Dear Log,
As true in the UK (where it was written) as in the US (where I read it):
«Everyone claims to care about local democracy - but many secretly think it is petty and dull. Some people, in effect, are more "local" than others, and this is, fundamentally, a class issue. If you live in private housing, have a car, send your children to private schools (or have none) the council may seem to do little except empty your bins. If you are, say, a council tenant, elderly, with no car, your life is lived very locally indeed and issues like the state of the paving slabs (unevenness may trip you as you walk to the shops) are of real concern.»
Re:Local elections
darobin on 2002-05-21T23:15:34
I don't mean to lecture, but what else do you expect (if not personally implicated in politics) than to get to choose between "the best of three bad options"? I would have thought, or at least hoped, that the recent events in various european coutries and notably the french presidentials would have shown people that a bad option is indeed better than a worse option. The fact that there is no dream team doesn't make it less important.
What are the rules in the UK for parties that run for local elections? In France it was frequent that parties that didn't stand a chance wouldn't run because of the costs, until the government decided to finance the simple fact of running so that everyone would get a chance (of course, that has perverse effects, but I think it's better for "democracy").
Re:Local elections
Matts on 2002-05-22T07:33:04
I merely wish for my party of choice to have enough interest to actually put up candidates. I'm not talking about some loony edge party either - I'm talking about the Liberal Democrats, who regularly receive about 20% of the votes in this country.
I don't think it's too much to ask for, however I will say I felt no small amount of guilt when actually not voting. And it's not like I decided to completely abstain and stay away - I was actually at the polling booth at the time, and given that the two choices were between Labour and Conservative (both posting three candidates), I think not voting was the right choice then.
I believe our parties are all self funded, even at local elections. I like the idea of the government paying for it, but I can see how that might be easily abused (or very annoying to see the "joke" parties take money from the system).Re:Local elections
darobin on 2002-05-22T13:58:19
I didn't mean to cast a stone, and I know how hard it can be to vote for someone that isn't in accordance with your views... In your case I'd probably have hesitated between the lesser evil and a blank vote (well, as you know in your case I'd have voted Labour, but that's another story
;-). As for govt funding of elections, I don't think the way it's done here is perfect, but it also isn't too bad. It was created to avoid the abuses that parties went through in order to fund themselves (mostly various forms of corruption). The amount of money you get (for the parliamentary elections, financing varies according to the election type) is proportional to 1) the number of candidates you submit (knowing that there are ~580 districts) and 2) the score you get. Yes, that means that some joke parties do get some funding, but they won't get much because lining up 580 people is going to be tough, and they won't score high.
The perverse side of this system is that it makes it hard for parties to agree on a pre-electoral alliance. At this year's elections (in June) the left-wing parties (Socialists, Greens, Communists, and Left Radicals) wanted to forge an alliance in order to have greater chances to win which is imho a great idea. However that meant that some of them will line up fewer candidates and thus get less money, which made the negociations a lot tougher than they needed be (but they eventually succeeded).
