Jump to content
Fancy running a forum? Sheffield Forum is for sale! Learn more

Sheffield 2020 Referendum

Recommended Posts

Anne, you have been told repeatedly that SCCs electoral services have verified the petition against the electoral register and found enough valid entries. The fact that there were other invalid entries added by people out of an abundance of enthusiasm, or malice, or whatever motivated them, seems irrelevant.

 

So rather then just endlessly repeating the fact that prior to verification there were invalid entries on the petition, can you instead make a coherent case as to why you think that fact is important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dave_the_m said:

Anne, you have been told repeatedly that SCCs electoral services have verified the petition against the electoral register and found enough valid entries. The fact that there were other invalid entries added by people out of an abundance of enthusiasm, or malice, or whatever motivated them, seems irrelevant.

 

So rather then just endlessly repeating the fact that prior to verification there were invalid entries on the petition, can you instead make a coherent case as to why you think that fact is important?

Which of the two versions of verification given on here is the correct one? 

According to one version on here thousands were not checked, in another they were all checked.

Why were the obviously erroneous not removed earlier?

 

Edited by Annie Bynnol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Which of the two versions of verification given on here is the correct one? 

According to one version on here thousands were not checked, in another they were all checked.

Why were the obviously erroneous not removed earlier?

 

At the risk or repeating myself...

 

So rather then just endlessly repeating the fact that prior to verification there were invalid entries on the petition, can you instead make a coherent case as to why you think that fact is important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dave_the_m said:

At the risk or repeating myself...

 

So rather then just endlessly repeating the fact that prior to verification there were invalid entries on the petition, can you instead make a coherent case as to why you think that fact is important?

 

 

A political organization invites the public to sign a petition.

That political organization claims that its aim is to improve on the current democratic system .

That political organization then fails over a whole year to correct the substantial number multiple entries, voters from other countries and non-Sheffield residents and  other "invalid" entries.

This gave an exaggerated impression of the momentum of the campaign.

 

Is the inability to correct these errors quickly and efficiently a sign of what will happen in the future? 

Can we expect any better?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

A political organization invites the public to sign a petition.

That political organization claims that its aim is to improve on the current democratic system .

That political organization then fails over a whole year to correct the substantial number multiple entries, voters from other countries and non-Sheffield residents and  other "invalid" entries.

"

 

Is the inability to correct these errors quickly and efficiently a sign of what will happen in the future? 

Can we expect any better?

Unlike SCC, the organisers of this, and any other future, petition don't have access to the full electoral register and so are not able to check the validity like SCC can.

 

Notwithstanding that, in this case they presented a petition that had enough Sheffield residents as verified by SCC electorial sevices. I'm sure you wouldn't want SCC to accept petitions without checking that the entries were valid, so if there are a few invalid entries it doesn't matter, they will be weeded out by SCC. The petitioners have an incentive to have enough valid entries - imagine that damage it would do to a campaign if they presented a petition that had so many invalid entries it failed to meet the threshold for a vote.

 

We are not getting a vote on this issue because "This gave an exaggerated impression of the momentum of the campaign." We are getting a vote because they presented the required number of valid entries - the petitioners demonstrated that there is already enough momentum behind the campaign.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, altus said:

Unlike SCC, the organisers of this, and any other future, petition don't have access to the full electoral register and so are not able to check the validity like SCC can.

It was very easy to copy the list on line and find:

1  anonymous entries

2  multiple entries

3  signatories from  Australia, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia,  Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Guernsey, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan,  Korea, Malta, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey and United States.

 

At least make an effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

At least make an effort.

Yes, they could have made some effort to reduce the number of invalid entries. But when it comes down to it it doesn't undermine their case for having a vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I would like Sheffield to have a Labour Council and I do think, on the whole, they do a decent job but I also think over the years some of our Labour Councillors have become so complacent that they feel they don't have to listen to the public.  Graves Park was a great example, the tree fiasco, and Amey are others.  Labour has some great, hard-working, Councillors who do listen but Labour also have some who seem to think they have a divine right to their positions and can ignore their core voters without electoral repercussion.

Edited by Lex Luthor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway: it seems that the Referendum - as with May 2020's SCC elections and others- will be deferred to 2021, on account of The Lurgi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.