Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 05, 2018, 05:33:16 PM
-
Ridiculous piece of lying.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45738158
-
And university tuition fees.
Now in a manner of speaking this is correct ... but only if the question you are answering is how much money (from whatever source) is spent on education in the UK. But that didn't appear to be the question he was answering, which was clearly about public funding, and more specifically about schools, as he is the schools minister.
Actually overall spending is often used for international comparison purposes - so for example total health spending as a portion of GDP is often cited, regardless of the source. This is important as different countries have completely different ways of funding healthcare, ranging from our NHS through to exclusively private insurance-type schemes. Only by looking at total funding can relevant comparisons be made, and you can also look as 'bangs per buck' - outcomes related to the total expenditure.
-
And university tuition fees.
Now in a manner of speaking this is correct ... but only if the question you are answering is how much money (from whatever source) is spent on education in the UK. But that didn't appear to be the question he was answering, which was clearly about public funding, and more specifically about schools, as he is the schools minister.
Actually overall spending is often used for international comparison purposes - so for example total health spending as a portion of GDP is often cited, regardless of the source. This is important as different countries have completely different ways of funding healthcare, ranging from our NHS through to exclusively private insurance-type schemes. Only by looking at total funding can relevant comparisons be made, and you can also look as 'bangs per buck' - outcomes related to the total expenditure.
Er, no, lying by obfuscation is still lying. Other uses of figures which might be used in other contexts are not correct here in any manner of speaking.
-
Er, no, lying by obfuscation is still lying. Other uses of figures which might be used in other contexts are not correct here in any manner of speaking.
I think you need to be careful about banding the word lying around left, right and centre.
I have no time for the Tories, and his answer was disingenuous and demonstrated dishonesty, but he didn't lie - he chose to give an answer to a different question, but the answer was factually correct - I suspect the UK is the third higher spender on education in the OECD. The problem is that this wasn't the question asked.
So it is a bit like being asked which team has won the premiership the most, and answering by making a statement that Chelsea have won the premier league on five occasions - that is a correct statement, but not an answer to the question. There is no lying, but there is dishonesty.
-
I think you need to be careful about banding the word lying around left, right and centre.
I have no time for the Tories, and his answer was disingenuous and demonstrated dishonesty, but he didn't lie - he chose to give an answer to a different question, but the answer was factually correct - I suspect the UK is the third higher spender on education in the OECD. The problem is that this wasn't the question asked.
So it is a bit like being asked which team has won the premiership the most, and answering by making a statement that Chelsea have won the premier league on five occasions - that is a correct statement, but not an answer to the question. There is no lying, but there is dishonesty.
It's factually incorrect and deliberately so to the question asked. If there is a deliberate dishonesty then that is lying.
-
It's factually incorrect and deliberately so to the question asked.
No, actually what he said was factually correct - the UK is the third largest spender on education in the OECD. He was being dishonest as that statement (however factually correct) was not an answer to the question.
If there is a deliberate dishonesty then that is lying.
I disagree - lying is deliberately making a statement you know to be incorrect. Deliberate dishonesty isn't necessarily lying.
If I was asked whether there was a supermarket nearby where they could buy some milk. Let's suppose there isn't a supermarket for 5 miles, but there is a garage with a shop around the corner which sells milk. If I answered, 'the nearest supermarket is 5 miles away', I wouldn't be lying - I would be being deliberately dishonest.
-
No, actually what he said was factually correct - the UK is the third largest spender on education in the OECD. He was being dishonest as that statement (however factually correct) was not an answer to the question.
I disagree - lying is deliberately making a statement you know to be incorrect. Deliberate dishonesty isn't necessarily lying.
If I was asked whether there was a supermarket nearby where they could buy some milk. Let's suppose there isn't a supermarket for 5 miles, but there is a garage with a shop around the corner which sells milk. If I answered, 'the nearest supermarket is 5 miles away', I wouldn't be lying - I would be being deliberately dishonest.
A lie is a deliberately dishonest statement. So you would indeed be lying.
-
A lie is a deliberately dishonest statement. So you would indeed be lying.
No it isn't - for it to be a lie it needs to be untruthful or incorrect. There are plenty of statements that might be deliberately dishonest, but aren't lying. My example being a case in point - I wouldn't have said anything that was untrue or untruthful, therefore no lie. I would be being dishonest and deliberately unhelpful, but that is a different matter.
In the case in point - the Department for Education put out a statement in response to the Headteachers protests. It contained two facts (that funding on schools was at record levels and that the UK was the third highest spender on education in the OECD) - both statements are actually factually correct, but are deeply unhelpful in the context of the debate and disingenuous and dishonest in my view. However there is no lying as nothing factually incorrect or untruthful was said.
-
No it isn't - for it to be a lie it needs to be untruthful or incorrect. There are plenty of statements that might be deliberately dishonest, but aren't lying. My example being a case in point - I wouldn't have said anything that was untrue or untruthful, therefore no lie. I would be being dishonest and deliberately unhelpful, but that is a different matter.
In the case in point - the Department for Education put out a statement in response to the Headteachers protests. It contained two facts (that funding on schools was at record levels and that the UK was the third highest spender on education in the OECD) - both statements are actually factually correct, but are deeply unhelpful in the context of the debate and disingenuous and dishonest in my view. However there is no lying as nothing factually incorrect or untruthful was said.
Dishonest is untruthful
-
Dishonest is untruthful
Not necessarily. But lying is about deliberately making untruthful or false statements - dishonesty and lying aren't interchangeable.
Another example - John has noted his girlfriend Sarah is acting strangely and suspects she is having an affair with his friend. John confronts Sarah and asks whether she is having an affair with his friend Mick. Sarah answers 'no' - actually she is having an affair with Joe from work. Sarah has been dishonest, she hasn't lie
-
Not necessarily. But lying is about deliberately making untruthful or false statements - dishonesty and lying aren't interchangeable.
Another example - John has noted his girlfriend Sarah is acting strangely and suspects she is having an affair with his friend. John confronts Sarah and asks whether she is having an affair with his friend Mick. Sarah answers 'no' - actually she is having an affair with Joe from work. Sarah has been dishonest, she hasn't lie
Nope she isn't being dishonest there. She is telling the truth. The minister however chose to answer a different question. That is the dishonesty and lying, and where your analogy here is specious.
-
Whatever it is, it's despicable.
-
Nope she isn't being dishonest there.
Blimey - I worry about your social interactions if you don't think she is being dishonest.
She is telling the truth.
True, but she is still being dishonest. Lying is a subset of dishonest behaviour - so in effect if you are lying, you are being dishonest - but you can be dishonest without lying.
In my example Sarah is being dishonest, but she isn't lying. You seem to equate the two which might explain you propensity to accuse others on this MB of lying at the drop of a hat. Ho hum.
-
Whatever it is, it's despicable.
I agree, but I also think we need to be cautious in how we call people out. If we accuse people of lying, when they aren't although being dishonest and disingenuous then we devalue the power of the accusation of lying. If it simply becomes a term we throw at people whose views we don't like, as increasingly occurs, its power is lost.
And back on topic, no doubt they will be slapped down by the Office for National Statistics for inappropriate use of statistical data - what the department released was factually accurate but meaningless and dishonest as a response to criticism about school funding.
-
Ridiculous piece of lying.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45738158
Not sure if this lying as such, more of a case of what is in English Law a "half truth".
-
On the subject of lying, I do get fed up with a few posters on here continually accusing other posters of lying. It's childish, it gets people's backs up unnecessarily, and it is much more likely that the accusee is honestly mistaken - or indeed that the accuser is. Could we adopt the parliamentary protocol of disllowing accusations of lying?
-
On the subject of lying, I do get fed up with a few posters on here continually accusing other posters of lying. It's childish, it gets people's backs up unnecessarily, and it is much more likely that the accusee is honestly mistaken - or indeed that the accuser is. Could we adopt the parliamentary protocol of disllowing accusations of lying?
I agree and the originator of this thread (which makes an incorrect accusation of lying in its OPS) is, sadly, a prime culprit.
I think there are times when accusations of lying are perfectly justified but too often it is used as a response to a comment that someone either doesn't like or doesn't agree with. Even when someone says something that is demonstrable and factually wrong, that doesn't mean that they are, necessarily, lying. To be lying they need to know that their statement is wrong and deliberately made it in that knowledge. Sometimes the person making the statement is the result of misinformation or lack of understanding which means they aren't lying but may still make a factually incorrect statement.
Also I think there are many types of overt or less overt dishonesty demonstrated here. The most often being selective quoting, misrepresentation of others posts, being disingenuous or seemingly deliberate failure to answer questions. All may be dishonest but none are necessarily lying.
-
Nope she isn't being dishonest there. She is telling the truth. The minister however chose to answer a different question. That is the dishonesty and lying, and where your analogy here is specious.
Agree with this as it happens.
-
Dishonest is untruthful
Not necessarily: you can make sa statement that is technically true, but deliberately misleading. For example, if someone said "I went to Oxford, and got an upper second", when they got their degree from Oxford Brookes University, which is not as impressive as one from Oxford University. They haven't technically told a lie, but have deliberately given the wrong impression.
-
We are getting way of subject here. But I think it is an important one.
Misleading and deceiving are forms of dishonesty that are designed to make someone believe in something that isn't so. In that sense they aren't any different from lying. It is outrageous for the Government to use a statistic in the way that they have, to attempt to deceive the electorate into thinking that something is different from what t actually is. We know that implicit in there is that the spending has come from the government, when in fact a lot of it is private money. It's a lie by omission.
If we take this forum, selective quoting, misrepresenting, goalpost moving etc are deliberate acts of deception and with misrepresentation in particular often involve lying. But even if they aren't 'lies' by some dictionary definition, they are very often deliberately dishonest acts that break down trust and that are often designed to make someone believe in a falsehood. I think we all accept that people do these things here because winning an argument seems to matter more to some than acting well. But the consequence of this is that people then appear untrustworthy and, by extension, they appear to be deceivers and liars. I find people wanting to manipulate me into thinking and believing in things that are false to be tedious and annoying, and so I'm with NS is calling them out for the liars that they are.
-
I find people wanting to manipulate me into thinking and believing in things that are false to be tedious and annoying, and so I'm with NS is calling them out for the liars that they are.
Me too: presenting information that is knowingly framed in a particular way with the intention of misleading or misinforming others as regards an accurate state of affairs, as opposed to making an honest mistake, isn't just being 'economical with the truth' - it's overt lying, and to say so is fair comment in my book.
-
We are getting way of subject here. But I think it is an important one.
Misleading and deceiving are forms of dishonesty that are designed to make someone believe in something that isn't so. In that sense they aren't any different from lying. It is outrageous for the Government to use a statistic in the way that they have, to attempt to deceive the electorate into thinking that something is different from what t actually is. We know that implicit in there is that the spending has come from the government, when in fact a lot of it is private money. It's a lie by omission.
I disagree - there are all sort of types of dishonesty, not all are lying and we need to be careful about 'overclaiming' in our criticism - in effect accusing someone of lying when they are not, in fact, lying.
And this is all the more important when you are criticising someone of over claiming themselves (which is what the Government are doing) - if you also over claim in your criticism you simply place yourself on the same playing field as them. Also by accusing the Government of lying you had them an easy victory, because they can easily say 'no we aren't' and provide clear evidence that their claims were factually true. They do no deserve to be let off so easily.
In fact the Government have just go an unprecedented roasting from the UK Statistics Authority on this and a couple of other incidents on Education. The UKSA didn't accuse them of lying - to do so would have been easily rebutted by the Government as their claims are true. No they were much more targeted and appropriate in their criticism, accusing the Government of misusing data, exaggeration and undermining confidence. These are rebukes the Government cannot easily bat away, unlike a claim of lying which can be easily disproved.
-
It's a lie by omission.
Yes you also seem to think (correct me if I am wrong) that Sarah isn't being dishonest in my earlier affair example. I am confused - if the government are lying by omission (and therefore being dishonest) then surely so is Sarah.
For the record I believe that both the Government and Sarah are being dishonest - I don't think that either have lied.
-
Yes you also seem to think (correct me if I am wrong) that Sarah isn't being dishonest in my earlier affair example. I am confused - if the government are lying by omission (and therefore being dishonest) then surely so is Sarah.
For the record I believe that both the Government and Sarah are being dishonest - I don't think that either have lied.
The minister's response was directly to heads warning of funding shortages. To respond with a statistic that includes funding that goes nowhere near school funds is a lie.
Sarah did answer the question truthfully. Should she have added a 'however, I am having an affair with...' as a direct answer to that question? That's another matter. If you think about it cheating on someone is one big fat lie anyway.
-
The minister's response was directly to heads warning of funding shortages. To respond with a statistic that includes funding that goes nowhere near school funds is a lie.
Actually that isn't quite correct - the minister was not responding to a direct question. He made a statement in response to the Head teachers protests about school funding. In that statement he made 2 claims. The first was that Government school funding was at record levels. This is factually true and superficially an entirely relevant response. However the devil is in the detail - so he failed to indicate whether this is a record in real terms (taking account of inflation etc) or just in cash terms (it is the latter) - he failed to recognise that pupil numbers are higher so funding per pupil is down, not to take account of changes to NI and pension costs that increase expenditure. So it wasn't a lie, but was misinterpretation of data and clear 'spin'.
He then went on to claim that the UK was third in terms of spending on Education in OECD countries - true but irrelevant.
As I've said before, accusing his of lying just gives him an easy 'win' as he can demonstrate beyond doubt that both those claims are true. He cannot be allowed to get off so easily - the criticism needs to be much more appropriated and targeted and not allow him to simply deny it. That's what the UKSA have done - but an accusation of lying will simply be countered by 'no I'm not' and do you know what, he is correct on that.
-
I don't agree. We are being lied to and treated like idiots. What kind of society do we want? One where someone can say 'ah, but it is factually truthful' or one where lying and deception are the same thing? It's splitting hairs that lets them get away with it.
Just like people on this forum treat each other appallingly. Trying to mislead is just disrespectful and dishonest. I can see why people choose to walk away.
-
I don't agree. We are being lied to and treated like idiots. What kind of society do we want? One where someone can say 'ah, but it is factually truthful' or one where lying and deception are the same thing? It's splitting hairs that lets them get away with it.
One in which we call people out when they lie, but we don't call them liars when they haven't actually lied.
And one where we call people out for being dishonest, deceptive, disingenuous, misrepresenting etc - but to make those accusations 'fit the crime' - an accusation of lying is a strong one and should only be used when a person is actually lying - in other words deliberately saying something that isn't true and knowing it isn't true.
Accusations of lying, to my mind, have become devalued currency - they are thrown around all the time, and in many if not most cases the accusation is used when someone isn't lying at all.
-
If I say 'x' in response to a question and I know that 'x' is an incomplete answer to the question asked, and I also conclude that the person I am responding to is likely to accept that my answer of 'x' is a complete answer to the question they asked, and I am further aware that I am knowingly misleading them, then clearly I am not telling the truth in relation to the context of the question asked of me: so I am telling a lie when I say 'x', when I could have more accurately said 'x', but please note that 'x' includes or excludes 'y'.
-
... so I am telling a lie when I say 'x', when I could have more accurately said 'x', but please note that 'x' includes or excludes 'y'.
I doubt many of us add all the additional caveats and 'small print' that you seem to be expecting which means we are all lying loads of the time.
So lets address the current case:
Headteachers are protesting over school funding cuts
Government claims school funding is at record levels
How do we square the circle:
Well because the Headteachers are talking about real-terms per pupil funding, while the Government is talking about total cash funding.
Point being in your example unless the Heads make is clear that they are talking about real-terms per pupil funding and not cash funding levels then they are lying. Unless the government makes it clear that they are talking about cash funding levels and not real-terms per pupil funding then they are lying.
In my view neither are lying, both are making correct claims but ones that open to interpretation - of course I am with the Heads, as it is real-terms per pupil funding that is important, but unless they are absolutely clear in stating that, by your interpretation the Heads are lying.
-
If I say 'x' in response to a question and I know that 'x' is an incomplete answer to the question asked, and I also conclude that the person I am responding to is likely to accept that my answer of 'x' is a complete answer to the question they asked, and I am further aware that I am knowingly misleading them, then clearly I am not telling the truth in relation to the context of the question asked of me: so I am telling a lie when I say 'x', when I could have more accurately said 'x', but please note that 'x' includes or excludes 'y'.
I think you're using your own private definition of "truth" here! Telling part of the truth, but leaving out important information, is not lying by any normal definition. That's why, in court, you swear to, or affirm that you will, tell not only the truth but the whole truth.
-
I think you're using your own private definition of "truth" here! Telling part of the truth, but leaving out important information, is not lying by any normal definition. That's why, in court, you swear to, or affirm that you will, tell not only the truth but the whole truth.
Else you perjure yourself, which in England and Wales involves making a statement in judicial proceedings that you do not believe to be true.
Perjury is a statutory offence in England and Wales. It is created by section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911. Section 1 of that Act reads:
(1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
Pretend I'm a self-employed plumber and it is time for the annual tax return: if I declare my income was £28,000 and have the documentation to support this but I don't include the £8,500 I earning 'cash in hand' then I'm lying, in that I am knowingly providing false information to the tax authorities.
To say I earned £28,000 when I'd actually earned £36,500 would be telling a lie.
-
To say I earned £28,000 when I'd actually earned £36,500 would be telling a lie.
Well, obviously, but what's that to the purpose?
-
Well, obviously, but what's that to the purpose?
It is a similar scenario to the situation involving school funding issue in the OP link, albeit the other way round numerically: if I say I donated £100 to the kitty, and in doing so gave the impression the £100 was all mine in the first place, when in fact the £100 included £20 from another source that I neglected to mention, then I'd be lying if I insisted the £100 came wholly from my resources.
-
It is a similar scenario to the situation involving school funding issue in the OP link, albeit the other way round numerically: if I say I donated £100 to the kitty, and in doing so gave the impression the £100 was all mine in the first place, when in fact the £100 included £20 from another source that I neglected to mention, then I'd be lying if I insisted the £100 came wholly from my resources.
Your example statements are actually untrue, so are lies, but different to the deceptive diversionary dissembling of the minister. Now, we could call him a liar but that adds no value, we need to show how his statement is wrong and his use of it dishonest.
-
Your example statements are actually untrue, so are lies, but different to the deceptive diversionary dissembling of the minister. Now, we could call him a liar but that adds no value, we need to show how his statement is wrong and his use of it dishonest.
In context, when the head teachers are protesting about government cuts, to use figures that include money that isn't from the government is dishonest.
-
In context, when the head teachers are protesting about government cuts, to use figures that include money that isn't from the government is dishonest.
Well, quite. And that observation is far more useful than just calling him a liar (and thus getting into a long pedantic argument about what is or is not lying).
-
It is a similar scenario to the situation involving school funding issue in the OP link, albeit the other way round numerically: if I say I donated £100 to the kitty, and in doing so gave the impression the £100 was all mine in the first place, when in fact the £100 included £20 from another source that I neglected to mention, then I'd be lying if I insisted the £100 came wholly from my resources.
Perhaps so, but that isn't an equivalent analogy.
The Government minister never insisted that the spending that meant that the UK was third in the OECD list for spending on education was all from the public purse, nor all for schools. Had he said that Government spending on schools ranks us 3rd in the OECD then he would have been lying - but he didn't.
A more correct analogy would be for Joe to say - look we have £100 in our kitty, that means we've got more money than all but two other similar kitties from 34 groups with kitties. You might, of course, imply this £100 to have come from Joe, but he never said that, and if the kitty does indeed contain £100 and is the third largest of the 34, then Joe wouldn't be lying.
-
Your example statements are actually untrue, so are lies, but different to the deceptive diversionary dissembling of the minister. Now, we could call him a liar but that adds no value, we need to show how his statement is wrong and his use of it dishonest.
I agree and to accuse him of lying gives him an easy get out from challenge if he can demonstrate that what he said was, in fact, true.
-
In context, when the head teachers are protesting about government cuts, to use figures that include money that isn't from the government is dishonest.
Quite it is dishonest, but the statement isn't a lie. Call it as it is - to accuse the minister of lying is a diversion and gets him off the hook as he can easily prove that his statement is, indeed, true. The issue isn't whether the statement is true or not (i.e. whether he lied or not) but whether it is relevant to the debate (it isn't) and whether there is dishonesty and misuse of data (there is).
-
Well, quite. And that observation is far more useful than just calling him a liar (and thus getting into a long pedantic argument about what is or is not lying).
People have a choice over whether or not a pedantic argument matter for not. I find dishonesty and deceit appallingly bad and whatever name is given to it doesn't really matter. We deserve better.
-
People have a choice over whether or not a pedantic argument matter for not. I find dishonesty and deceit appallingly bad and whatever name is given to it doesn't really matter. We deserve better.
We do indeed .. but can't really see how we get there.
-
We do indeed .. but can't really see how we get there.
Maybe by banning anyone who wants to be a politician from actually being one?
-
People have a choice over whether or not a pedantic argument matter for not. I find dishonesty and deceit appallingly bad and whatever name is given to it doesn't really matter. We deserve better.
Indeed - so lets challenge the government on the substance of the issue rather than making accusations that are tangential (at best) to the actual issue (school funding not whether or not a government minister lied) and at worst allow the government to simply refute the allegation and kind of take a moral high ground, on the basis that the claims made were actually true and not lies.
-
If I was asked whether there was a supermarket nearby where they could buy some milk. Let's suppose there isn't a supermarket for 5 miles, but there is a garage with a shop around the corner which sells milk. If I answered, 'the nearest supermarket is 5 miles away', I wouldn't be lying - I would be being deliberately dishonest.
If you understood the intent was really to find somewhere to buy milk, that would be a lie by omission. If not, I.e. if you believed they needed to find a supermarket and one that definitely had milk, that’s merely a misunderstanding.
Answering the question “where’s the nearest shop I can buy milk?” With “there is a supermarket five miles away” would be a lie, assuming you knew of the nearby garage.
Answering “what is the public spending?” With the figure for total spending is a flat out lie, unless you say it is the total spending in your answer.
-
Maybe by banning anyone who wants to be a politician from actually being one?
It is easy to have a go at politicians, and they don't help by making themselves easy targets.
But all those I know, in both local and national government are actually genuine in their desire to make a difference (I may disagree with their views on what that difference should be but I don't doubt their sincerity). Plus are also extremely hard working, again from my experience. And that included politicians I know from the Tories, Labour, LibDems and Greens.
-
Answering “what is the public spending?” With the figure for total spending is a flat out lie, unless you say it is the total spending in your answer.
But they didn't though - they first made a claim on current governmental school funding, using a figure on cash funding which is correct but doesn't give an appropriate picture (in my opinion) as it isn't real terms funding per pupil.
Then made a secondary comment on education spending in the UK (note not government spending, that was never mentioned) being 3rd in the OECD (as a % of GDP). That is factually correct (i.e. not a lie) but completely irrelevant to the actual nature of the debate.
And actually neither claim was made in the form of answering a direct question - but in the form of a statement in response to the protests.
-
Then made a secondary comment on education spending in the UK (note not government spending, that was never mentioned) being 3rd in the OECD (as a % of GDP). That is factually correct (i.e. not a lie) but completely irrelevant to the actual nature of the debate.
But also meaningless. In terms of spending per capita and spending as a percentage of GDP, US health spending far outstrips ours. But their health “service” is actually worse than ours and regularly bankrupts its citizens.
If you want a meaningful measure, you have to incorporate outcomes.
-
But also meaningless. In terms of spending per capita and spending as a percentage of GDP, US health spending far outstrips ours. But their health “service” is actually worse than ours and regularly bankrupts its citizens.
If you want a meaningful measure, you have to incorporate outcomes.
I agree.
-
It is easy to have a go at politicians, and they don't help by making themselves easy targets.
But all those I know, in both local and national government are actually genuine in their desire to make a difference (I may disagree with their views on what that difference should be but I don't doubt their sincerity). Plus are also extremely hard working, again from my experience. And that included politicians I know from the Tories, Labour, LibDems and Greens.
And I wouldn’t know any, right? Because that seems to be implied here.
From personal experience I’ve liked the government members I’ve met and spent time with. Local MP is a waste of space. Local councillors are appallingly tribal. Am I convinced any of them do a good job? No, but that may be the system. Party politics, and this is probably where some of my cynicism comes from. I dislike tribalism.
-
And I wouldn’t know any, right? Because that seems to be implied here.
Not at all. Why on earth would you jump to that conclusion. The very notion that I was talking about my experience of politicians I know implies a comparison with your experience of politicians you know
From personal experience I’ve liked the government members I’ve met and spent time with.
Do you think they should have been banned from being a politician then, which was the implication of your earlier comment.
Local MP is a waste of space. Local councillors are appallingly tribal. Am I convinced any of them do a good job? No, but that may be the system. Party politics, and this is probably where some of my cynicism comes from. I dislike tribalism.
Then why not put yourself forward instead - it is easy to criticise from the sidelines, but unless you are prepared to put yourself forward to see whether you could do any better then that criticism seems a touch hollow. Certainly local politics contains a healthy does of independents as councillors - you could be one of them.
-
It wa a tongue in cheek comment, Prof D. And I have enough to do dealing with 3 kids on my own and trying to pay the bills. ‘Doing your political bit’ is a luxury for people who aren’t just about managing.
You don’t live where I do. Labour doesn’t exist. Week after week the local paper is filled with letters from middle aged men from the Tories and Lib Dem’s using it to point score and make snide comments. Meanwhile their work as a council gets criticised at national level for being so shit. That’s not me, that’s people who are in authority and who think they are doing a shit job.
-
It wa a tongue in cheek comment, Prof D. And I have enough to do dealing with 3 kids on my own and trying to pay the bills. ‘Doing your political bit’ is a luxury for people who aren’t just about managing.
Fair enough - once your kids are older maybe get involved. There are plenty of just about managing people who are involved in politics, for example as councillors.
You don’t live where I do. Labour doesn’t exist. Week after week the local paper is filled with letters from middle aged men from the Tories and Lib Dem’s using it to point score and make snide comments. Meanwhile their work as a council gets criticised at national level for being so shit. That’s not me, that’s people who are in authority and who think they are doing a shit job.
These people don't have a right to be running the council - it is a democratic process. If it is so apparent that they are completely shit then kick them out and get in some new people (perhaps including you) who could do a better job. I think you live in a more rural area (Cambridgeshire?) - actually many rural areas have a much more established tradition of electing independent councillors than more urban areas where the traditional political parties have been more dominant.
-
I’m
Not sure you get what just about managing means, Prof - it isn’t just financial, it’s time and energy. People like me can’t be stretched any thinner.
Yes, I live in a Tory rotten borough. I used to be a Green Party activist which helped get candidates to stand here but every non Tory and Lib Dem does so knowing they may as well not turn up, although at town level residents are gaining seats due to what is perceived as overdevelopment.
-
I’m
Not sure you get what just about managing means, Prof - it isn’t just financial, it’s time and energy. People like me can’t be stretched any thinner.
I'm fully aware that the challenge isn't necessarily just financial - hence my comment that once your kids get older you might want to get involved as you have more time.
But as I said there are plenty of people in exactly your kind of circumstances who choose to get involved and make it work. You are perhaps thinking only of your local area where I imagine most councillors are relatively money rich and time rich (often retired or not needing to work), but that isn't the case everywhere. Where I live most of the councillors I know have full time jobs, quite a number with an additional 2 hours plus of commute time to London.
I work in amongst some of the most deprived communities in Europe - if you want to see just about struggling, come and look there - yet there are plenty of people who are prepared to put themselves forward as councillors - these people are both money poor and time poor.
Yes, I live in a Tory rotten borough. I used to be a Green Party activist which helped get candidates to stand here but every non Tory and Lib Dem does so knowing they may as well not turn up, although at town level residents are gaining seats due to what is perceived as overdevelopment.
It is only a rotten borough (as you call it) because these people get elected. It isn't a right for them to be councillors. If things are as useless as you suggest I cannot believe that you are the only person to think that. In which case make a change - put yourself forward, or support someone else (that is much less of a commitment). In many places it only takes a few hundred votes to get elected.
-
I’m sorry, ProfD, but you are sounding very judgemental here. You probably don’t mean to but I think it’s best to drop it.
-
I’m sorry, ProfD, but you are sounding very judgemental here. You probably don’t mean to but I think it’s best to drop it.
You are right - I wasn't meaning to be judgemental, but my comments were in response to you being clearly very judgemental about those involved in politics near you. And within a democratic context it is in your power (and others like you) to change that, and however stretched you might be there is a role you can play. In fact you've already indicated that you were involved with the Greens in the past. I was very clear that I recognised that you might not have the time to be a councillor now, but might once your kids are older, but even if you have only one hour a week, there are things that can be done to change the situation.
That's all I'm saying specifically, but there is also a broader point - being that I get very frustrated by people who sit on the sidelines carping on about politicians, but don't actually do anything about it. Don't forget that politicians aren't some kind of alien lifeform, they are people just like you and me.
-
You are right - I wasn't meaning to be judgemental, but my comments were in response to you being clearly very judgemental about those involved in politics near you. And within a democratic context it is in your power (and others like you) to change that, and however stretched you might be there is a role you can play. In fact you've already indicated that you were involved with the Greens in the past. I was very clear that I recognised that you might not have the time to be a councillor now, but might once your kids are older, but even if you have only one hour a week, there are things that can be done to change the situation.
That's all I'm saying and there is also a broader point - being that I get very frustrated by people who sit on the sidelines carping on about politicians, but don't actually do anything about it. Don't forget that politicians aren't some kind of alien lifeform, they are people just like you and me.
Again you are sounding judgemental and patronising. It didn't help that yesterday I had a run in with someone from my local authority who clearly decided that because I am a single parent I must also be a thick as shit. I've known politicians all my life from parish councillors to government ministers, and the big problem (aside from the corruption at parish level, which is eye watering, and no, you can't do anything by trying to stand or vote for someone else because it is all stitched up in advance) is what I've already said - party politics. I know that politicians are 'people too' (do you have any idea how patronising that sounds?) but I don't think anyone would argue that we deserve better from our national government (who set out to deceive) and the opposition (who believe in magic money trees). And at local level party politics gets in the way of good governance.
-
I know that politicians are 'people too' (do you have any idea how patronising that sounds?) ...
Which is purely a response to your comments that they are effectively all shit and that anyone who wants to be a politician should be banned. In light of those kinds of response it isn't unreasonable to point out that politicians are people too as your comments appear to indicate you to be unable to see that.
-
Again you are sounding judgemental and patronising. It didn't help that yesterday I had a run in with someone from my local authority who clearly decided that because I am a single parent I must also be a thick as shit. I've known politicians all my life from parish councillors to government ministers, and the big problem (aside from the corruption at parish level, which is eye watering, and no, you can't do anything by trying to stand or vote for someone else because it is all stitched up in advance) is what I've already said - party politics. I know that politicians are 'people too' (do you have any idea how patronising that sounds?) but I don't think anyone would argue that we deserve better from our national government (who set out to deceive) and the opposition (who believe in magic money trees). And at local level party politics gets in the way of good governance.
But the only way any of this will change is for people like you step forward. I recognise the issue with party tribalism (although interestingly from my experience it isn't quite what it seems from the 'inside' with MPs and councillors working very well across party lines, albeit required to play the yah, boo for electoral purposes). But you are in the fortunate position (I think being in rural Cambridgeshire, correct me if I'm wrong) in being in a world where Independents still exist - I think there are Independents on most, if not all, the District councils in Cambridgeshire. Round here the only time you see an independent is when they are suspended from their party.
-
Which is purely a response to your comments that they are effectively all shit and that anyone who wants to be a politician should be banned. In light of those kinds of response it isn't unreasonable to point out that politicians are people too as your comments appear to indicate you to be unable to see that.
Which was a tongue in cheek exasperated comment to Udayana when we both agreed we deserved better from our current deceiving, inept shower. Don't you agree that families deserve ministers who won't shit all over our education system?
And how exactly did you think I thought banning people who want to be politicians from being politicians would work? We'd end up with no politicians and no elections. I'm not sure why you didn't get that it was just at throwaway comment.
-
But the only way any of this will change is for people like you step forward. I recognise the issue with party tribalism (although interestingly from my experience it isn't quite what it seems from the 'inside' with MPs and councillors working very well across party lines, albeit required to play the yah, boo for electoral purposes). But you are in the fortunate position (I think being in rural Cambridgeshire, correct me if I'm wrong) in being in a world where Independents still exist - I think there are Independents on most, if not all, the District councils in Cambridgeshire. Round here the only time you see an independent is when they are suspended from their party.
And again you are judging what 'people like me' are able to do without having the first idea what I have going on in my life.
And no, I don't live in Cambs.
-
Which was a tongue in cheek exasperated comment to Udayana when we both agreed we deserved better from our current deceiving, inept shower. Don't you agree that families deserve ministers who won't shit all over our education system?
And how exactly did you think I thought banning people who want to be politicians from being politicians would work? We'd end up with no politicians and no elections. I'm not sure why you didn't get that it was just at throwaway comment.
It might have been a tongue in cheek comment, but you have then gone on relentlessly to be negative about politicians at all levels - government down to parish. Are you unable to see anyone in politics as doing a good job, or even being hard working and dedicated, even if you don't agree with their politics.
-
It might have been a tongue in cheek comment, but you have then gone on relentlessly to be negative about politicians at all levels - government down to parish. Are you unable to see anyone in politics as doing a good job, or even being hard working and dedicated, even if you don't agree with their politics.
No I haven't.
The ones I met and liked at government level were Tories. If you want my honest opinion, they did what they could but where constrained by those above therm who were not so able and who cared more for headlines than policies and their outcomes.
Party politics - not politicians. It is where the rot sets in and stays.
Incidentally, a friend knew David Laws quite well. He took a huge pay cut in order to serve and from what I heard he was genuinely concerned to make a difference and was genuinely capable. I was sad to see him forced to resign in what felt like a show of power by the right wing press.
-
... aside from the corruption at parish level, which is eye watering, and no, you can't do anything by trying to stand or vote for someone else because it is all stitched up in advance ...
How on earth can a parish council election be 'stitched up in advance' - anyone can stand, it costs nothing, there are far more independents so party allegiance isn't so much of an issue. And critically parish council elections often have tiny turnouts (sometimes well below 20%) with the winner often getting less than 10% of the electorate voting for them. If every there was an election ripe for someone breaking in this is it - you only need a decent local network mobilised to get a few hundred votes and you are in. In fact it isn't uncommon for parish council seats to be elected unopposed as there is only one person standing.
-
No I haven't.
yes you have - this is the first time in this thread you have made any positive comment about politicians, in their role as a politician. Previously the only positive thing you have said is that you 'I’ve liked the government members I’ve met and spent time with', but that sounds like you liked them personally, rather than thinking that they were hard working, competent and dedicated (regardless of their political views). I'm pleased that you are now indicated that there are some who are hard working, dedicated and competent. My experience is that pretty well all are at least one of these things, some two or three - and I can at least recognise and respect this in people whose political views I do not agree with. An example being our local Tory district council leader, who lives in the same road as me and is a friend. I don't agree with his political views, but I cannot fault him on the hard work and dedication that he puts in to his role.
-
How on earth can a parish council election be 'stitched up in advance' - anyone can stand, it costs nothing, there are far more independents so party allegiance isn't so much of an issue. And critically parish council elections often have tiny turnouts (sometimes well below 20%) with the winner often getting less than 10% of the electorate voting for them. If every there was an election ripe for someone breaking in this is it - you only need a decent local network mobilised to get a few hundred votes and you are in. In fact it isn't uncommon for parish council seats to be elected unopposed as there is only one person standing.
Try living where I do. You really have no clue.
-
yes you have - this is the first time in this thread you have made any positive comment about politicians, in their role as a politician. Previously the only positive thing you have said is that you 'I’ve liked the government members I’ve met and spent time with', but that sounds like you liked them personally, rather than thinking that they were hard working, competent and dedicated (regardless of their political views). I'm pleased that you are now indicated that there are some who are hard working, dedicated and competent. My experience is that pretty well all are at least one of these things, some two or three - and I can at least recognise and respect this in people whose political views I do not agree with. An example being our local Tory district council leader, who lives in the same road as me and is a friend. I don't agree with his political views, but I cannot fault him on the hard work and dedication that he puts in to his role.
Please stop patronising me.
-
Try living where I do. You really have no clue.
Then explain, because I am really struggling to understand.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that anyone can stand in a parish council election, provided they live in the parish area and subject to the normal disqualifications.
Secondly that in many parish councils, few councillors are affiliated with a political party, so you aren't fighting the 'party machine' (if that even exists. This certainly seems to be the case in Cambridgeshire. Also turnout is often woefully low so the winning candidate often gets less than 10% of the total electorate as a vote. Plus there is usually an 'everyone up' approach so all councillors are elected at the same time, meaning that there is often at least one existing councillor not standing again. So all it takes is for someone to be able to energise perhaps 7% of the electorate to support them, and they're in.
I cannot see how this can be stitched up.
-
Please stop patronising me.
| think it would be better for everyone if you stopped trying to shut people down by accusing them of being patronising.
-
Try living where I do. You really have no clue.
You haven't indicated where you live, which is fine, so I'll follow on my Cambridgeshire theme - which seems appropriately rural etc.
So I've been perusing the most recent Parish Council election results in the various Parish Councils in the Huntingdonshire District.
https://applications.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/moderngov/mgElectionElectionAreaResults.aspx?EID=15&RPID=7634748
In virtually every case every candidate who stood was elected unopposed, as there were less candidates than vacancies - so effectively all you need to do to get 'elected' is fill in the paperwork to stand, that's it. You don't need to get a single vote. How on earth can that be a stitch up - if you want to be a Parish councillor and you live in that area, you can be one.
-
Please stop patronising me.
I am not patronising you - I am just pointing out what you have said in a series of posts about politicians, which was unremittingly negative, except as I indicted. And that is negative top to bottom (from Government to Parish Council) and across parties. To remind you, and remember these are your words, not mine:
'I find dishonesty and deceit appallingly bad and whatever name is given to it doesn't really matter. We deserve better.'
'Maybe by banning anyone who wants to be a politician from actually being one?'
'From personal experience I’ve liked the government members I’ve met and spent time with (the only positive comment, but that reads liking them personally, not that they are hard working, dedicated or competent professionally). Local MP is a waste of space. Local councillors are appallingly tribal. Am I convinced any of them do a good job? No, but that may be the system. Party politics, and this is probably where some of my cynicism comes from. I dislike tribalism.'
'You don’t live where I do. Labour doesn’t exist. Week after week the local paper is filled with letters from middle aged men from the Tories and Lib Dem’s using it to point score and make snide comments. Meanwhile their work as a council gets criticised at national level for being so shit. That’s not me, that’s people who are in authority and who think they are doing a shit job.'
'Again you are sounding judgemental and patronising. It didn't help that yesterday I had a run in with someone from my local authority who clearly decided that because I am a single parent I must also be a thick as shit. I've known politicians all my life from parish councillors to government ministers, and the big problem (aside from the corruption at parish level, which is eye watering, and no, you can't do anything by trying to stand or vote for someone else because it is all stitched up in advance) is what I've already said - party politics. I know that politicians are 'people too' (do you have any idea how patronising that sounds?) but I don't think anyone would argue that we deserve better from our national government (who set out to deceive) and the opposition (who believe in magic money trees). And at local level party politics gets in the way of good governance.'
'Which was a tongue in cheek exasperated comment to Udayana when we both agreed we deserved better from our current deceiving, inept shower. Don't you agree that families deserve ministers who won't shit all over our education system?'
Finally you made a vaguely complementary comment about David Laws, but even that reads as a second hand complement:
'Incidentally, a friend knew David Laws quite well. He took a huge pay cut in order to serve and from what I heard he was genuinely concerned to make a difference and was genuinely capable. I was sad to see him forced to resign in what felt like a show of power by the right wing press.'
So you claim:
'Maybe by banning anyone who wants to be a politician from actually being one?' to be a tongue in cheek comment - fair enough, but what about all the other comments.
-
Incidentally, a friend knew David Laws quite well. He took a huge pay cut in order to serve and from what I heard he was genuinely concerned to make a difference and was genuinely capable. I was sad to see him forced to resign in what felt like a show of power by the right wing press.
I'd like to return to this one. Specifically that most of us see politicians through the lens of the media and I think that can give a very different impression than if you actually know what they are like. I suspect most of us would struggle to cope with the relentless media barrage that politician have to face.
So my own example involves David Laws immediate predecessor as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne. Most people will probably know him for the letter he left on leaving office (I'll come back to this). I know him for a couple of years before he was elected when he lived locally and was a major organiser of our local Labour party, along with working for the central party in London. Firstly he was a very likeable guy with a excellent dry sense of humour - but more importantly he was one of the most professional, organised and effective people I've had the pleasure of meeting. He would sort out hugely complicated things effortlessly and efficiency with the minimum of fuss. He was also very clearly in politics to 'make a difference'.
I cannot speak more highly of him - the kind of person you'd hire in a flash. Yet the view through the media lens is entirely different.
And on that letter - I've no doubt it was meant as a humorous and generous (and private) touch to his successor - clearly a serious tactical error as he should have realised that the Tories and LibDems would portray it as a serious comment in transition.
-
Clearly someone could be a wonderful politician: friendly, professional, organised and effective, be willing to go whatever distance to sort out problems for constituents, but the policies and systems we end up with can still be a mess.
Laws deliberately lied on his expense claims - that is not acceptable in any position.
Byrne was in various ministerial roles from 2006 to 2010 - I can't believe he was in any position long enough to do anything useful and even so was involved in a number of cockups and stupid plans.
We do deserve better, although as the saying goes we "get the government we deserve". The "do it yourself" idea is unlikely to work either. Personally, I'd be really hopeless, initially well meaning but, in the end, really terrible. Probably another Stalin if managing to get in and keep hold of power.
It is all about communication and compromise: We can complain about the tribal party system, but parties are inevitable in any system of democratic government. As non-politicians we must complain about abuses of the system (and logic) by those we have elected (even if we didn't vote for them) and keep on their backs to ensure open and rational fair decisions and government - a free media are a key part of this.
-
Clearly someone could be a wonderful politician: friendly, professional, organised and effective, be willing to go whatever distance to sort out problems for constituents, but the policies and systems we end up with can still be a mess.
Laws deliberately lied on his expense claims - that is not acceptable in any position.
Byrne was in various ministerial roles from 2006 to 2010 - I can't believe he was in any position long enough to do anything useful and even so was involved in a number of cockups and stupid plans.
We do deserve better, although as the saying goes we "get the government we deserve". The "do it yourself" idea is unlikely to work either. Personally, I'd be really hopeless, initially well meaning but, in the end, really terrible. Probably another Stalin if managing to get in and keep hold of power.
It is all about communication and compromise: We can complain about the tribal party system, but parties are inevitable in any system of democratic government. As non-politicians we must complain about abuses of the system (and logic) by those we have elected (even if we didn't vote for them) and keep on their backs to ensure open and rational fair decisions and government - a free media are a key part of this.
Some very astute comments there.
I think part of the problem is that there is so much scrutiny, from both the media, but also from opposition politicians that it is pretty well impossible to be seen as doing a good job. And it is the perception that kills. So it may be that the performance of an individual that in any other professional context would be considered great or exemplary (as there is little external scrutiny) is considered to be a failure in a politician.
And as a politician you not only are required to do your job (e.g. as a minister) which often involves making really tough decisions that many people will not like, but also having one eye on the electorate, because you'll be up for election again in a few years.
Perhaps it is just an impossible job and I do wonder why anyone would want to become an elected politician.
So you are probably right that we get the politicians we deserve, and being relentlessly critical and negative makes it more likely that we will get worse politicians as we will simply reduce the 'talent pool' as more people think "why on earth would I put myself up for public office if all that will happen is I will be shot down at every turn'.
I think the corrosive zeitgeist pervades all levels - I was really shocked looking at the Huntingdonshire Parish Council details - effectively a whole layer of elected government where the can't even get enough people even to put themselves forward to fill the available places. That's really shocking, and not just in one Parish council ward, but in pretty well all of them.
-
PD, I can't say I'm surprised by your observations on the Huntingdon parish councils.
In my area, a parish council was established in 2010 following a ballot (I voted against having one).
Apart from one ward, each ward returns either all LibDem or Conservative candidates. At least two of the parish councilors are also borough councilors.
No members of the public ever turn up to a meeting mainly as (from the minutes) they are clearly well beyond tedious. The main items of discussion are the accounts and maintenance of the two sports / park buildings the parish council are responsible for. Frankly, the meetings of the local scout exec were/are much more interesting, useful and significant.
One good outcome was that a friend of ours was taken on part time (paid) as clerk after redundancy from his previous job.
-
PD, I can't say I'm surprised by your observations on the Huntingdon parish councils.
In my area, a parish council was established in 2010 following a ballot (I voted against having one).
Apart from one ward, each ward returns either all LibDem or Conservative candidates. At least two of the parish councilors are also borough councilors.
No members of the public ever turn up to a meeting mainly as (from the minutes) they are clearly well beyond tedious. The main items of discussion are the accounts and maintenance of the two sports / park buildings the parish council are responsible for. Frankly, the meetings of the local scout exec were/are much more interesting, useful and significant.
One good outcome was that a friend of ours was taken on part time (paid) as clerk after redundancy from his previous job.
I'm not sure what happens when there are vacancies on a parish council due to lack of candidates - perhaps you can just apply later and get on the council - who knows.
But we have a fundamental failure of democracy - the whole notion of a democratically elected representation is that there is some kind of competition with the electorate having the choice to decide via that ballot box.
-
I was a parish councillor for eight years -for four of those years I was the chairman. I was originally co-opted onto the council because there were insufficient candidates to fill all the seats. When I left the council there were enough candidates to require an election.
I found Prof Davey's comments interesting - because they portrayed a world that was totally different from the one I had experienced. Perhaps the main difference was that not one member of my council at any time had any political party affiliation. We were all inhabitants of the village, all concerned with life in the village, and all wishing to make life in the village better. I find Rhiannon's negative comment about parish councillors:
aside from the corruption at parish level, which is eye watering, and no, you can't do anything by trying to stand or vote for someone else because it is all stitched up in advance
so far from my own experience that it is practically insulting.
During my membership we improved street lighting, we got public footpaths properly defined and maintained. We managed to prevent hedgerows from being cut back in the spring and summer so that birds could breed undisturbed. We re-equipped a children's playground. We enabled the building of a number houses for social provision and prevented the transformation of nursery land into into a very upmarket speculative housing development.
Not one of these actions was motivated by anything than the needs of and benefits to the community.
During my period as chairman, I was interviewed for local radio, appeared on Midlands Today, met members of a House of Lords committee looking into rural housing and led a small delegation which resulted in my village being judged the county Village of the Year.
And all without the benefit of any political label.
-
The chairman of my former parish council used to trouser bribes from local contractors for work. Everyone knew. Then when elections came up the farmers on the council would 'invite' a suitable candidate to join, if there was a vacancy. Otherwise they just all stood again unopposed. When an 'outsider'; decided to stand against them things were made difficult, as can be the way in a small community. Only happened once in twenty years.
But what the fuck do I know? I'm just a stupid insulting bint.
-
Your statement "corruption at parish level" is written as a generalisation. The fact that you know of one instance of corruption does not make it commonplace. If your instance was known and verifiable, why was it not reported to the police?
My experience of being a parish councillor is different - as I explained.
And I really think that you should remove your final sentence. The sentiment expressed is not one that I share.
-
But I can only report on what I know. Aside from the parish level I've had to replace four car tyres this year due to pothole damage, plus one wheel spring. It's money I can't afford. Cutbacks have eaten into my money and there are fewer working services that do their job adequately. My kids don't get adequate health care or education. And Brexit is going to make things worse.
You said I was insulting. I think my comment is fair.
-
None of the situations you mention are the responsibility of parish councils. So why vent your anger in the way you have done? It seems to me that you consider all levels of government to be inadequate so you attack all of them indiscriminately.
You - without any qualification - said that "corruption at parish level ... is eye watering". The only implication any reader can draw from this therefore is that all local government at the lowest level is corrupt and that this corruption is widespread. It may - conceivably - not be what you meant but it is what you have written. Nowhere is there any indication that you are referring only to a single council that you have information about, you generalise. You have implied that because I had been a parish councillor that I was possibly corrupt. You ignore the reality that many people serve as parish councillors because of their conviction that the communities in which they live are worth serving and attention. This where the possible insult lay.
And instead of looking back at what you have written and considering whether or not it should be modified, you engage in a kind of self-directed vituperation and imply that I possess an attitude towards you which is very far from reality. I realise that the discussion between you and Prof Davey, earlier in this thread became confrontational. I had no part in that.
-
'Aside from the parish level'... did you not read that bit?
Your parish was lucky to get a chair in you who didn't take bungs and who didn't act in the interest of a minority of landowners. Perhaps your parish is big enough that it can't happen where you are.
Each of us can only go by personal experience and for me all levels of government are failing. And it is scary.
-
The chairman of my former parish council used to trouser bribes from local contractors for work. Everyone knew.
Then why didn't anyone report him to the authorities, which would have resulted in him being banned from serving in public office at the least.
Then when elections came up the farmers on the council would 'invite' a suitable candidate to join, if there was a vacancy.
Who gets to stand in a local election (including parish councils) isn't on the behest of those already on the council (for obvious reasons). All you need to do to be able to stand is to fill in a short form and get a tiny number of people (I think even for district councils this is about 5) to nominate you.
Otherwise they just all stood again unopposed. When an 'outsider'; decided to stand against them things were made difficult, as can be the way in a small community. Only happened once in twenty years.
How can they make it difficult - break their hands to prevent them being able to fill in and submit the form. We are talking about 21st century Britain, not the wild west. And, of course, intimidation in order to rig an electoral process is a very serious offence - so again why wasn't this reported to the authorities if individuals were genuinely being threatened to prevent them standing.
Given that you've indicated there were vacancies all it would have taken for a newcomer to become a councillor was to fill in and submit a form and they'd be on the council unopposed. That only once in 20 years did someone other than the usual suspects stand sounds to me like apathy, which is of course the problem throughout the land. Indeed HH speaks of the same from his experience - not enough candidates to fill the places.
The average size of a parish council is just under 2000 electors - are you really claiming that more than a thousand people (even in a small parish) in a community are cowed by just a handful?
-
Then why didn't anyone report him to the authorities, which would have resulted in him being banned from serving in public office at the least.
Who gets to stand in a local election (including parish councils) isn't on the behest of those already on the council (for obvious reasons). All you need to do to be able to stand is to fill in a short form and get a tiny number of people (I think even for district councils this is about 5) to nominate you.
How can they make it difficult - break their hands to prevent them being able to fill in and submit the form. We are talking about 21st century Britain, not the wild west. And, of course, intimidation in order to rig an electoral process is a very serious offence - so again why wasn't this reported to the authorities if individuals were genuinely being threatened to prevent them standing.
Given that you've indicated there were vacancies all it would have taken for a newcomer to become a councillor was to fill in and submit a form and they'd be on the council unopposed. That only once in 20 years did someone other than the usual suspects stand sounds to me like apathy, which is of course the problem throughout the land. Indeed HH speaks of the same from his experience - not enough candidates to fill the places.
The average size of a parish council is just under 2000 electors - are you really claiming that more than a thousand people (even in a small parish) in a community are cowed by just a handful?
I've just checked - to stand for a parish council you need just 2 people to nominate you, a proposer and a seconder. The forms are available publicly to download, they are to be delivered to the returning officer who, is of course completely independent of the councillors themselves. How on earth can the existing councillors prevent someone from doing this? And of course if they were able to (which they can't) they would be committing a serious offence.
-
Of course, I'm talking absolute wankery. I hand the floor to google because my personal experience is pure hallucination.
And now I'm fucking off to have a fucking life.
-
Oh Rhi don't get so defensive &cross, you're better than that.
Hope you have a good evening.
Going back to an earlier post of yours which I've just read, I know schools are seriously underfunded & the NHS is overstretched but what health care do your children not receive? If it's not too personal to ask, u don't have to answer.
-
Your statement "corruption at parish level" is written as a generalisation. The fact that you know of one instance of corruption does not make it commonplace. If your instance was known and verifiable, why was it not reported to the police?
My experience of being a parish councillor is different - as I explained.
And I really think that you should remove your final sentence. The sentiment expressed is not one that I share.
I have a lot of respect for people who are prepared to put themselves forward for public service.
Most people cannot be arsed, and although I might not agree with them politically (and may disagree therefore with some decisions those people make) that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be grateful to the people prepared to stand for elected office. Let's face it, certainly at council level, they don't get paid and are far more likely to get criticism than praise. A thankless job but an important one nonetheless.
-
Aside from the parish level I've had to replace four car tyres this year due to pothole damage, plus one wheel spring. It's money I can't afford.
I'm not really sure it is fair to lay the blame for this on local councillors (presumably County councillors in this case) in the current climate. These councils have responsibilities but also have to work within the budgets they have, which have been massively slashed over the past few years. So they have much less money available and have to take really tough decisions as to how those cuts cascade down into finding of services. In my view they face an almost impossible task at the moment.
So it may well be that the council in your area has taken a decision that they will try to minimise the cuts to school funding and care (for example), but the consequence is that the have had to cut the budget for road repairs even further. What would you have them do - would you prioritise potholes over children's services (for example) - noting that the one thing you cannot do is maintain funding across the board as the councils have very significantly less funding (in real and likely in cash terms) compared to a few years ago.
Now blame for that lies really with central government who have imposed the cuts - it may be that the local councillors are doing a fantastic job in minimise the effects of those stringent cuts, but they will, of course, receive criticism if there is an unrepaired pothole in your road.
Somehow it seems unfair to lay the blame at local councillors - the equivalent would be to blame a headteacher for having to increase class sizes because of funding cuts - in these circumstances I think few people would blame the headteacher, they'd blame the government. So why, in an equivalent funding cut circumstance, should we blame the local councillors who are, I'm sure, working to do their best to deliver services with substantially less funding.