be elected, a portion of the votes used to elect that candidate are applied to second preferences (and lower). When used properly, it effectively means no wasted votes.
The problem with it is that many people don`t like it, and don`t understand what they`re being asked to do when they mark their papers. Part of that is because it`s a different voting system for every election. When issuing ballot papers today, many voters gave us a terrified look when we explained that they should use numbers to put the candidates in the preferred order.
So, we have a system that is superbly democratic in its mechanics, but probably quite undemocratic because many people vote but don`t have any understanding of it. Short of using it for every election and explaining what goes on, I`m not sure what can be done about that. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 6 May 01:13
I really don`t understand how they work it out but then I`ve never really looked into it. I wonder if STV works for council elections because there will be multiple candidates being elected from the same ballot? Would it work as well if only one candidate could win?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Fri 6 May 07:50
It’s certainly better than first past the post but IMO not as good as proportional representation
Although that has other problems - that would be especially prevalent to the uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 6 May 08:24
It`s a great system if your called Murdo Fraser
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 6 May 09:50
Anything`s better than FPTP but I can`t see how voters can work out the implications of how they vote for the overall result. I`ve seen some analyses which say you`re better using all your preferences rather than just some but I`ve never been able to get my head round that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Socks
Date: Fri 6 May 11:59
I found this quite a good explanation of it, especially the more detailed bit that goes through an example. If you can be bothered to go right through it, you`ll probably see, as I did, why it`s better to list as many choices as you can tolerate.
https://ballotbox.scot/councils/stv-explained
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 6 May 17:06
That`s helpful, Socks, but I doubt your average punter will be aware of that. I believe the percentage of voters using multiple preferences has increased since the system was introduced though so it`s maybe gaining traction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 6 May 19:21
Alba have been absolutely spanked 🙈
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 6 May 20:27
Saw an Alba supporter in Dunfermline losing it that the Scottish Family Party had more votes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 6 May 22:48
Funny you should say that but my girlfriend clocked that and we had a chuckle at that too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sat 7 May 00:26
STV is PR isn`t it? It`s superior to the AMS used for Holyrood.
In principle it should be easy for voters - order your candidates in order of preference until you are indifferent. Or "Vote `til you boak". Lower preferences can`t count against higher preference so there is less need to try to game the system, although parties do need to consider how many candidates to stand in a multi-member seat due to "leakage" when votes don`t transfer as one might like.
I used to help count the votes in Student elections at Uni - everyone used STV in those days, but you had to do it by hand. You could have 15 member seats with small surpluses being redistributed manually, all counting as a different fraction of a vote. Great fun.
The problem is that both the Tories and the Labour Party think they benefit from FPTP so they are happy to keep it - the arguments against it are largely bogus IMO. Ireland has been using it for a century; the UK used to use STV for its University seats, and, ironically, the House of Lords essentially uses it for by-elections for hereditary peer vacancies.
Was it 2007 when we had the fiasco of people not knowing what they were doing with the various different election systems in use? You would have thought everyone would either be used to it by now, or know little else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 7 May 08:12
Surely the SNP also benefit from FPTP? As a raw proportion of the vote they should d have nowhere near the proportion of seats they hold in Westminster. Same goes for Holyrood where they won 63 of the 71 constituency seats despite only getting 47% of the constituency vote.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sat 7 May 08:36
SNP acknowledged that fact and have still said they’d support PR.
The issue I have with PR is:
- Representation - who is actually your MP?
- Inconsistent choice - there isn’t a single party (apart from maybe the greens) who stand in every constituent in our general election, so we’re not all getting the same question and given this as political union where there are differing issues, we don’t all necessarily want the same question
- potential political disassociation in the smaller home nations - the Imbalance of the UK means there’s 11 people in England for every 1 in Scotland and it’s even worse for the other home nations… any real key local issues would therefore get lost. Eg let’s pretend the whole of NI voted for a party that promised a border poll, that would result in about one or two MPs at Westminster, so that issue would simply get lost - so what would be the point of engaging in the political process at all
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 7 May 09:23
Quote:
DBP, Sat 7 May 08:36
SNP acknowledged that fact and have still said they’d support PR.
The issue I have with PR is:
- Representation - who is actually your MP?
- Inconsistent choice - there isn’t a single party (apart from maybe the greens) who stand in every constituent in our general election, so we’re not all getting the same question and given this as political union where there are differing issues, we don’t all necessarily want the same question
- potential political disassociation in the smaller home nations - the Imbalance of the UK means there’s 11 people in England for every 1 in Scotland and it’s even worse for the other home nations… any real key local issues would therefore get lost. Eg let’s pretend the whole of NI voted for a party that promised a border poll, that would result in about one or two MPs at Westminster, so that issue would simply get lost - so what would be the point of engaging in the political process at all
The representation issue never made sense to me. What if you are a Tory in a safe Labour seat, who do you go to for representation in that instance? What if you happen to live in a senior cabinet minister or, worse, the Speaker`s constituency? My MP for years was Alistair Darling: do you think he cared about bins or was prepared to represent my views on Scottish independence?
With PR every member represents you, not just one.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sat 7 May 10:06
If your a Tory or not, your constituent has directly elected an MP to represent all of you, so you go see them
Edited to say that I agree with PR in theory, but if we had true PR, you’d basically have nobody representing your view on Indy anyway as that shall voice would be lost in Westminster
Post Edited (Sat 07 May 10:08)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Socks
Date: Sat 7 May 12:44
What do you mean by `true PR`? Party List system? That one has a serious weakness in that you have no choice at all of candidates, which is not a good thing.
Looking back, it`s not too surprising it was a bit of a mess in 2007. It was the first time STV was used for local elections, and was made much worse by holding it at the same time as the Scottish Parliament election. Ballot papers were issued for two elections at the same time, using two different voting systems. One system was still not especially familiar (used before in 1999 and 2003) and the other was completely new in Scotland. I didn`t work at that one but my colleague on Thursday did, and she remembers very well how difficult it was to explain it all and the utter confusion from many people. When you look at it now, it was inevitable that there would be problems, and the one big change was to separate the two for future elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 7 May 12:57
DBP, are you saying that the SNP are campaigning for a proper PR system to replace the FPTP that is used to elect constituency msp`s?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sat 7 May 14:06
No I’m saying that as far as I’m aware, the SNP are not against Proportional representation.
And by true PR I mean that everyone casts one vote for their party of choice… and at the end, all votes from across the country are added up and seats are allocated to all parties against the percentage of the votes they received
Post Edited (Sat 07 May 14:08)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DA-go Par Adonis
Date: Sun 8 May 12:19
We had the chance to change it (for Westminster) in 2011.
Only 42% turnout and over two-thirds of those decided to stick with FPTP. Inexplicable.
Oxford and Cambridge were 2 of the 10 areas (from over 400) in total who actually polled over 50% to change. Edinburgh Central and Glasgow Kelvin being the only 2 in Scotland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love it when we go sell Kevin Nisbet,
He's gonna pay for everyone this season.
Post Edited (Sun 08 May 12:25)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Socks
Date: Mon 9 May 09:57
We had a chance to change it in 2011, but not in any meaningful way. We were asked if we wanted to replace our existing dreadful system with one almost equally bad so it isn`t really inexplicable that there wasn`t much interest. One analysis I saw said that AV would have produed an even less proportional outcome at one of our recent general elections.
By agreeing to go for AV referendum, Nick Clegg effectively abandoned the Lib Dem commitment to PR. Not the only principle he abandoned to get into government, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Mon 9 May 10:16
Agreed socks, that proposition was probably the worse option they could have went with
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DA-go Par Adonis
Date: Tue 10 May 07:32
Surely it`s difficult to analyse how an AV election would have gone based on actual results of a FPTP system.
The decision making process is different for the voter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love it when we go sell Kevin Nisbet,
He's gonna pay for everyone this season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Tue 17 May 21:24
I think the SNP`s policy is STV with multi-member constituencies, but they may have wavered of late... As I recall they didn`t campaign very enthusiastically at the AV referendum.
Is AV not essentially STV with single member seats?
I think the Electoral Reform Society suggested the 2015 GE election result would have been less proportional, but presumably most others would have been more proportional. I guess assumptions must be made about who would transfer where.
I think it was the Knesset in Israel that used to operate a nationwide party list system as suggested, with a low threshold for representation (since revised upwards, but still pretty low).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DA-go Par Adonis
Date: Wed 18 May 09:25
That`s my understanding of AV - you have your constituency as usual, but instead of one cross, you number in order of preference, and can stop at whatever number you see fit. I`m prepared to be corrected if that`s wrong though as it`s not a subject I`ve looked into much in recent times.
If that`s correct though, it would strike me as bad news for parties that polarise opinion and better for those who are relatively inoffensive.
Under `normal` conditions then i.e. not following 2 years of Brexit negotiation fatigue, you wouldn`t expect it to work well for the Tories in marginal seats, especially in England.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love it when we go sell Kevin Nisbet,
He's gonna pay for everyone this season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Socks
Date: Wed 18 May 09:49
"Is AV not essentially STV with single member seats?"
It is, but the main benefit of STV is that it elects more than one person for each constituency. Fundamentally, that means it must be better at representing the various views in that constituency than if a single person is elected. The other benefit is that fractional surpluses can be transferred to other candidates, meaning votes are not wasted when one candidate has easily enough support to be elected.
I`d therefore ask, is AV not essentially STV but without the benefits of STV?
AV might well work better for candidates who are relatively inoffensive over those that polarise. However, if that is indeed the case, does that not contradict any assumed benefit in proportionality?
Given what I`ve said, it might be a surprise that I did vote in favour of change in 2011. This was on the grounds that generally it was likely to give a slightly more proportional outcome, but I felt then and still do that it was a choice between two very poor options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DA-go Par Adonis
Date: Wed 18 May 10:40
STV is clearly superior if you`re looking for proportionality. I think it would be hard to argue otherwise.
If we had gone to AV, it may have been an easier jump to get to STV in the future. Again, that`s arguable.
I guess my over-riding reasoning for preferring AV to FTPT is that it is less likely to facilitate a Tory majority as regularly as seems to happen at the moment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love it when we go sell Kevin Nisbet,
He's gonna pay for everyone this season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Wed 18 May 13:50
Don`t understand when Labour for example can come third and form an administration with the Tories who come second and edge out the party - SNP who actually received the most votes ! ?
I know it has probably been done by SNP too.
Surely the party that received the most votes should be involved? Its called democracy....
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Wed 18 May 14:29
Quote:
desparado, Wed 18 May 13:50
Don`t understand when Labour for example can come third and form an administration with the Tories who come second and edge out the party - SNP who actually received the most votes ! ?
I know it has probably been done by SNP too.
Surely the party that received the most votes should be involved? Its called democracy....
Seems that is the Stirling scenario, Kerr will be jumping up and down!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 18 May 19:46
Quote:
desparado, Wed 18 May 13:50
Don`t understand when Labour for example can come third and form an administration with the Tories who come second and edge out the party - SNP who actually received the most votes ! ?
I know it has probably been done by SNP too.
Surely the party that received the most votes should be involved? Its called democracy....
If you think about it, it`s more democratic to have Labour and the Tories as they represent the voters better than the SNP alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Wed 18 May 20:47
Same thing has happened in Moray, DRoss`s area!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 18 May 22:08
The SNP asked its members to encourage the voters to vote for them only. Is that democratic in a system that requires parties to work together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBA
Date: Wed 18 May 23:22
Quote:
Tenruh, Wed 18 May 22:08
The SNP asked its members to encourage the voters to vote for them only. Is that democratic in a system that requires parties to work together.
What party would encourage their supporters to vote for anyone else?
Oh that`s right, Labour saying "vote for us first, but give your next votes to the Tories cos Better Together and that!"
Bizarre comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 18 May 23:35
Quote:
DBA, Wed 18 May 23:22
Quote:
Tenruh, Wed 18 May 22:08
The SNP asked its members to encourage the voters to vote for them only. Is that democratic in a system that requires parties to work together.
What party would encourage their supporters to vote for anyone else?
Oh that`s right, Labour saying "vote for us first, but give your next votes to the Tories cos Better Together and that!"
Bizarre comment.
Better Together, that's what your going to get.
Post Edited (Wed 18 May 23:44)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 18 May 23:56
Quote:
Tenruh, Wed 18 May 23:35
Quote:
DBA, Wed 18 May 23:22
Quote:
Tenruh, Wed 18 May 22:08
The SNP asked its members to encourage the voters to vote for them only. Is that democratic in a system that requires parties to work together.
What party would encourage their supporters to vote for anyone else?
Oh that`s right, Labour saying "vote for us first, but give your next votes to the Tories cos Better Together and that!"
Bizarre comment.
Better Together, that`s what your going to get.
https://viveecosse.com/2022/05/18/in-defence-of-democracy/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 19 May 07:27
I can understand the issue, but this is literally how voting works. These councils are now run by administrations that should be more representative of voters in the area. If they don`t, then perhaps people will reconsider who they vote for at the next election.
If people in the areas affected are unhappy (I`m not a labour supporter but wouldn`t be happy with them getting into bed with the Tories) then they should remember that for future elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 19 May 09:28
Labour trying to make themselves even less electable!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 19 May 09:36
It is not democracy when the party that won the most votes and has the most councilors get side lined and squeezed out by other parties.
The party that has the most elected reps should get to form the administration , that`s how it works in WM at GE`s for instance when a coalition needs to be formed.
Post Edited (Thu 19 May 10:59)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Thu 19 May 13:41
They`ve been trying to form a minority council but none of the others have indicated they would join them.
At the weekend the SNP were in negotiations with the Libdems who agreed they wouldn`t vote down the process to form the minority but it appeared yesterday that they have now gone cool on the idea.
Can anyone explain to me how the lIbdems manage to secure so many seats in the East Nook area ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 19 May 14:03
Labour have just had their worst ever election result in Fife............and yet.......they are going to form a minority administration with the Libs and Tories.....
SNP won the Fife election and were only 4 short of an overall majority yet are being side lined.
There is something seriously wrong with this system.
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Thu 19 May 14:52
Well the council elections generally work through collaboration . The SNP have relied on BLIS to join in partnership which on this occasion see opportunities elsewhere.
In the Scottish Parliament the SNP are in coalition with the Greens maybe next time instead of encouraging their members to only vote SNP 1 & 2 they maybe need to show some willing to support the Greens or other Independence minded parties rather than Unionists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 19 May 16:30
Back to STV – you need both the single transferable vote and the multi-member seats to get the proportionality.
(I think this time Scotland had its first 5 member seat and its first single member seat (Arran?)
You can get multi-member seats without the STV. Many councils in England will have multi-member (typically 3 person) wards – depending on the number of vacancies electors can get up to 3 votes each. Often this ends up with 3 members from the same party getting elected, and you get the nonsense of somewhere like Manchester being a single party state.
People will have noticed a flaw in the Eurovision voting – by awarding points you are essentially voting against your first choice – it would have been in the UK’s interests (assuming they wanted to win) not to give Ukraine any votes. (There may be other issues.)
Traditionally (possibly even constitutionally) if the Prime minister resigns, then the Sovereign will invite someone else (in some sort of order) to form a government. In theory, this could be anyone, although the obvious candidate is the leader of the largest party at Westminster, as they would often be able to guarantee enough votes on enough matters to enable a legislative agenda to be pursued.
Sometimes a PM can “lose” an election but try to cling on – I’m thinking of Heath and (to an extent) Brown. That’s when you get into the realms of a constitutional crisis. I know that during May’s premiership and her inability to get Brexit done, there was talk of a Government of National Unity and all sorts of names were being bandied about as a possible premier.
I’ve no idea what happens at Local Council level, but if you have party A with 30% of the vote/seats promising weekly bin collections and party B with 25% of the vote/seats also favouring weekly bin collections, then a joint administration emptying bins every week would command majority support, regardless that party C polled 40% with it’s “bins once a fortnight” stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 19 May 18:53
Whilst it may not appear right, in theory, coalitions mean a more representative council. However, as has been pointed out, these parties will likely be at odds with each other. It`ll end up a total mess and Labour will realise that getting into bed with the Tories will make it very easy for the SNP at future elections. I can see the flyers already "A vote for Labour is a vote for the Tories"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dafc
Date: Thu 19 May 19:19
None of the other Parties locally wanted to work with SNP. That tells a story locally.
Other parties have joined to form a coalition. No different to what happens elsewhere in Scotland.
To say nothing will be voted through is rubbish, most decisions are made by employees and senior management and it’s simply ratified at meetings.
There’s no really a lot of decisions being made, just a tick box for councillors.
Councillors locally still have the same job and role to play regardless of who runs the show. Policies and process are already in place.
Not a major deal, won’t notice a difference with whose running it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 20 May 11:03
SNP received the most votes. That tells a story locally.
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 20 May 17:30
Quote:
desparado, Fri 20 May 11:03
SNP received the most votes. That tells a story locally.
Pedant alert - they were the single party with the most votes.
The other parties received more votes in total than the SNP.
I know, I know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Fri 20 May 21:26
Anyone really believe that labour didn`t do a deal with the tories to get their support?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dafc
Date: Sat 21 May 01:09
SNP took 36% first preference votes in Fife which isn’t exactly overwhelming.
They had opportunity to talk to other parties whom didn’t want to work with them, after years of failure in fife it is time for a change. 5 years will determine how well or if it gets worse.
Suspect it will be worse before It gets better for sure, with huge cuts to service coming from Scottish government, that’s main reason no one wants to work with them. It’s failed local promises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 21 May 07:09
There have been cuts to council services for well over a decade now. You can`t give the Labour-Tory coalition a get-out on that reason. The SNP and Labour have had to cut their cloth accordingly too.
I worked in a local authority some time ago and there was a lot of "fat" in some areas. But the reality was that the services that were life or death were under-staffed. The fat that did exist started to be cut significantly from around 2008. The inability to pay off staff meant they gradually sliced ALL budgets rather than simply stopping unnecessary services. So you`d see things like school and mental health budgets being slashed when the savings could have been made by getting rid of some of the vanity projects.
It wasn`t Fife Council I worked for but I see similarities in how they`ve done things - focussing too much on the cost of services rather than the value. That`s not necessarily your councillors fault, but I`d hope my local councillors would be challenging that sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Sun 12 Jun 11:28
I`m told there haven`t been cuts to Fife Council budgets for 3 years. There is also substantial investment from the Scottish Government in many areas but isn`t counted in Fife Council money because it`s Scottish Government policies. The biggest investment in recent years was the doubling of free child care from 600 hours to over 1200 and around 700 jobs being created.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Sun 12 Jun 11:35
Again, i`m told that is the spin labour and the libs are using to cover the fact they were both ordered by their Holyrood leaders not to deal with the SNP. That is the only possible reason for labour not working with the SNP now but doing it for the last 5 years.
These guys have brought holyrood politics to Fife and whilst there was probably always a bit of that, who would have thought that labour would do deals with the tories and actually vote with them. Again, that`s not something I`ve seen before in Fife so it adds to the telt what to do argument.
How all this goes down in historically labour communities remains to be seen but getting into bed with the tories destroyed labour after the referendum in 2014. They have shot themselves in the foot again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Sun 12 Jun 13:09
There`s talk that if the Green/nuSNP coalition try to run any form of referendum next year without Westminster agreeing to it all Unionist run councils will play hardball in allowing voting facilities.
Which may go some way to explain their recent actions with BLIS getting into bed with the others again.
Post Edited (Sun 12 Jun 13:10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Mon 13 Jun 20:36
So Fife is not important, holyrood politics rules. I reckon what`s left of the labour party in Fife will disintegrate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 13 Jun 22:00
Quote:
Tenruh, Sun 12 Jun 13:09
There`s talk that if the Green/nuSNP coalition try to run any form of referendum next year without Westminster agreeing to it all Unionist run councils will play hardball in allowing voting facilities.
Which may go some way to explain their recent actions with BLIS getting into bed with the others again.
I`d very much doubt that a local authority would refuse. Though I`ll also say there`s more chance of me winning the lotto than an independence referendum next year, and I don`t play lotto!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 14 Jun 07:21
The Indy2 starting gun gets fired today. Time for the yoons once again to rally together to take the fight to the mighty Green/SNP alliance.
Nows the time to see the NS secret plan to secure independence for Scotland.
"No ifs No buts" it`s happening next year , hopefully it`s not the S30 route again, better we decide a route rather than the opposition.
You don`t get freedom playing nice....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Tue 14 Jun 07:59
I saw her being interviewed by the Rhinestone Cowboy last night.
One of them looked excited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 21 Jun 18:33
Labour have it in their manifesto that all council uplifts including the heavy items will be free , possibly costing the council a fortune.
Manifesto promises are easy to make when you don`t expect to get elected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Tue 21 Jun 19:04
Quote:
Tenruh, Tue 21 Jun 18:33
Labour have it in their manifesto that all council uplifts including the heavy items will be free , possibly costing the council a fortune.
Manifesto promises are easy to make when you don`t expect to get elected.
The cost to the council due to flytipping is massive.
Maybe the reduction in flytipping will cover the cost of uplifts.
Much as I dislike Labour this might actually be a good policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Tue 21 Jun 20:59
Whit? Labour have voted for her to be Education Scrutiny chair after being flung off the GTCs? Have they lost their marbles?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 22 Jun 07:58
Labour will be gone in Scotland soon. They`ve pulled a Nick Clegg by getting into bed with the Tories. Shame as I was starting to view them as a more viable alternative to the hopeless SNP lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 22 Jun 11:52
Quote:
jake89, Wed 22 Jun 07:58
Labour will be gone in Scotland soon. They`ve pulled a Nick Clegg by getting into bed with the Tories. Shame as I was starting to view them as a more viable alternative to the hopeless SNP lot.
If proof is needed...the yoons will get into bed with each other when circumstances are required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Thu 23 Jun 23:05
I think we are lucky to have an SNP Government. We are obviously moving into potential referendum territory and that`s when the whole media go into anti-SNP mode and make every molehill into a mountain.
The people of Scotland seem to think that too because the SNP won the local elections held just a month ago in terms of seats and Fife Labour had the worst labour result in all Scotland.
I`m still stunned by Labour`s manouvres in Fife. I know a lot of good labour people and some are swallowing hard and see no benefit at all in pretending they can run Fife Council with 20 councillors out of 75. It`s going to go badly wrong somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 24 Jun 07:04
Surly it`s not just Labour but other parties also running Fife Council? Just like the Scottish Parliament with the Greens and the NuSNP .
Post Edited (Fri 24 Jun 07:18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Fri 24 Jun 16:41
According to the Dunfermline Press article yesterday other than voting together to get positions of power the threesome seem to have gone to sleep. The article said there was an immediate housing crisis but nothing is likely to happen till August. I would have thought there were loads of things needing done in the midst of covid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 24 Jun 18:43
What have the council been doing for the past few years to allow this housing crisis to develop?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Wed 13 Jul 17:15
I surmise covid prevented as many houses being built as anticipated. I read somewhere else that there has been a block put on the number of ex-council houses the council can buy back. They have resources to buy more but the Labour housing spokesperson doesn`t like buying back and has put a stop to it - maybe he is adequately housed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 13 Jul 20:04
Quote:
pacifist, Wed 13 Jul 17:15
I surmise covid prevented as many houses being built as anticipated. I read somewhere else that there has been a block put on the number of ex-council houses the council can buy back. They have resources to buy more but the Labour housing spokesperson doesn`t like buying back and has put a stop to it - maybe he is adequately housed.
This was a whole back and wasn`t in Fife Council but my understanding was that what they do is look at where they can get whole blocks. If they have three out of four in a four in a block they try and get the fourth one as it makes maintenance easier.
Easy to say in hindsight, but they really should have had something written into deeds to say ex-Council properties can never be rented out privately. It`s ridiculous that taxes are going on paying a private landlord to house someone on benefits in a property that used to be owned by the council and usually for more than the council would ever charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 13 Jul 22:05
Quote:
jake89, Wed 13 Jul 20:04
Quote:
pacifist, Wed 13 Jul 17:15
I surmise covid prevented as many houses being built as anticipated. I read somewhere else that there has been a block put on the number of ex-council houses the council can buy back. They have resources to buy more but the Labour housing spokesperson doesn`t like buying back and has put a stop to it - maybe he is adequately housed.
This was a whole back and wasn`t in Fife Council but my understanding was that what they do is look at where they can get whole blocks. If they have three out of four in a four in a block they try and get the fourth one as it makes maintenance easier.
Easy to say in hindsight, but they really should have had something written into deeds to say ex-Council properties can never be rented out privately. It`s ridiculous that taxes are going on paying a private landlord to house someone on benefits in a property that used to be owned by the council and usually for more than the council would ever charge.
Remember it`s the tories who implemented the sale off, they were hardly going to put restrictions on it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Sat 16 Jul 18:45
Dunno if the point I have been making got across.
Fife is going through a housing crisis with more people requiring houses than there are houses. This has been the case for a long time but is deteriorating because covid stalled new house building while demand has never stalled.
There are limited ways to increase the availibility of council houses. The obvious one is to build more. That is happening. The other is to buy back ex-council houses. They may become available because someone has died and the family want to sell, or a family has upgraded.
Fife Council has put a limit on the number of new council houses they can buy, that limit is 50 a year. They have reached that limit but they have the resources to buy substantially more. I`m told the Labour spokesperson on the council is the problem.
So, the situation will deteriorate because of a deliberate decision by a politician not to change the policy. How many additional houses that can be purchased to relieve the pressure for some are being missed? And what can possibly be the reason?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Sat 16 Jul 21:00
They`ve decided to spend more money on the prom in Kirkcaldy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Sat 16 Jul 21:13
https://youtu.be/8Pz-oZX9a7g
Looking like the SNP need to find a new coalition partner or this yoon alliance in Fife and other councils will continue through to the Edinburgh and London elections.
Post Edited (Sat 16 Jul 21:43)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 17 Jul 12:48
Quote:
LochgellyAlbert, Sat 16 Jul 21:00
They`ve decided to spend more money on the prom in Kirkcaldy!
That money was already stol...taken from the high street funding given to all of Fife. Oddly, the vast majority went to Kirkcaldy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Tue 20 Sep 21:20
Labour also voted with the tories in Cosla, I`m told, to keep a pay offer to unions limited to 3.5%. That is quite unbelievable. The SNP and Independents managed to push it up to 5%.
Labour and Tories the same according to Robespierre. He is not wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Wed 21 Sep 06:49
Is that the faint click of Madame Defarge’s knitting needles I hear....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 21 Sep 07:16
Quote:
pacifist, Tue 20 Sept 21:20
Labour also voted with the tories in Cosla, I`m told, to keep a pay offer to unions limited to 3.5%. That is quite unbelievable. The SNP and Independents managed to push it up to 5%.
Labour and Tories the same according to Robespierre. He is not wrong.
Starmer, Sturgeon and Robertson Scotland’s next first minister, if the establishment get their way , peas out the same pod,
Why do you think Salmond, Sheridan and Corbyn got ostracised
https://campbellmartin.blogspot.com/2022/09/and-so-it-continues.html?m=1[\url]
Post Edited (Wed 21 Sep 07:49)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 21 Sep 07:48
Quote:
Tenruh, Wed 21 Sept 07:16
Quote:
pacifist, Tue 20 Sept 21:20
Labour also voted with the tories in Cosla, I`m told, to keep a pay offer to unions limited to 3.5%. That is quite unbelievable. The SNP and Independents managed to push it up to 5%.
Labour and Tories the same according to Robespierre. He is not wrong.
Starmer, Sturgeon and Robertson Scotland’s next first minister, if the establishment get their way , peas out the same pod,
Why do you think Salmond, Sheridan and Corbyn got ostracised
https://campbellmartin.blogspot.com/2022/09/and-so-it-continues.html?m=1[\url]
|
|
|
|
|
|
