Democacy. Gert Lush innit.

[ExChrispy Porker]

So, of all the great cities in this land only the citizens of Bristol decided they wanted an elected mayor.

Or did they.

24% of the electorate bothered to vote.

of these 53% wanted a mayor.

Simply put 41000 out of 319000 voted yes.

And so Bristol is saddled with another ballot, at goodness knows what further expense.

And all because another layer of politics is going to help. I despair.

My only consolation is that I live just outside the city of my birth, so I won't be paying.

[Justayellowbadge]

Yes, that is how democracy works.

[Mr Happy]

Ultimately though, if people don't get off their arse and register their approval/disapproval, then they are the only ones to blame.

If most of Bristol don't want an elected mayor, then it's down to the denizens of that city to speak up - by voting against it. As it is, over 3/4 of the population couldn't be arsed to turn out, so what can you do?

You could say that the votes are scrapped unless the minimum turnout percentage of (plucking a figure out of the air) 66% is attained, however that would end up costing more, as you'd have to reballot continually until you hit that magic number.

If the majority can't be arsed to get up and vote, then the minority make the decisions. If the minority who vote end up making decisions that the majority who didn't vote don't like - then it is nobody's fault but that of the non-voting majority.

[AJS-]

I liked an idea I heard a few years ago, I think from Norman Lamont, who said in the case of an election drawing less than a 50% turn out then that position should be scrapped.

That would mean no local councils, no city mayors and even a few less MPs, mostly from Labour safe seats.

[scenario8]

The citizens who were asked to comment didn't exactly show full support for the Conservative's vision of city elected mayors. Only Bristol and Doncaster (especially so) showed any enthusiasm whatsoever in this vision. A bit of a bloody nose really.

I've not fully got my head around the desire to reduce bureaucracy, reduce the size of the state, historic (at best) mistrust of regional legislatures and the promotion of directly elected figurehead mayors (and other local public positions). Of course I can understand the two concepts need not be directly opposed but it does appear a bit odd. I wonder how much enthusiasm will be shown for the elections of figurehead Police and NHS positions.

[AJS-]

scenario8 said:

I've not fully got my head around the desire to reduce bureaucracy, reduce the size of the state, historic (at best) mistrust of regional legislatures and the promotion of directly elected figurehead mayors (and other local public positions). Of course I can understand the two concepts need not be directly opposed but it does appear a bit odd. I wonder how much enthusiasm will be shown for the elections of figurehead Police and NHS positions.

Not as daft as it sounds. I think it possibly would increase engagement with local politics, as people had an actual figurehead to vote for, support or loath. I must admit when I lived in the UK I didn't even know who the local councilors were. It seemed an irrelevance, and the only interaction I really had with it was some well meaning but stupid seeming people coming around asking for my vote. Had there been a more engaging election process where 2 or 3 main candidates debated matters that they actually had some influence over, I might have taken an interest.

I'd also be interested to see county mayors/provosts/governors or whatever the correct term would be, at a county level.

Whether that would mean reducing or increasing waste, as at the national level, remains to be seen.


Ideally I'd give them taxation powers (at the expense of central government) so they are competing against each other and forcing taxes, hence waste, down.

ETA: It looks like this was the idea of Cameroon and co but they got cold feet, and decided to quietly shuffle past the option of toothless mayors.

Edited by AJS- on Saturday 5th May 14:47