You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
thinking about the fallout of the ulez being blamed for labour missing out on that third win.
why are majors aligned to a political party? wouldn't it be better if they were not aligned to either (or any) party and were employed to do the best for the city regardless of national politics?
Mayors?
You gormless maggot,
didn't your momma teach you how to spell ?!
thought we were able to accept dyslexia these days?
have a good old laugh....now back to the question
Because a chunk of the electorate are too thick/lazy to actually vote for a proper political reason so vote for the party their parents and grandparents always did based on some terrible stereotypes of what those parties stand for (or something they did/didn’t do in the past which probably nobody in the party was around for).
I suppose its just that to put together a candidacy you need a party behind you to get your message out.
In a huge city like London there will be a lot by of vested interests trying to influence you at least there's some sort of rules around political party finding etc
Same could/should be said for lower levels of political leadership, county and town councillors are a case in point. I guess they're mainly looking to climb the greasy pole towards MP candidacy, so they have to prove some loyalty to their chose party.
Because governance is always political.
why are majors aligned to a political party?
Because it probs. costs hundreds of thousands, maybe millions to get elected, and you'll need an army of volunteers to canvass and support you, plus all the local councillors on your side, and its only the two national parties that have that sort of clout.
Its not the inability to spell it's autocorrect on phones.
thought we were able to accept dyslexia these days?
have a good old laugh….
that was the closest picture i could find to a major! (actually he was a gunnery sergeant)
For the same reason Mps are politically aligned.
Originally it didnt work that way and the US spin off specifically tried to avoid them.
Didnt work for the reasons people have given above about visibility, funding and so on.
In theory at the scale mayors operate you stand more of a chance of an independent but once past a certain population size it would be tricky.
wouldn’t it be better if they were not aligned to either (or any) party
Not really, no: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ferguson_(politician)
That post does come over as a bit harsh Kimbers
copying the US model i suppose. Chat GPT gave me 7 reasons some mentioned above.
Many Directly-Elected Mayors are former Members of Parliament:
Sadiq Khan, Andy Burnham, Andy Street wasn't, but his opponent, Liam Byrne, was. Tracey Brabin, Steve Rotheram, Oliver Coppard lost election as Sheffield Hallam MP in 2015, but elected Mayor of S.Yorks, Dan Norris, etc, etc, etc
Jobs for the faithful promoted by a massive party machine
In London, what the mayor (and the devolved Greater London Assembly) does is entirely political: they tax, they make decisions about core government services, they spend, they determine the future of how their residents live. All of those things need to take place in a framework of how you think the world got to its present state and what you think should happen in the future - an ideology.
Because a chunk of the electorate are too thick/lazy to actually vote for a proper political reason so vote for the party their parents and grandparents always did based on some terrible stereotypes of what those parties stand for (or something they did/didn’t do in the past which probably nobody in the party was around for).
This is a thick and lazy response based on terrible stereotypes. (Hope you can take it as well as give it out).
In fact, partisan alignment in the UK is very low, and a large number of voters switch between parties. Only about 10% of people strongly identify with a particular party. In the 2010-2017 elections, half of voters voted for different parties at different elections.
https://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/british-electorate-most-volatile/
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/49334/html/
Jobs for the faithful
Yeah, Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham are well known for being slavish adherents to the party line...
I can kinda see why, at the mayoral level, there might be a party political tie-in, but where it's not needed, and is indeed ridiculous, is the Parish/District/County council level. It matters not if my local parish councillor wears a red or blue rosette, as long as the dog poo bins are emptied and the swings in the park are kept in decent nick
As mentioned: Party machinery and brand recognition.
Plenty of independents stand. And you might remember Ken Livingstone won London as an independent, thrashing everyone else, until he got beaten by Boris.
That post does come over as a bit harsh Kimbers
It's called tough love.
Harsh, but fair.
They Don't strictly speaking have to be, independents do run. The difference is of course resources and support for campaigning and the fact that politically active people tend to gravitate towards a party and thus run under the banner of said party.
I suppose the real question is, should there be rules around the resources/affiliations of those running for Mayoral posts? i.e. remove party affiliations/funding/support from those elections to try and level the field to some extent. I'm not so sure there would be much benefit to doing that TBH.
Party affiliated Mayors can and do still come into conflict with their own party.
I listened to Andy Burnham being interviewed the other day on the News Agents and the whole thing of SKS blaming Sadiq Khan's ULEZ policy for the Uxbridge byelection result came up (not that I buy SKS's argument). Burnham made a good point about how Mayors should operate; "Place before Party" was his line: Essentially that while a mayor might have a party affiliation they serve their city and it's interests, doing what they were voted into office by the residents for, before allowing their own party's national/parliamentary interests to override.
Jobs for the faithful promoted by a massive party machine
The flipside would just to say it's politics. And like any job the good* ones will end up in the top roles.
It's a system that sort-of works for MP's as you get a sample of the population as MP's, about half of them are in the governing party, and that leaves you ~300 from which to pick some good managers to be ministers, and some competent individuals to be their juniors.
Councils and mayors though it's arse about face, in the background you've got the people actually running the council, but then we elect their managers at random. E.g. I might vote for the local Lib Dem guy because he commutes by bike, but that doesn't mean he'll get the Roads/Transport brief, he might end up managing countryside services while some Car-Brained Autophile nutjob put's in more free parking and get's rid of bus lanes.
This is a thick and lazy response based on terrible stereotypes.
I completely agree with that. What makes it ironic is that on stw party political alignment is massively important - politicians are denounced as evil and uncaring simply because they are members of the Tory Party.
Furthermore I don't think there is anything thick and lazy in voting for a political party whose values you were brought up to embrace.
Voting along party lines is a very important consideration for me because I know which parties align with my values the most and which parties align with my values least. And that is before any candidate has even opened their mouths.
but where it’s not needed, and is indeed ridiculous, is the Parish/District/County council level.
Generally speaking those interested in those roles are interested in broader politics and hence align with one party or another.
Its also a good starting point for those people wanting to become MPs and the like. Start at the base level representing the party locally and hopefully move up.
That said you are more likely to get independents though especially at parish level since you dont need the party machine behind you vs being known in the parish.
wouldn’t it be better if they were not aligned to either (or any) party and were employed to do the best for the city regardless of national politics?
I'm pretty sure that they would say that their party's policies are best for the city.
Interesting to note that the Labour Mayor for Bristol, Marvin Rees, whose term will end next year as the city voted to return to a committee-led model, was unsuccessful in his quest to be nominated as the Labour candidate for the new Parliamentary seat of Bristol North East.
It is, but not a surprise. It's also interesting that Marvin Rees' predecessor was an independent (I linked to him earlier in the thread).
The mayoral model hasn't been a success in Bristol, it would seem.
employed to do the best for the city
Wouldn't work because your decisions would always make some people unhappy and you need a system of listening to them - give them a vote!
was unsuccessful in his quest to be nominated as the Labour candidate
Marvin was ambitious, progressive and (in a city that has traditionally been massively divided on rich/poor lines) divisive. The local party know he's tainted so have chosen a new face.
but where it’s not needed, and is indeed ridiculous, is the Parish/District/County council level. It matters not if my local parish councillor wears a red or blue rosette, as long as the dog poo bins are emptied and the swings in the park are kept in decent nick
But it does, to an extent, in that when there’s local council elections, it shows who’s most likely to actually work for their local constituents. There was voting very recently for for the Chippenham ward where I live, the road surface is sodding awful, (I was waiting for some decent rain to fill some of the deeper holes so I could put a plastic duck in one and take a photo, but a couple of blokes put a shovel full of tarmac in and patted it down, which spoiled my fun), anyway as I’m home much of the time, I was waiting for party representatives to come knocking so I could interrogate them on what they planned on doing about it.
I had two people call, both from the Lib Dems, first was a bloke who was canvassing for their candidate, and I had I nice long chat, where the shitty roads was discussed, and the second was on the evening of the voting day, also a Lib Dem person, a young lady who was also Chippenham’s previous mayor. None of the other candidates could be arsed, although the Conservatives pushed a leaflet through my letterbox, but didn’t bother to knock, which was a shame, because I was home. A constructive conversation may have been had, but it was a missed opportunity. I wonder why…
I’m not even sure I’m Labour had a candidate, there was an Independent, but they never showed their face, or bothered to post anything to say what their intentions were.
It should be fairly obvious where my vote went.
politicians are denounced as evil and uncaring simply because they are members of the Tory Party.
By association, I think that's a fair assumption.
I'm sure some members of the KKK are loving parents, I'd even put money on it.
I wouldn't vote for them though.
politicians are denounced as evil and uncaring simply because they are members of the Tory Party.
And? The whole tory philosophy is inherently nasty. The tories are the enemy. Labour /Tory pacts in Scotland are a labour betrayal of their voters. to deliberatly impoverish people is inherently wrong
the tory party is about one thing and one thing only - concentrating power and wealth in the hands of the powerful and wealthy.
In the most part here people are referring to Metro Mayors, i.e. those overseeing Combined Authority regions such as Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire or West Midlands. These individuals have to in turn work with the elected leaders of their respective Local Authorities which make up the Combined Authority.
As a result, you’ll often get a Mayor from the same, or majority representation party of the LA’s (though not always the case), but it does kind of help them being a politician as they need to understand how local government works.
It’s something I have to deal with every day at work (as I work for the CA in my region); the politics can be infuriating at times but it’s part of the system and equally we’d not get stuff done if that system didn’t exist (particularly capital investment) so have to learn to live with it.
politicians are denounced as evil and uncaring simply because they are members of the Tory Party.
And?
And it shows that on stw politicians are judged by which party they belong to. Did you not understand the OP's question?
It matters not if my local parish councillor wears a red or blue rosette, as long as the dog poo bins are emptied and the swings in the park are kept in decent nick
@IHN - I mostly agree, one of the better local councillors for getting stuff done was a Tory. He retired at the last election and there was a bit of a shock when his successor didn’t get in - much of his vote was for “him” not the party. BUT if you read their pamphlets they are all going to fix the potholes, campaign for the local hospital, support schools etc - so how can you tell them apart? Well some idea on their views on tax/regs/size of state/immigration/environment etc is a useful indicator of their approach and who they will blame for their budget constraints etc.
And it shows that on stw politicians are judged by which party they belong to. Did you not understand the OP’s question?
as a general rule for judging politicians that seems like a good one. They have chosen to align themselves to a party and its values.
The mayoral model hasn’t been a success in Bristol, it would seem
It's had a few issues in Bristol for sure. The very first election wasn't taken that seriously as the mayor was seen as a ceremonial role. We ended up with an independent after a low turn out. He was did split opinion. Great at the small stuff, we had some fantastic cultural and artistic events, not so good at the bigger problems. Next election was taken more seriously by the traditional parties and labour won. The new mayor has been more focused on bigger picture but actually done very little. Therein lies the problem. The role is the mayor of Bristol but only covers the centre, not the greater Bristol area and has also been hampered by limited funding. In the vote to abolish the role one driver was pushing power to the metro mayor covering the greater Bristol area. I wouldn't say it hasn't been a success. There have been wins and losses and it's still an ongoing process.
This is a thick and lazy response based on terrible stereotypes. (Hope you can take it as well as give it out).
I know lots of people who vote either Labour or Conservative because that’s what their family have always done. I would be staggered if it’s only 10%. I haven’t read your link yet but suspect that the phrase “strongly identify” is not the same as “always vote the same way”. I can point you to people who vote Tory (in Scotland of all places!) because “Maggie let them buy their council house 40 years ago”. They believe the Tory party is the party of aspiration and that those aspirations helped them get up the ladder. They’ve passed on those views to their children and they believe they are successful because they are hard working and Labour rewards the slackers…
I can equally introduce you to people who at first impressions you might assume would be tories but are staunch labour voters, because Labour “looked after my dad/grandad in the mines” (or Maggie didn’t).
In the 2010-2017 elections, half of voters voted for different parties at different elections.
and by extension half voted the same way despite some significant change in the political landscape during that time! Of course people must be able to change and not everyone follows a family voting line - but if you honestly believe that most people are voting on detailed policy not some vague notion of which party people like them should vote for you are deluded. Often it’s as much about having become blinkered to believe that the “other party” are inherently bad as much as a vote in support. It happens both ways - Labour voters who say tories are evil; Tory voters who say Labour just waste people’s taxes on benefit scroungers.
why are majors aligned to a political party? wouldn’t it be better if they were not aligned to either (or any) party and were employed to do the best for the city regardless of national politics?
I lived for 10 years in Toronto, where mayors - and councillors - have no political alignment, and it's an utter sh*tshow. I mean, Canadian politics is dysfunctional anyway, but it really illustrated that functioning city administration does require organisation and alignment among the decision-makers. Every single councillor is fighting for their own stakeholders (be that the voters who elected them, the property developers who funded them, etc); and because there's no political alignment there's basically no way to bring them into align to achieve greater goals. Instead it's petty infighting and squabbling, classic nimbyism, and no accountability.
So there has to be *some* organisation in the structure; and the best politicians tend to come from political backgrounds - ie aligned with one of the major political parties. But I'd argue Andy Burnham seems quite non-aligned, or primarily aligned with what's best for Manchester. And Sadiq Khan is clearly more than willing to plough his own furrow rather than necessarily follow the broader goals of the Labour party. It's mainly the Tory press that shouts about him being Labour, rather than Labour itself...
The role is the mayor of Bristol but only covers the centre
Do you mean the City (& County) of Bristol, or literally the centre of town?
Do you mean the City (& County) of Bristol, or literally the centre of town?
The "City of Bristol", which is around half of what most people would consider to be the actual city. Not very useful for housing, transport, social welfare, etc. The metro mayor (with better funding) should be a much more useful role covering a greater area and larger population encompassing the whole city and those that live and work nearby.
The “City of Bristol”, which is around half of what most people would consider to be the actual city.
Very true. Unfortunately Marvin gave the impression that vast parts of the actual city weren't his problem, which might explain the low opinion of him and the mayoral role in Bristol, especially after a hugely divisive incumbent of the red-trousered persuasion.
Joining up the surrounding areas is the biggest challenge in lots of ways, which makes me think the biggest mistake was ditching Avon in the '90s.
Yes! another politics thread. Woo hoo!
I haven’t read your link yet
Maybe you should, and then read around the subject a bit. You wouldn't have such "blinkered" and "deluded" views.
This article is worth a read;
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/hate-burnham-furious-khan-team-starmer-labour-mayors-clash-2500543
While I was in town yesterday afternoon, I noticed an election declaration posted up on a council notice board, showing the result of a poll for a Town Councillor for Chippenham Sheldon Ward, which is mine. There were only three candidates, Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrats.
Conservative - 127
Independent - 112
Liberal Democrats - 481
Number of ballots rejected - 7
I’d say that’s a pretty comprehensive ass-kicking for the Tories! 😁
Our last mayor was a Lib Dem, I spoke to her, but I don’t know who the current one is aligned to.
There was also a notice of an election for a town councillor, for a ward that’s adjacent to mine, and that’s pretty much all new developments, so I’ll keep an eye on how that goes.
Just checked, and our current mayor is a Lib Dem, and it’s his fourth term in office, and the deputy mayor was our previous mayor, the lass I spoke to, also Lib Dem. 😎
Has to be said, Labour really don’t get much support in these parts, it’s traditionally a Conservative stronghold.
Possibly not for much longer.
But I’d argue Andy Burnham seems quite non-aligned, or primarily aligned with what’s best for Manchester.
I'd argue that he is interested in whats best for Burnham. A classic wethervane politician
Am I right in thinking that Scotland doesn't have mayors and certainly not the elected variety?
Does the provost/convenor model work well and would local government benefit from public elections as Reform Scotland have suggested?
But I’d argue Andy Burnham seems quite non-aligned, or primarily aligned with what’s best for Manchester.
I’d argue that he is interested in whats best for Burnham. A classic wethervane politician
A little too cynical IMO.
He has the luxury of a bit of distance and freedom from the national party apparatus, and plenty of work he can be getting on with in GM - where he won't have to toe the party line on every issue.
Yes he's a self-interested politician and yes he's obviously positioning himself for a future leadership bid.
But he's probably the best candidate for it when you take everything into account, and his current semi-detached position will only benefit him in the medium and longer term IMO.