Elect a Haringey Mayor? - Harringay online2024-03-29T14:23:14Zhttps://harringayonline.com/forum/topics/elect-a-haringey-mayor?commentId=844301%3AComment%3A113446&feed=yes&xn_auth=noAnyone see the interesting ar…tag:harringayonline.com,2018-02-11:844301:Comment:10581072018-02-11T12:35:01.481ZAlan Stantonhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/AlanStanton
<p>Anyone see <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/06/talk-is-cheap-the-myth-of-the-focus-group" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">the interesting article:</a> "Talk is cheap: the myth of the focus group", by Liza Featherstone. It begins with focus groups but ends by raising fundamental questions about the nature of democracy and public consultation.<br></br> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/06" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a></p>
<p>I'll admit to…</p>
<p>Anyone see <a rel="nofollow noopener" href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/06/talk-is-cheap-the-myth-of-the-focus-group" target="_blank">the interesting article:</a> "Talk is cheap: the myth of the focus group", by Liza Featherstone. It begins with focus groups but ends by raising fundamental questions about the nature of democracy and public consultation.<br/> <a rel="nofollow noopener" href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/06" target="_blank"></a></p>
<p>I'll admit to a bias in this topic. I am sceptical about the endless parade of leaders and world-be leaders who are always ready, strong and certain, to give us their vital message. They will remind, insist, and try to persuade us of the inevitability and essential normality of leaders. And therefore of followers.<em><br/>"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,<br/>But in ourselves, that we are underlings."<br/><br/></em>So it didn't surprise me when a number of Labour Council leaders recently signed a letter criticising the "anti-democratic" way Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) had called for mediation in Haringey. Plainly, the democracy they favour is where leaders such as themselves get to exercise power and call the shots.</p>
<p>Yet another example of the relevance of the psychologist Abraham Maslow's remark about owning a hammer and then viewing every problem as a nail.</p> Some discussion on that here,…tag:harringayonline.com,2018-02-10:844301:Comment:10581812018-02-10T21:03:40.803ZHughhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/hjuk
<p>Some discussion on that <a href="http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/time-for-a-directly-elected-leader-in-haringey" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>, Adrian. </p>
<p>Some discussion on that <a href="http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/time-for-a-directly-elected-leader-in-haringey" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>, Adrian. </p> Why not start a new thread, A…tag:harringayonline.com,2018-02-10:844301:Comment:10579122018-02-10T20:42:28.927ZAlan Stantonhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/AlanStanton
<p>Why not start a new thread, Adrian? It could be confusing to hitch a ride on a discussion thread eight/nine years ago. We are - I hope - in rather different times.</p>
<p>But thanks anyway for drawing attention to Mark Crouch End's contribution to Opinion8 which in turn offers to summarise Jon Lansman's thoughts. <br></br>Over the years I stopped wasting time on The New Statesman. But I'll have another try with this piece. Especially as I prefer to read first hand what someone writes.…</p>
<p>Why not start a new thread, Adrian? It could be confusing to hitch a ride on a discussion thread eight/nine years ago. We are - I hope - in rather different times.</p>
<p>But thanks anyway for drawing attention to Mark Crouch End's contribution to Opinion8 which in turn offers to summarise Jon Lansman's thoughts. <br/>Over the years I stopped wasting time on The New Statesman. But I'll have another try with this piece. Especially as I prefer to read first hand what someone writes. <br/><br/>I have the problem that I've no idea whether Kober's control freakery is or is not typical of Councils Leaders+cabinet-system. Or just an execption, a particularly closed-minded authoritarian way she chose to dominate and accrue power to herself and her obedient pals.</p> A reflection on the Kober era…tag:harringayonline.com,2018-02-10:844301:Comment:10579872018-02-10T20:30:29.554ZAdrian Hackneyhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/MacHeath
<p>A reflection on the Kober era suggests that the <a href="http://opinion8.ning.com/forum/topics/the-dear-leader-great-helmsman-and-supreme-symbol-of-the-people?xg_source=activity" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Leader and Cabinet model may not be perfect</a>.</p>
<p>A reflection on the Kober era suggests that the <a href="http://opinion8.ning.com/forum/topics/the-dear-leader-great-helmsman-and-supreme-symbol-of-the-people?xg_source=activity" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Leader and Cabinet model may not be perfect</a>.</p> @JohnMcMullan
For some reaso…tag:harringayonline.com,2009-08-04:844301:Comment:1182972009-08-04T11:53:12.644ZJohnhttps://harringayonline.com/xn/detail/u_10x8prqomrvtr
@JohnMcMullan<br />
<br />
<i>For some reason, I can't reply directly to your post, so I've replied to mine, but I'll quote yours just so it's clear if these end up on the site in the wrong order!</i><br />
<br />
<b>John McMullan said:<br />
"NONSENSE!!!<br />
<br />
The majority party is so afraid of the "2nd" placed party that they implement half their policies as well! Just look at where Labour and the Conservatives sit on the political spectrum. The main parties are so concerned with power they watch the way people vote and "adapt…</b>
@JohnMcMullan<br />
<br />
<i>For some reason, I can't reply directly to your post, so I've replied to mine, but I'll quote yours just so it's clear if these end up on the site in the wrong order!</i><br />
<br />
<b>John McMullan said:<br />
"NONSENSE!!!<br />
<br />
The majority party is so afraid of the "2nd" placed party that they implement half their policies as well! Just look at where Labour and the Conservatives sit on the political spectrum. The main parties are so concerned with power they watch the way people vote and "adapt policy accordingly"/"encapsulate the burgeoning market for voting on that issue"."</b><br />
<br />
I'm not going to get into a discussion about the similarities or differences between Tories and Labour because that kind of politics isn't what this site is for and I'd rather keep this to a more general discussion about appropriate structures and institutions for democracy to work. So I'll just say that I think, on the issue of the two major parties in any system "stealing" each other's policies, that I'd agree there is definite evidence for that in all systems I can think of.<br />
<br />
However, there are two points worth noting: firstly, that doesn't prove all parties are identical (there are plenty of policies they don't share), nor is there (I would argue) anything wrong with parties seeking policies that appeal to their own supporters <i>and</i> to the middle ground (and therefore, possibly, having policies which are the same as or similar to the other major party). The centre ground is where you win elections, and parties (to properly fulfil the functions that I think they have in democracies) ought to try very hard to win elections.<br />
<br />
It is true that sometimes parties seem to adopt policies which <i>only</i> appeal to the middle ground (especially when they are defining "the middle ground" incorrectly), and leave behind some or all of their natural supporters. That isn't very good for the party concerned - I hate it when Labour does things to impress swing voters which thoroughly hacks off everyone in the party, although that tends to be more to do with the <i>style</i> in which it is done, rather than the <i>substance</i> of what has been done (although there are examples I can think of where I disagree with both). However, if a party does things that damage its standing with its own natural supporters, then it won't get elected. The party that was able to appeal to both its natural supporters, and to the centre ground, will do. That is democracy - it often produces results I dislike, but it is a sound enough idea; the example you offer still doesn't disprove the idea that parties are a vital and useful part of a democratic system.<br />
<br />
The second point to make is that, even if the first and second parties in a system do trade ideas with one another, that still doesn't make coalitions which exclude the second party especially democratic. In fact, it suggests that a coalition of the two major parties would be more democratic than including the third force (e.g., the Greens). I wouldn't be in favour of that either, though, since I think there <i>are</i> substantial differences between the two major parties in every political system I can think of which would make their working together difficult and lead them to dropping policies which they were elected to carry out. The point about the Greens al…tag:harringayonline.com,2009-08-04:844301:Comment:1182892009-08-04T11:14:18.751ZJohn McMullanhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/bogan72
<i>The point about the Greens also raises an interesting issue about the democratic problems of coalitions - and that they tend to favour the policies of the third most popular political party: it is extremely rare in Europe for a coalition to be formed between the two largest parties (Germany since 2005 is a conspicuous exception), so the people who get represented in coalitions are those who voted for the most popular party and then those who voted for the third party - those who voted for…</i>
<i>The point about the Greens also raises an interesting issue about the democratic problems of coalitions - and that they tend to favour the policies of the third most popular political party: it is extremely rare in Europe for a coalition to be formed between the two largest parties (Germany since 2005 is a conspicuous exception), so the people who get represented in coalitions are those who voted for the most popular party and then those who voted for the third party - those who voted for the second party don't get a look in.</i><br />
<br />
NONSENSE!!!<br />
<br />
The majority party is so afraid of the "2nd" placed party that they implement half their policies as well! Just look at where Labour and the Conservatives sit on the political spectrum. The main parties are so concerned with power they watch the way people vote and "adapt policy accordingly"/"encapsulate the burgeoning market for voting on that issue". I don't think that elections…tag:harringayonline.com,2009-08-03:844301:Comment:1182492009-08-03T18:17:07.037ZJohnhttps://harringayonline.com/xn/detail/u_10x8prqomrvtr
I don't think that elections are a hassle - except in the way that they should be, that is, hard to win and therefore requiring lots of work and engaging with voters. In fact, it is because I think elections are so significant that I would disagree with the idea that horse-trading <i>after</i> an election, between people with conflicting manifestoes, is a democratic process. If you elect 57 people in Haringey, all with different manifestoes, and then ask them to form an executive from amongst…
I don't think that elections are a hassle - except in the way that they should be, that is, hard to win and therefore requiring lots of work and engaging with voters. In fact, it is because I think elections are so significant that I would disagree with the idea that horse-trading <i>after</i> an election, between people with conflicting manifestoes, is a democratic process. If you elect 57 people in Haringey, all with different manifestoes, and then ask them to form an executive from amongst themselves, many of them (even the ones who get into the Cabinet) will end up not carrying out their pledges. That isn't their fault - it is the way the system has been set up. But fundamentally you won't know what sort of executive priorities you'll get until after the election, and after the horse-trading is finished.<br />
<br />
Compare this with a party system, where the horse-trading has already taken place within political parties (for political parties are, in a way, perpetual coalitions with rules and common aims) <i>before</i> they seek election - so the voters get to decide which, already-agreed set of executive priorities they want to see implemented. Obviously, parties may not carry out their electoral promises, and might have lots of excuses for it, but crucially, if you know what they promised and you know that they had control of all the executive machinery necessary to carry it out, then it is voters who get to judge whether you accept that party's explanations for why they didn't achieve something and, in turn, whether you believe they'll achieve more stuff they say they want to in future. Thus, the election becomes the key point where the major priorities of the Council are decided, rather than afterwards (where voters do not have the chance to give their input).<br />
<br />
The point about the Greens also raises an interesting issue about the democratic problems of coalitions - and that they tend to favour the policies of the <i>third</i> most popular political party: it is extremely rare in Europe for a coalition to be formed between the two largest parties (Germany since 2005 is a conspicuous exception), so the people who get represented in coalitions are those who voted for the most popular party and then those who voted for the third party - those who voted for the second party don't get a look in. This seems problematic for democracy. More than that, the third party often has a disproportionate influence on the policies of the executive to the size of their vote, because they are the kingmakers. This might be great for the people who make up and vote for the third party, but it isn't very democratic. It's not fair to call the "ho…tag:harringayonline.com,2009-08-03:844301:Comment:1182382009-08-03T16:02:59.608ZJohn McMullanhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/bogan72
It's not fair to call the "horse trading" over the executive endless, it ends and is a valuable part of the democratic process, just like elections (gosh they're a hassle aren't they)? This system works perfectly well in New Zealand where I might point out that Labour is not almost exactly the same as the equivalent of the Conservative party and you can vote Green and have a Green Party member in the cabinet because whoever was in power needed their support. Horse trading indeed!
It's not fair to call the "horse trading" over the executive endless, it ends and is a valuable part of the democratic process, just like elections (gosh they're a hassle aren't they)? This system works perfectly well in New Zealand where I might point out that Labour is not almost exactly the same as the equivalent of the Conservative party and you can vote Green and have a Green Party member in the cabinet because whoever was in power needed their support. Horse trading indeed! "but, under a leader system,…tag:harringayonline.com,2009-08-03:844301:Comment:1182192009-08-03T12:36:22.740ZJohnhttps://harringayonline.com/xn/detail/u_10x8prqomrvtr
"but, under a leader system, I would want the leader to have to choose from all cllrs not just those from their own party which does not appear to be an option."<br />
<br />
Hi Liz, as far as I am aware, there is no <i>legal</i> bar on a Leader choosing their cabinet members from another party - the members of the Cabinet are, technically, elected by the whole Council (procedures of the Council <a href="http://www.haringey.gov.uk/part4_seca_councilsos2.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> ). So, if the Leader…
"but, under a leader system, I would want the leader to have to choose from all cllrs not just those from their own party which does not appear to be an option."<br />
<br />
Hi Liz, as far as I am aware, there is no <i>legal</i> bar on a Leader choosing their cabinet members from another party - the members of the Cabinet are, technically, elected by the whole Council (procedures of the Council <a href="http://www.haringey.gov.uk/part4_seca_councilsos2.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> ). So, if the Leader option was agreed, the entire Council would vote on a recommendation from the Leader, and there is no legal or constitutional reason that the Leader couldn't recommend a Cabinet drawn from more than one party.<br />
<br />
Obviously, that is extremely unlikely to happen when one party has a majority on the Council; in fact, I don't think there are any examples outside of No Overall Control councils where the Cabinet portfolios are shared between parties - and even in NOC Councils, who gets what will have been sorted out between the coalition partners or within the minority administration before the Council votes.<br />
<br />
Personally, I think there are good reasons for, firstly, wanting to keep the party system (that is, where almost all elections are fought between political parties rather than between collections of individuals), and secondly, for a majority party keeping all of the Cabinet portfolios.<br />
<br />
The second point is possibly easier to argue for, with the most powerful argument for it being that, if only one party is in charge of the whole executive function of the Council, then it is easier to judge their performance and vote accordingly: if you like it, vote for them, if you didn't, vote for someone else. In coalition executives, the water becomes much muddier: policies which a party campaigned on may not be implemented despite them being part of the executive, because the price of getting a second party onboard was dropping that policy. For example, the Scottish LibDems couldn't get a return to the pre-1997 situation for university students (i.e. that they paid nothing for their university course) in Scotland when they were coalition partners with Labour in Scotland, despite that having been one of their most popular campaign pledges (although in fairness, they did get a different system of post-graduation payment instituted). There are other issues, but that seems to me the clearest.<br />
<br />
Of course, it is possible to argue that this is product of the party system, and if you got rid of that, it would all be a lot better. I disagree with that, too, but I would point out that, as a very active Labour Party activist, I am not unaware of the difficulties and frustrations of party politics: sometimes it is incredibly irritating to be within a political party, with the rules and rituals, discipline and disagreements that follow from it, and I would imagine that members of other political parties have felt the same about their own party at one point or another. However, there are a number of things which I think make political parties not just a valuable part of democratic life, but a vital one.<br />
<br />
The first is that, almost without exception, where a representative democratic system has been established, some forms of political parties have been established: even in the US, where almost everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence or agreed to the Constitution believed parties were actively evil, found themselves forming them within a decade of establishing the Federal government.<br />
<br />
This happens because organised political activity in states with extensive representative systems and large electorates is <i>hard</i>: you need large numbers of people to vote for you (even at our local level in Haringey, local councillors need something between 1200 and 1500 people to vote for them to win a seat), and to get that, you need your message to reach a great many people, and the only way a single candidate can realistically do that is with at least a reasonably sized body of supporters. So, some form of organisation is vital for the representative role of our democracy to function.<br />
<br />
As such, the opposite of having parties isn't having nothing, but instead is having lots of much smaller political organisations, springing up around individuals. Some might argue that would be more positive, but I think it is actually deeply problematic: firstly, after any election, you'd have to have endless horse-trading amongst individuals to form any sort of executive, which is much less democratic than electing a party with a clear programme; secondly, it costs a fair amount of money to run a strong campaign, and if politics became orientated around individuals, only those who were either independantly wealthy or could raise significant money from people who could spare it (i.e., not the poor and disadvantaged) would get elected, which would be, for me, a terrible state of affairs. Parties allow a much wider range of people from a more diverse backgrounds to get elected than would the alternative - and, in a spirit of fairness, I would point out that this applies to all parties: John Major was hardly the traditional Tory toff.<br />
<br />
Apologies for the lengthy post, but I have been meaning to put up something about the party politics for ages on here - I think it is possible to be strongly critical of party politics, and I think there are many changes parties ought to be putting into place, in both their own structures as well as in how they interact with the wider political process, but - regardless of all that - political parties have a real and useful role to play in democratic politics, and the one change which I think they absolutely should not aim for, is to weaken the accountability that comes from a single party controlling the executive function of whatever body its members of elected too. I'm also concerned about the…tag:harringayonline.com,2009-06-18:844301:Comment:1135132009-06-18T21:16:12.816ZAlison Phttps://harringayonline.com/profile/Alison
I'm also concerned about the rather wishy-washy level of 'consultation' that seems to be required under the new legislation. Previously you couldn't make this level change without having a referendum but this has now changed to the system we're discussing - it is up to the council following 'community consultation'. There is quite a good Wikipedia piece on this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elected_Mayors_in_the_United_Kingdom">here</a> .<br />
<br />
Personally am not very convinced. As a number…
I'm also concerned about the rather wishy-washy level of 'consultation' that seems to be required under the new legislation. Previously you couldn't make this level change without having a referendum but this has now changed to the system we're discussing - it is up to the council following 'community consultation'. There is quite a good Wikipedia piece on this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elected_Mayors_in_the_United_Kingdom">here</a> .<br />
<br />
Personally am not very convinced. As a number of others have said, I'd rather they sorted out a system whereby the cabinet is more reflective of the balance of counsellors. And that's before you even mention things like PR!! But I can see how a good and strong mayor could make a huge difference in an underperforming local council (a bit like a good head for a school I guess??). IPPR did some work on this and argued:<br />
<br />
"By delivering high profile, well-known and visibly accountable leaders, mayors provide this much needed reassurance... With a mayor the public knows who is in charge and where the buck stops. In this respect mayors have the potential to make local government more accountable, and can therefore contribute significantly to the introduction of greater local autonomy." More <a href="http://www.ippr.org/articles/index.asp?id=3190">here</a>.