It's Our City Campaign - Have you Signed?

[annbaker 10]

I said "... the group comprises mainly of individuals associated with Green politics and/or the tree campaign it is only fair that we the voters of Sheffield are aware that a pressure group is in charge of the petition."

 

I said "mainly" and you said "...not all of us are...."

In my version of English, "mainly" equates to "not all" so their is no need for the "...so please get your facts straight before making sweeping statements".

 

The signatories to the constitution on the 11th of August 'It's Our City' comprises 11 names so I am very confident in saying that "... the group comprises mainly of individuals associated with Green politics and/or the tree campaign it is only fair that we the voters of Sheffield are aware that a pressure group is in charge of the petition."

However it is possible that other names have been added.

 

As well as the please get your facts straight before making sweeping statements I love the got you to actually think bit in last sentence:

"However if it's got you to actually think about how Sheffield is run even if you don't sign it that's a plus! "

 

Interesting! You know how people vote yet they've not told you? That's pretty impressive. But yes you were very quick to criticise yet hadn't appeared to even consider properly what the petition was about. Now you say you have so that's got to be a good thing. You may love the strong leader model for all I know? But at least you know what it is now

 

---------- Post added 29-08-2018 at 01:19 ----------

 

This is the video that shows who spoke at the IOC luanch - as you will see not all tree hugging!

 

[Annie Bynnol 610]

Interesting! You know how people vote yet they've not told you? That's pretty impressive.

 

It would be if I had said it.

Actually I said "I don't know how the founders of the IOC and therefore the petition, voted."

[annbaker 10]

No you surmised and surmised wrongly! You have an idea fixed in your head that IOC is run by Greens and STAG folks. It's not. I suggest you read the links I posted and watch David Glass' video. I personally am not a STAG member nor am I in the Green Party (as I said before I'm a LP member). There are many others who are in neither group you seem hellbent on type-casting them as. Some of us just might want a fairer democratic system for our city and this is a way we can have that. It really is that simple!

Edited August 29, 2018 by annbaker

[teeny 10]

I said "... the group comprises mainly of individuals associated with Green politics and/or the tree campaign it is only fair that we the voters of Sheffield are aware that a pressure group is in charge of the petition."

 

I said "mainly" and you said "...not all of us are...."

In my version of English, "mainly" equates to "not all" so their is no need for the "...so please get your facts straight before making sweeping statements".

 

The signatories to the constitution on the 11th of August 'It's Our City' comprises 11 names so I am very confident in saying that "... the group comprises mainly of individuals associated with Green politics and/or the tree campaign it is only fair that we the voters of Sheffield are aware that a pressure group is in charge of the petition."

However it is possible that other names have been added.

 

 

http://www.louisstephen.co.uk/2016/11/why-did-i-support-a-motion-that-brings-back-the-committee-system-to-worcester-city-council/

 

As well as the please get your facts straight before making sweeping statements I love the got you to actually think bit in last sentence:

"However if it's got you to actually think about how Sheffield is run even if you don't sign it that's a plus! "

This isn't the case though its not just one party its right across the board .

Cllr Booker UKIP supports switch to Committee Model

 

There is a better way

 

At times, city councillors put party politics ahead of taxpayers when making decisions on important matters.

 

I believe councils should exist to serve their communities first and put power back where it belongs, in the hands of local people.

 

Sheffield City Council should be looking at a policy of “in-sourcing” not “out-sourcing”following the examples of Liverpool, Cumbria, and Essex.

 

On January 15, Carillion Plc and assorted subsidiaries declared insolvencies.

 

This 10 per cent organisation had around 450 government contracts, taking money from the taxpayer, slicing off their cut then subcontracting the work to local, national and international companies. They have left a trail of destruction in their wake.

 

The practice of allowing multi-national corporations, private companies and management consultants to flood local government, is flawed.

 

They treat the public sector as a gift that keeps on giving, charging inflated amounts of money for consultant templates that read as if they have been written by a child, with only the names of the local authorities changed on these documents.

 

This is the practice of “risk and reward” contracts, profits made from money saved from local council budgets, then given to these private companies.

 

The poorest in society paying towards the wealthiest.

 

I am totally opposed to the cabinet system of governance, which puts too much power in the hands of too few people.

 

I advocate a committee system which brings more openness, transparency and cross-party collaboration.

 

The behaviour of professional party politicians over the last four decades, has shown their self-serving system has completely failed democracy, and the people.

 

At all times taxpayers should be given the best services, the best value for money and the best representation,

 

There is a better way.

 

Councillor John Booker UKIP, West Ecclesfield

Edited August 29, 2018 by teeny

[Cyclone 10]

Apologies to you for not replying and thanks to Cyclone for pointing out my error.

 

Activists are good at exploiting situations to promote their cause.

The legislation that enables a petition to require a referendum is designed to for a "community" (not my choice- it's in the government explanation) which I take to mean a significant section of the voting population not a tiny group of activists. Having observed first hand how such groups morph within the internal politics of idealism, I do worry that this legislation is not being used for the purpose it was meant for.

 

 

I do not know about issues surrounding Councillor Alison Teal. In general it is certainly very dangerous to use the law against elected councillors etc. and we should all be very wary when it happens.

 

As for STAG, their nearly 10 000 members are quite correct in their concern for our trees. However all such groups attract/create a minority who have other causes on their minds- again nothing wrong as long as we know.

 

The legislation is designed such that from a community a certain number of signatures are required.

Clearly anyone who utilises that legislation is going to be some kind of "activist" in that they are taking action to do something.

It's entirely appropriate that any group from within the community, even ones you are trying to smear, use that legislation.

And of course the referendum triggered is put to the ENTIRE community, so feel free to vote no if you prefer to the council to be run by a small group of non-representative councillors with no reference to the rest of the council.

 

---------- Post added 29-08-2018 at 08:57 ----------

 

Comparing a campaign that wants to change the number of Councillors in a room with the Suffragette movement is at best [insert appropriate word].

 

You were the one who kept using activists as if it were a dirty word. Claimed that they weren't representative and accused them of attempting some kind of takeover of the council.

 

---------- Post added 29-08-2018 at 08:59 ----------

 

"Bottom up" in Green politics means that you start with populist local issues in a demographically suitable area, become associated and known through direct action, building a base of active local members, who become councillors who become MPs.

 

Democracy in action then.

 

---------- Post added 29-08-2018 at 09:03 ----------

 

I think the SCC result was highly atypical - the UKIP vote collapsed (as it did everywhere), and Labour should have expected to pick up quite a few of those votes; instead, Labour's share actually decreased by 3.7%. This was while Labour did very well elsewhere across the country. Greens and LDs were both very high by normal "northern industrial city" standards - I suspect this had much to do with the tree issue. In Nether Edge, there was a (relatively) huge turnout, and Alison Teal (Green) got the highest personal vote of any candidate in the election across all wards in Sheffield.

 

If LD and Green had actually worked together they could have had much better representation on the council right now.

[lil-minx92 10]

I've signed the petition. Any change from the current set up is worth a try.

This needs pushing more on Facebook to gain any traction. Unfortunately I think Sheffield is just too red for enough people to want to dilute the red-ness!

[teeny 10]

I've signed the petition. Any change from the current set up is worth a try.

This needs pushing more on Facebook to gain any traction. Unfortunately I think Sheffield is just too red for enough people to want to dilute the red-ness!

 

thank you for signing , I think if we can get the petition signed then we can start to change people perspectives , it doesn't need to be just one party but it would be so excellent if we can get change in sheffield .

[gamezone07 23]

edited, read a bit more, etc

Edited August 29, 2018 by gamezone07

[jbagley 10]

 

A committee system takes more time and costs more money than the "Strong Leader" model currently employed. Councils are already criticised for taking too long and costing too much and budgets are constantly being squeezed, so you can see the attraction of a more streamlined decision making system.

 

In practise, it has been found that committee systems are NOT more expensive.

 

Try looking at the various research documents by Local Authority research organisations (like the Local Government Information Unit) and reports from the officers of local authorities that have changed back to a committee system.

 

You'll find that they conclude that changing to a committee system is "broadly cost-neutral" i.e. they cost around the same as running a so-called 'strong-leader' system.

[lil-minx92 10]

I think what you are not accounting for is that most of the real debate happens behind closed doors before any committee meetings. That's where the decisions are actually made, amongst the ruling group.

 

At the committee meetings, councillors normally vote along party lines.

 

Sure, it appears more "democratic" because the public can attend and see the decision being made. Most committee meetings also allowed the public to speak if they had something to say on an issue. So, people can have their say and feel their views have been taken account of by decision makers.

 

But, in reality, the decision has probably already been made, so what you are generally getting is an illusion of inclusion.

 

A committee system takes more time and costs more money than the "Strong Leader" model currently employed. Councils are already criticised for taking too long and costing too much and budgets are constantly being squeezed, so you can see the attraction of a more streamlined decision making system.

 

Not if the decision makers are a bunch of muppets, which going on their performance....

[Planner1 427]

In practise, it has been found that committee systems are NOT more expensive.

 

Try looking at the various research documents by Local Authority research organisations (like the Local Government Information Unit) and reports from the officers of local authorities that have changed back to a committee system.

 

You'll find that they conclude that changing to a committee system is "broadly cost-neutral" i.e. they cost around the same as running a so-called 'strong-leader' system.

 

I can't see how preparing and collating / distributing papers/electronic documents to a number of committee members and actually holding meetings which are open to the public, is less expensive or costs the same as one person taking the decision in private.

 

As someone who has experience of both systems at officer level, I'd say that in my experience the strong leader method is less time consuming and less costly in terms of officer time.

 

I've spent more hours than I care to mention sitting around waiting for my slot to come up at a committee meeting, so I can speak to a report.

 

You can argue (as I'm sure they might in the studies) that the Council already pays the officers and already has the meeting rooms, so it doesn't cost them any more whichever system is used. But, the officers could be doing something more productive instead of servicing the meetings and the rooms could be used for something else.

 

I always viewed the committee meetings as a show of the democratic process, as Councillors could publicly demonstrate to their constituents that they had raised the issues, or asked the questions, or voted a particular way.

 

The important decisions had of course already been taken by the ruling party before the meeting and their members of the committee had been directed to vote accordingly. I'd therefore think that having a committee system would not alter the outcome on most decisions.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2018 at 11:50 ----------

 

Not if the decision makers are a bunch of muppets, which going on their performance....

The ruling party will probably come to the same decision whichever system is used. You can always argue about the quality of the decisions or the decision makers. They are accountable to the electorate at the ballot box, if you don't like their decisions, vote for someone whose agenda you do like.

[lil-minx92 10]

I can't see how preparing and collating / distributing papers/electronic documents to a number of committee members and actually holding meetings which are open to the public, is less expensive or costs the same as one person taking the decision in private.

 

As someone who has experience of both systems at officer level, I'd say that in my experience the strong leader method is less time consuming and less costly in terms of officer time.

 

I've spent more hours than I care to mention sitting around waiting for my slot to come up at a committee meeting, so I can speak to a report.

 

You can argue (as I'm sure they might in the studies) that the Council already pays the officers and already has the meeting rooms, so it doesn't cost them any more whichever system is used. But, the officers could be doing something more productive instead of servicing the meetings and the rooms could be used for something else.

 

I always viewed the committee meetings as a show of the democratic process, as Councillors could publicly demonstrate to their constituents that they had raised the issues, or asked the questions, or voted a particular way.

 

The important decisions had of course already been taken by the ruling party before the meeting and their members of the committee had been directed to vote accordingly. I'd therefore think that having a committee system would not alter the outcome on most decisions.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2018 at 11:50 ----------

 

The ruling party will probably come to the same decision whichever system is used. You can always argue about the quality of the decisions or the decision makers. They are accountable to the electorate at the ballot box, if you don't like their decisions, vote for someone whose agenda you do like.

 

This is true, but unfortunately the majority of Sheffielders still rant about Thatcher and will only ever vote red