2022 UK Local Elections

[northwichcat]

As any reader of Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs know, councillors must not go more than six months without attending a meeting. If they fail, except in some limited exceptions, they lose their seat and allowances. This does provide a loophole: there have been instances of members moving abroad, but keeping their seat because it is worthwhile to fly back twice a year. Ruling parties seem to go along with this because it keeps them in power.

While councillors on the local authority responsible for public services get an allowance, you get get parish and town councils where the position is entirely voluntary.

I take your point but councillors do have to attend meetings or otherwise talk to residents

Not saying there's an excuse for no attendance but if you have a full time job that requires commuting or off-site meetings then it's likely you'll either miss occasional meetings or end up being late (e.g. due to a cancelled train or traffic). Of course, if you know you won't attend and have read the agenda then you're still able to brief someone else on any issues that you feel need to be raised and able to read the minutes of the meeting afterwards.

 

[dgl]

I always take issue with any MP who doesn't live in the area he represents, how on earth can you be on top of local issues if you are not there to see then for yourself.
Down here in south Dorset our local MP, Richard Drax, lives outside the area he represents(in a large estate no less) and unlike our previous Labour MP, Jim Knight, hasn't been seen to really do anything for the area. Why care about an area who's fortunes don't directly effect you?, that just extra work.
Well he does have a column in the local paper but that seems more to be used to sprout his brexit nonsense than actually dealing with local issues.

 

[Typhoon]

As any reader of Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs know, councillors must not go more than six months without attending a meeting. If they fail, except in some limited exceptions, they lose their seat and allowances. This does provide a loophole: there have been instances of members moving abroad, but keeping their seat because it is worthwhile to fly back twice a year. Ruling parties seem to go along with this because it keeps them in power.

Interesting. My local authority (Canterbury) passed the following on 24th January 2022.

Agree that all members unable to attend a council meeting for a period greater than six months receive a dispensation further to section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 to the next Annual Meeting on 18 May 2022.

The meeting was attended by 19 councillors, the Lord Mayor and the Sheriff; 18 councillors offered their apologies. So there seems to be a work around.

 

[Gloster]

Interesting. My local authority (Canterbury) passed the following on 24th January 2022.
The meeting was attended by 19 councillors, the Lord Mayor and the Sheriff; 18 councillors offered their apologies. So there seems to be a work around.

The Local Government Act of 1972 does allow the period to be extended if the absence is approved by the council in advance. There is still a risk of a council approving it without good reason, which is not clearly defined, but they are still bound by the legal requirements for good administration.

 

[northwichcat]

I always take issue with any MP who doesn't live in the area he represents, how on earth can you be on top of local issues if you are not there to see then for yourself.

It's the case with a lot of MPs. These days they don't have to put an actual address on the ballot paper, just which parliamentary constituency it's in. Esther McVey reportedly rented a cheapish flat that she was only occasional making visits to, in order to get an address in Tatton when the (national) Conservatives decided they wanted to gift her George Osborne's old 'safe seat'.

 

[jfollows]

It's the case with a lot of MPs. These days they don't have to put an actual address on the ballot paper, just which parliamentary constituency it's in. Esther McVey reportedly rented a cheapish flat that she was only occasional making visits to, in order to get an address in Tatton when the (national) Conservatives decided they wanted to gift her George Osborne's old 'safe seat'.

Which seemed a bit unnecessary given that George Osborne didn't live in Tatton himself anyway, he lived in Rainow up the hill past Macclesfield.

 

[northwichcat]

Which seemed a bit unnecessary given that George Osborne didn't live in Tatton himself anyway, he lived in Rainow up the hill past Macclesfield.

Oh you said Rainow.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This may seem like a silly question, but is it normal for councils to get funding from national government as well as from their own taxes? If councils do get funding from government, I wouldn't be surprised if pork-barrel politics exists where any council that is not run by the same party as government gets less than those that are the same, so that opposition councils either can't do as much and/or have to have higher council taxes. The way to get around this if a problem is to make sure that any government funding is set at a fixed rate based on the local population total, and/or some other suitable means-tested calculations.

Generally, Government funding for councils is already based on the kind of fixed formulae that you suggest. The Government can't just arbitrarily say, we'll give this council £Y million for no good reason. On the other hand, it is the Government that sets the precise rules and the various formulae by which funding is determined, and there have at various times been allegations (under both Labour and Tory Governments) that the formulae unfairly favour certain areas. Probably not surprising since there's always going to be bit of a value judgement in what criteria you should use for assessing funding.

 

[Ediswan]

Just seen a conservative broadcast. The claim was that the 5p/litre cut in fuel duty has saved the typical motorist £100/year. Allowing for VAT on top, call that 6p/litre.

First problem, was the cut passed on ?

Second problem, do the sums add up ? The numbers above assume 1,666 litres/year. There are numerous 'average' mileages quoted, but let's pick a higher estimate of 10,000 miles. For typical mpg, a pessimistic estimate of 40mpg. 250 imperial gallons. 1,135 litres (£68). More economical estimates of 7,400 miles per year and 50 mpg gives 672 litres (£40).

Third problem, as an election claim, it draws attention to the fact that fuel duty (+vat) is still roughly ten times the claimed saving.

No doubt there will be motorists who could save £100, but not typical.

 

[birchesgreen]

Even if it is right and saves £100 a year, if your energy bill has gone up by the same amount per month then the saving isn't going to go very far.

 

[brad465]

Recent Opinion Polling in Northern Ireland not only suggests Sinn Fein will get the largest share of the vote, and the First Minister position, but that the DUP and Alliance are neck and neck. I might need resuscitating from suffocating on my own laughter if the DUP end up third and can't play a part in the next NI administration:

Exclusive: Sinn Féin extends poll lead as Alliance neck-and-neck with DUP

SINN Féin has extended its lead over the DUP and is on target to emerge as the comfortable winner of Thursday’s assembly election, a fresh opinion poll forecasts.

www.irishnews.com

 

[jon0844]

Even if it is right and saves £100 a year, if your energy bill has gone up by the same amount per month then the saving isn't going to go very far.

And don't forget the increase on many mortgages, again PER MONTH. And that's before considering the higher cost of food.

Still, maybe we can all get a Freedom Pass and just travel around on London buses to keep warm and save energy (and petrol, come to think of it, and our mortgage if we sell our home too).

 

[gg1]

Recent Opinion Polling in Northern Ireland not only suggests Sinn Fein will get the largest share of the vote, and the First Minister position, but that the DUP and Alliance are neck and neck. I might need resuscitating from suffocating on my own laughter if the DUP end up third and can't play a part in the next NI administration:

Exclusive: Sinn Féin extends poll lead as Alliance neck-and-neck with DUP

SINN Féin has extended its lead over the DUP and is on target to emerge as the comfortable winner of Thursday’s assembly election, a fresh opinion poll forecasts.

www.irishnews.com

View attachment 114030

Any idea why the Alliance party are polling so well, 18.2% is quite a jump from their previous NI Assembly election performance?

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Recent Opinion Polling in Northern Ireland not only suggests Sinn Fein will get the largest share of the vote, and the First Minister position, but that the DUP and Alliance are neck and neck. I might need resuscitating from suffocating on my own laughter if the DUP end up third and can't play a part in the next NI administration:

Exclusive: Sinn Féin extends poll lead as Alliance neck-and-neck with DUP

SINN Féin has extended its lead over the DUP and is on target to emerge as the comfortable winner of Thursday’s assembly election, a fresh opinion poll forecasts.

www.irishnews.com

View attachment 114030

My understanding is that even if the Alliance party came second they could not nominate the deputy First Minister due to complications in the way the assembly elections are set up with regard not only to the party share but also to community share of the vote.
This could lead to a situation, well it couldn't because it wouldn't happen but for the sake of demonstrating a point, where Sinn Fein came first in say 50%, SDLP came second on 49% and the DUP third in 1%, then due to community rules, as SF and SDLP are nationalist, then it would be the DUP who would nominate the deputy FM.

 

[Horizon22]

Any idea why the Alliance party are polling so well, 18.2% is quite a jump from their previous NI Assembly election performance?

Well NI politics has been in deadlock for a while, Alliance don't play to the traditional right-left / Protestant-Catholic divide, have been growing in other elections and I can imagine some are looking towards a fresh start.

 

[brad465]

A couple of leaflet photos for local Tory candidates here showing them talking about not wanting to be punished for national Government mistakes. While its true they are not associated with national Government, this is a very odd thing to put on a campaign leaflet:

https://twitter.com/colin72133031/status/1521542555183239169

https://twitter.com/ClaireHubbert/status/1521583318403371009

 

[jfollows]

A couple of leaflet photos for local Tory candidates here showing them talking about not wanting to be punished for national Government mistakes. While its true they are not associated with national Government, this is a very odd thing to put on a campaign leaflet:

I find it quite insulting, if you're a Conservative candidate then the things that the leader of your party does are relevant. If you don't like it, stand as an independent candidate. Oh, but then you wouldn't get elected .... you can't have the benefits of being a party member and at the same time disown part of it.

 

[northwichcat]

Just seen a conservative broadcast. The claim was that the 5p/litre cut in fuel duty has saved the typical motorist £100/year. Allowing for VAT on top, call that 6p/litre.

First problem, was the cut passed on ?

Second problem, do the sums add up ? The numbers above assume 1,666 litres/year. There are numerous 'average' mileages quoted, but let's pick a higher estimate of 10,000 miles. For typical mpg, a pessimistic estimate of 40mpg. 250 imperial gallons. 1,135 litres (£68). More economical estimates of 7,400 miles per year and 50 mpg gives 672 litres (£40).

Third problem, as an election claim, it draws attention to the fact that fuel duty (+vat) is still roughly ten times the claimed saving.

Fourth problem, it happened less than 12 months ago and they don't know what will happen in the next 12 months. How many 'average motorists' will continue to not commute to a workplace on a daily basis and how will any potential future spike in COVID infections affect that?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 May 2022 ==

Well NI politics has been in deadlock for a while, Alliance don't play to the traditional right-left / Protestant-Catholic divide, have been growing in other elections and I can imagine some are looking towards a fresh start.

That reassuring to hear. There seem to be too many unionists who vote for a party, who adopt policies based on a strict interpretation of certain sections of the Bible, just because they are anti-nationalist and others who vote for a party who don't send MPs to parliament to represent them because they are anti-unionist.

 

[Typhoon]

A couple of leaflet photos for local Tory candidates here showing them talking about not wanting to be punished for national Government mistakes. While its true they are not associated with national Government, this is a very odd thing to put on a campaign leaflet:

https://twitter.com/colin72133031/status/1521542555183239169

View attachment 114049

https://twitter.com/ClaireHubbert/status/1521583318403371009

View attachment 114050

Disclaimer: My only visit to Hartlepool was made half a century ago, for a wedding (not mine).

I do find some of what was written on the leaflet questionable to say the least - "Last year in the Burn Valley Ward over 1600 votes were split on unknown parties and independents, allowing Labour to win on just 887 votes." It is a three member constituency, the Conservatives put forward one candidate, who was elected as was a long standing Independent. Of course, people voted for independents and other parties, they had three votes. And what is wrong with independents, they sink or swim based on their performance, not because a particular Westminster leader is popular or unpopular? I have also heard of the SDP, even if they haven't.
I also find it a bit rich to witter on about being local while putting the EU flag under Labour.

I find it quite insulting, if you're a Conservative candidate then the things that the leader of your party does are relevant. If you don't like it, stand as an independent candidate. Oh, but then you wouldn't get elected .... you can't have the benefits of being a party member and at the same time disown part of it.

I'm not certain I would go that far. I would be quite happy if they made the sort of statements that some MPs have done, saying that any minister who has been found to have lied to the House of Commons must resign, or calling for a leadership election, but it would have to be something much less mealy mouthed than that statement in the leaflet. I would be quite happy to punish a candidate who did not call out wrong doing on a national level, as I could not be certain that they would do the same locally.

 

[northwichcat]

I find it quite insulting, if you're a Conservative candidate then the things that the leader of your party does are relevant. If you don't like it, stand as an independent candidate. Oh, but then you wouldn't get elected .... you can't have the benefits of being a party member and at the same time disown part of it.

Indeed. I think it's different for a policy like HS2 where it might be the official party line is there's more pros than cons but for people in certain areas the reverse is true. Having people in the party to give both sides of the argument helps to achieve the right compromise. However, if you're politically aligned with David Cameron and disagree with many of Boris Johnson's current policies, why are you remaining in the party? Leaving a party doesn't mean you can't rejoin in the future, as we've already seen with Conservative party members switching to UKIP and then back to the Conservatives.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Indeed. I think it's different for a policy like HS2 where it might be the official party line is there's more pros than cons but for people in certain areas the reverse is true. Having people in the party to give both sides of the argument helps to achieve the right compromise. However, if you're politically aligned with David Cameron and disagree with many of Boris Johnson's current policies, why are you remaining in the party?

Why are you remaining? To fight for what you believe in, perhaps? If you believe in the broad philosophy of your party while disagreeing with some of what the current leadership are doing, then it makes most sense to remain. Exactly the same as why lots of people whose politics are moderately left remained in Labour while the Corbynites temporarily took control.

 

[brad465]

Indeed. I think it's different for a policy like HS2 where it might be the official party line is there's more pros than cons but for people in certain areas the reverse is true. Having people in the party to give both sides of the argument helps to achieve the right compromise. However, if you're politically aligned with David Cameron and disagree with many of Boris Johnson's current policies, why are you remaining in the party? Leaving a party doesn't mean you can't rejoin in the future, as we've already seen with Conservative party members switching to UKIP and then back to the Conservatives.

Unless of course you're one of the moderate MPs who was booted out by Johnson in 2019.

 

[nw1]

I find it quite insulting, if you're a Conservative candidate then the things that the leader of your party does are relevant. If you don't like it, stand as an independent candidate. Oh, but then you wouldn't get elected .... you can't have the benefits of being a party member and at the same time disown part of it.

I'd certainly like to engage a Conservative candidate and see what their reaction to questions on Brexit, immigration restrictions, and Partygate are.

Wouldn't vote for them in any case, but it would be an interesting discussion.

 

[northwichcat]

Why are you remaining? To fight for what you believe in, perhaps? If you believe in the broad philosophy of your party while disagreeing with some of what the current leadership are doing, then it makes most sense to remain. Exactly the same as why lots of people whose politics are moderately left remained in Labour while the Corbynites temporarily took control.

Whatever people say about Corbyn, he didn't have so much power in the party that he was able to change a centre-left manifesto for a socialist manifesto. Even Liz Kendall, who some of the Corbynites told to join the Tories, voted for policies to improve worker's rights. The end manifesto was a balance between what the likes of Kendall and Corbyn wanted and didn't include things like sympathy strikes, even though Corbyn was in favour of them but did include things like increases to the minimum wage. With Johnson it seems more a case of he's bulldozing through the Brexit arrangement he wants and makes no apology for using the word bulldozing.

 

[nw1]

I also find it a bit rich to witter on about being local while putting the EU flag under Labour.

I suppose that's specifically targeting Hartlepool's current profile as a hotspot for pro-Brexit sentiment. "Vote Labour, get the hated EU" basically. Of course, the Tories under Thatcher did more damage to places like Hartlepool than the EU ever did, I suspect - but we'll ignore that particular detail...

On vaguely related matters, I've noticed that in these local elections the Tories appear to be dropping the Union Jack from the tree symbol on their literature/posters - and reverting to the Cameron-era logo. Is this a sign that the local candidates, at least, are trying to distance themselves from strident nationalism?

 

[bangor-toad]

Any idea why the Alliance party are polling so well, 18.2% is quite a jump from their previous NI Assembly election performance?

I think the simplest reason is that people here are fed up with the antics of both Sinn Fein and the DUP. We've had years of absolute stalemate with no Stormont Executive as both sides haven't wanted to work together (for a variety of reasons).

This has caused voter patterns to split, looking for either more moderate or more extreme positions. Alliance seems to have benefitted from being moderate and getting support from all sides of the various communities here.

For those of you unfamiliar with the madness of NI politics, Alliance is officially classed as an "Other" party being neither Unionist nor Nationalist. Such classifications mean very little in England, Scotland and Wales but here it's important and it means something in law. One outcome is as OhNoAPacer mentions, even if Alliance got 49% of the total votes they don't get a say in choosing who's the Deputy First Minister.

Also, the opinion polls are harder to predict what happens as we have a different voting system. We use STV How do we elect MLAs? and so your second (and subsequent) choice is also important. That makes a simple opinion poll of asking who you will vote for less accurate.
The results on Friday should be interesting!

Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[nw1]

I think the simplest reason is that people here are fed up with the antics of both Sinn Fein and the DUP. We've had years of absolute stalemate with no Stormont Executive as both sides haven't wanted to work together (for a variety of reasons).

This has caused voter patterns to split, looking for either more moderate or more extreme positions. Alliance seems to have benefitted from getting support from all sides of the various communities here.

For those of you unfamiliar with the madness of NI politics, Alliance is officially classed as an "Other" party being neither Unionist nor Nationalist. Such classifications mean very little in England, Scotland and Wales but here it's important and it means something in law. One outcome is as OhNoAPacer mentions, even if Alliance got 49% of the total votes they don't get a say in choosing who's the Deputy First Minister.

Also, the opinion polls are harder to predict what happens as we have a different voting system. We use STV How do we elect MLAs? and so your second (and subsequent) choice is also important. That makes a simple opinion poll of asking who you will vote for less accurate.
The results on Friday should be interesting!

Cheers,
Mr Toad

One thing that's a bit curious is how the more opinionated parties (Sinn Fein and DUP) seem to have attracted more votes than the more moderate, and peace-brokering parties (SDLP and UUP) in recent years.

 

[Andyh82]

I wonder how many people think that if they vote Labour tomorrow, their energy bills will be reduced as Labour will implement the windfall tax.

It’s what Starmer and Labour are running with regularly on Twitter. It seems to me many people will be disappointed.

 

[Cloud Strife]

My understanding is that even if the Alliance party came second they could not nominate the deputy First Minister due to complications in the way the assembly elections are set up with regard not only to the party share but also to community share of the vote.
This could lead to a situation, well it couldn't because it wouldn't happen but for the sake of demonstrating a point, where Sinn Fein came first in say 50%, SDLP came second on 49% and the DUP third in 1%, then due to community rules, as SF and SDLP are nationalist, then it would be the DUP who would nominate the deputy FM.

Yes, this is a major problem with powersharing in Northern Ireland. It's designed to protect the minority group, but it wasn't predicted that a 'Other' party would ever have a chance of finishing 1st or 2nd. One solution could be to change (with cross-community consent) the rules so that 'Other' can be FM or dFM alongside the Unionist and Nationalist representatives, assuming they finish in the top three.

One thing that's a bit curious is how the more opinionated parties (Sinn Fein and DUP) seem to have attracted more votes than the more moderate, and peace-brokering parties (SDLP and UUP) in recent years.

Largely due to their success in the communities. The SDLP and especially the UUP have been really poor on the ground since the Good Friday Agreement, whereas Sinn Fein and the DUP both made huge efforts to engage with ordinary voters. I also suspect the success of the Paisley-McGuinness government did a lot to legitimise both of them as well. Still, one concerning thing is that if the DUP finish 3rd and barely above the other Unionist parties, then you have to question whether or not they legitimately represent the Unionist community.

 

[brad465]

I wonder how many people think that if they vote Labour tomorrow, their energy bills will be reduced as Labour will implement the windfall tax.

It’s what Starmer and Labour are running with regularly on Twitter. It seems to me many people will be disappointed.

I doubt many who vote Labour think that will happen as they either know they're local elections and don't change the Government setup, or they're voting for them as a way of showing disapproval for the current administration. Should Labour make overall gains in the local elections then I would expect the party to take it as a sign that their proposals are wanted, even if they can't be delivered. For all the flaws in the windfall tax proposal, at least Labour are offering an alternative suggestion and sticking to it, things they were criticised for not doing often during the height of covid.