Sheffield 2021 Referendum

[Robin-H 11]

11 hours ago, Longcol said:

Do you really believe that - let me know who you think will be influencing Boris Johnson in the next few years. Certainly not Labour MP's!

 

You might also want to consider the lack of constraints on PM's taking us into armed conflicts eg Thatcher in the Falklands, Blair in Iraq.

 

Local leaders are also constrained by their statutory responsibilities, the amount of money the Treasury (ie PM and Chancellor) lets them collect. Boris can decide (or not) to spend billions on HS2.

 

 

I do yes. Labour MPs get a vote on things just like every other MPs do. Every vote is worth the same. 

 

How many of the 84 councillors in Sheffield get an equal vote on decisions? 

[Belnotphist 10]

13 hours ago, Longcol said:

Do you really believe that - let me know who you think will be influencing Boris Johnson in the next few years. Certainly not Labour MP's!

 

You might also want to consider the lack of constraints on PM's taking us into armed conflicts eg Thatcher in the Falklands, Blair in Iraq.

 

Local leaders are also constrained by their statutory responsibilities, the amount of money the Treasury (ie PM and Chancellor) lets them collect. Boris can decide (or not) to spend billions on HS2.

 

 

Obviously the decisions made by national government are bigger - that's irrelevant to discussing how much of the power of Sheffield council the council leader holds, relative to how much of the power of national government the prime minister holds.

Legally, the prime minister has relatively little power to make decisions on their own, without getting the approval of the house of commons (e.g. HS2 & Brexit both needed parliamentary approval). He/She does have the power to make some decisions, but many decisions MUST legally go through the HoC and the HoL. At that point, MPs/Lords can raise points, suggest amendments, represent the views of their constituents etc - they have power to resist the ruling party.

 

The size of the majority of the ruling party might make it easier for it to get the House of Commons to approve their ideas, but it doesn't give the prime minister any more LEGAL power.

 

In contrast, in the current 'strong leader' decison-making system of Sheffield council, the Executive (10 of the 84 councillors, personally selected by the leader) has the LEGAL power to make nearly all decisions. The Executive doesn't need to get the approval of the other 74 councillors. There are hardly any legal checks or balances to its power. Not only that, but the council constitution makes it clear that the council leader has the power to personally change or make any decision of the Executive:
"for the avoidance of doubt nothing ... shall in any way limit the authority of the Leader to exercise the Council’s executive functions".

 

The other 74 councillors have hardly any power. Most decisions do not have to be approved by all the councillors, so they have no opportunity to suggest amendments or represent their constituents in the way that MPs do. The votes that do take place in the council chamber, with all councillors, are often symbolic or self-congratulatory - political theatre. Most decisions are made by the 10 specially selected councillors.

 

So, the council leader holds almost ALL the power of the council, whereas the prime minister holds a relatively small part of national government's power.

 

That seems to be the fundamental choice at the referendum - do Sheffielders want the council leader to hold nearly all the power with most councillors having very little power, or do they want a more democratic modern committee system where all councillors have the power to represent their constituents. There's also more to do with giving communities real power, but I think that's the fundamental choice.

[apelike 10]

11 hours ago, Longcol said:

AFAIK there were a number of threads here on SF about it - maybe you were too pre-occupied with Brexit.

Maybe... but an internet forum is not really the place to publicise it only to complain or discuss. Notice also that I did state lack of publication (about the referendum being taken place.) 

Edited February 7, 2020 by apelike

[Belnotphist 10]

4 hours ago, apelike said:

Maybe... but an internet forum is not really the place to publicise it only to complain or discuss. Notice also that I did state lack of publication (about the referendum being taken place.) 

In the its our city meeting they said the council are legally meant to tell everyone about the referendum with unbiased info but councillors with power who don't want change look like planning to make things unclear so people don't vote for change in the ref

[Longcol 596]

8 hours ago, apelike said:

Maybe... but an internet forum is not really the place to publicise it only to complain or discuss. Notice also that I did state lack of publication (about the referendum being taken place.) 

Everyone will be informed the referendum is taking place (assuming you're on the electoral roll) - nearer to the date in May. If people were given the info now a good would have forgotten by May.

[apelike 10]

10 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Everyone will be informed the referendum is taking place (assuming you're on the electoral roll) - nearer to the date in May. If people were given the info now a good would have forgotten by May.

You may have misunderstood my post as I worded it wrong and in a hurry as I meant consultation and not referendum. What I was trying to say is that the SCC consultation (Call for Evidence) was not widely known about hence the 1% in replies. In fact I didn't know about the petition either. That is the bit I question when talking about publicity surrounding it. 

 

Sorry about that. 

[Longcol 596]

11 minutes ago, apelike said:

You may have misunderstood my post as I worded it wrong and in a hurry as I meant consultation and not referendum. What I was trying to say is that the SCC consultation (Call for Evidence) was not widely known about hence the 1% in replies. In fact I didn't know about the petition either. That is the bit I question when talking about publicity surrounding it. 

 

Sorry about that. 

Thank you for the clarification - appreciated.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Why wouldn't Councillors want more democracy and to improve turnout from  the currently-piteous level?

Surely everyone should support the empowering of Councillors and their involvement in decision-making?

[Longcol 596]

9 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

Why wouldn't Councillors want more democracy and to improve turnout from  the currently-piteous level?

Surely everyone should support the empowering of Councillors and their involvement in decision-making?

So how did turnout at the local elections compare to other local authorities?

 

Turnout in Sheffield 2019 31.2% according to this;

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Sheffield_City_Council_election

 

 

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Yes- a poor turnout compared to General Elections and even compared to Local Elections that coincide with them.

[Longcol 596]

56 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

Yes- a poor turnout compared to General Elections and even compared to Local Elections that coincide with them.

Throughout the country, local elections always have a lower turnout than general elections.

[Annie Bynnol 612]

There is no evidence at all that a change in the way a City Council operates it's decision making effects voting. No other Metropolitan Council has done it.

 

Are we really going to change the system because of a political campaign  run by political minorities for their benefit?

 

A change in which 1% of residents show any interest?

 

A change by referendum which has already been characterized by a significant number of its supporters in the petition, deliberately or mistakenly, adding multiple and or ineligible signatures.

 

Even in this thread there are contradictions in how the petition was verified and in the aims of the supporters of change.

 

The referendum will not be about what the residents of Sheffield need, it will be for marginal political activists to gain influence.