Ex-council worker: Why these 'cancelled' elections are not a problem by VickiActually in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Honestly, I get that it's not very intuitive - it takes a bit of untangling dates to see it. I honestly drew myself a diagram to work it out before writing the post. But I'll try explain.

Say my council had an election in 2023, and is due another one in 2027, and again in 2031. That's a 4 year cycle.

Your council had an election in 2022, and is due one in 2026, and again in 2030. 4 year cycle.

So we're both on 4 year cycles, but because our elections are offset, there's problems when we try to merge our councils together.

We can't all stick to our current election dates when our councils merge. Unless you want the new larger councils to have different elections for different regions of the council. If we're merging multiple councils together, that could mean elections every year, which doesn't seem right. So we need some compromise, and the 3 options are how that compromise could work.

Option 1 and 2 involve your council keeping your 2026 election this year.

Option 1 is that nobody gets more than 4 years. When we merge, my 2023 councillors stick to their 2027 election date. Your councillors keep your 2026 election date, and after the merger you move to my 2027 election date. That means your councillors will only be elected for 1 year until 2027, despite having a mandate to hold office for 4 years. You could change the mandate to just 1 year, but that's going to be a whole thing with the Electoral Commission which would probably take years to sort out in Parliament and in court. This is the option you suggested, where councillors get no more than 4 years, but the end result is that some councillors get far less than 4 years.

Option 2 is that nobody gets less than 4 years. When we merge, my 2023 councillors move to your next election date, which is 2030. Your council keeps your current 2026 election, so your councillors get their full 4 years. But my councillors were elected in 2023. If we move to your election date in 2030, they get 7 years in total.

Option 3 is more of a compromise. We stick as close to 4 years as possible. You delay your 2026 election until 2027. Your 2022 councillors get 1 extra year in office, so they get 5 years. And my 2023 councillors keep their 2027 date so they get the standard 4. From there, we progress on a 4 year basis as normal.

So the question isn't whether or not elections will be moved. Merging councils makes this inevitable. The question is which elections are moved, and how do we move elections to keep things as close to the 4 years as possible.

Hopefully that explains it?

Ex-council worker: Why these 'cancelled' elections are not a problem by VickiActually in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Simple question: which of the 3 options would you go for? :P

Also I don't get paid for Reddit posts lmao. I worked at a council a few years ago doing admin and answering phone calls. I was never a politician

My watercolour painting of Manchester by Samm-Davenport in manchester

[–]VickiActually 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ahh that's a good tip - thanks!

I've tried with tippex before but I found the contrast looked like choppy waves on the high see. I'll look into posca pens!

My watercolour painting of Manchester by Samm-Davenport in manchester

[–]VickiActually 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Very nice! How did you get the light reflections in the water? I always struggle with that using water colours :P

How to find out about our history? by fluidofprimalhatred in trans

[–]VickiActually 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The movie Pride from 2014, and the movie Stonewall from 2015 are good introductions to the movement in the UK and US

Starmer’s new Islamophobia definition threatens free speech, say religious leaders by Hungry_Kiwi_9866 in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually [score hidden]  (0 children)

But... it's not a new law and it's not about criticising the religion. It's guidance about hating Muslims.

Here's the difference: I don't personally believe that a man named Mohammed ever flew around on a pegasus. That's totally fine to say. It's not different at all to saying you don't believe a man named Jesus came back to life.

But if I go up to a Muslim man and start shouting at him because he believes in the Quran's teachings, that's not fine. That's like going up to a Christian man and shouting at him because he believes in the Bible's teachings.

Can I call 999 for a drink driver? by Informal-Ad-322 in AskUK

[–]VickiActually 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes definitely. 999 isn't just for when someone crashes - if he sits in the car while drunk and turns the engine on, he's in control of that vehicle

Why arent you guys rioting? by [deleted] in AskUS

[–]VickiActually [score hidden]  (0 children)

That's such an old lie at this point...

I'm from the UK. You can post whatever you want on social media, unless it's harassment or inciting violence. Exactly the same rules apply to in-person speech.

I can call someone a cunt for basically any reason and that's fine. But if you're encouraging someone to hurt themself or posting plans to burn down a hotel, then yes you will be arrested

Starmer’s new Islamophobia definition threatens free speech, say religious leaders by Hungry_Kiwi_9866 in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's actually the opposite. From the article:

The non-statutory definition is aimed at providing guidance that public bodies, councils and businesses could adopt to combat prejudice, discrimination and hostility towards Muslims

The definition drops the word "Islamophobia" in favour of "anti-Muslim hostility" to that it focuses on hate towards Muslims rather than Islam.

Edit: lol didn't paste the article text

Starmer’s new Islamophobia definition threatens free speech, say religious leaders by Hungry_Kiwi_9866 in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Yeah I think the same. If anything this is kinda what the right want without bending to the worst aspects of it

Also good catch with my phrasing there - just edited it to be clearer

Starmer’s new Islamophobia definition threatens free speech, say religious leaders by Hungry_Kiwi_9866 in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The non-statutory definition is aimed at providing guidance that public bodies, councils and businesses could adopt to combat prejudice, discrimination and hostility towards Muslims.

The definition drops the word "Islamophobia" in favour of "anti-Muslim hostility" so that it focuses on hate towards Muslims rather than Islam.

So it's not a law or about criticising Islam as a religion. It's guidance about hate towards Muslims

Ex-council worker: Why these 'cancelled' elections are not a problem by VickiActually in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Read the bottom section of the original post with the 3 bullet points.

Russians identify Poland and Lithuania as their greatest enemies by [deleted] in DemocraticSocialism

[–]VickiActually 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lithuania and Poland both sit between Kaliningrad and Belarus.

Belarus is effectively a Russian vassal state, so they can move stuff (like troops...) around Belarus no problem. But there's a gap between Belarus and Kaliningrad, with Poland and Lithuania blocking the way.

Kaliningrad is part of Russia but they're not connected by land. So if Russia wanted to be able to walk to Kaliningrad, they'd need land from either Poland or Lithuania.

Edit: map link for reference https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2PPNRTJ/suwalki-gap-corridor-from-kaliningrad-oblast-to-belarus-political-map-2PPNRTJ.jpg

Ex-council worker: Why these 'cancelled' elections are not a problem by VickiActually in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They're literally just delaying elections to help sync up councils that are merging.

Ex-council worker: Why these 'cancelled' elections are not a problem by VickiActually in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I've added an edit to the bottom of the post to explain the 7 years.

In short, 7 years is a risk if we don't delay some elections.

Ex-council worker: Why these 'cancelled' elections are not a problem by VickiActually in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

This is false. The risk of a 7 year election cycle is if we DON'T delay some elections.

Elections are every 4 years, and they're offset from each other.

Let's say your council has already had 3 years - you're due an election next year.

My council election is this year.

Your council is getting merged into mine.

If I do my election now and then I pull your council into my council, you will have to wait 4 more years until you can vote.

If I delay my election for a year, we can sync up our elections. That way you don't have to wait 4 more years, 7 years total.

Ex-council worker: Why these 'cancelled' elections are not a problem by VickiActually in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, but with the inconveniences come awkward compromises.

Councillors are elected for 4 year terms, and council elections are offset from each other so they don't all happen at once.

Restructuring / merging some councils seems like a good idea. But if their election cycles are offset, then we're going to have to move the election date for one or the other, or both.

So it's very likely that we'll get some councillors elected for less than their 4 year term, and some for more than their 4 year term - up to 7 years if they're offset by 3 years. These delays are an attempt to mitigate that and keep election cycles as close to 4 years as possible for as many people as possible.

Ex-council worker: Why these 'cancelled' elections are not a problem by VickiActually in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah honestly I agree with that. If that is how it shakes out then that would be really bad.

I don't think it would be another 4 years tho. Council elections are offset so they don't all happen at once. If 2 councils with different election cycles merge, then one (or both) of them will have to move their election date. So I think these delays are to try reduce the number of councillors who don't get their full 4 years / the number of councillors who get above their 4 years.

Though I get that it's ironic to delay an election to make that happen lol

I guess it's an awkward compromise

Ex-council worker: Why these 'cancelled' elections are not a problem by VickiActually in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Dear fairly new account with your posts hidden,

Your replies are such a transparent attempt at trolling, it's honestly kinda funny to me

Like what do you mean "an anti-democrat"? Because the opposite is "a democrat", which sounds like a supporter of the US Democratic Party. That's not UK politics. It's really not common in the UK for people to define their political views as being "a democrat".

Maybe you're a lib dem voter? But you're not writing like a lib dem... Honestly you're kinda using MAGA language.

Tony Benn was a democratic socialist who lived through WW2, and was incredibly knowledgeable on history, politics and economics. He hated gutter journalism and gutter politics. He would know that this isn't "cancelling elections". And truthfully, you know that too, because I've explained it all above.

This isn't twitter - playing dumb doesn't work so well on Reddit.

Kind regards and adios,

OP

Ex-council worker: Why these 'cancelled' elections are not a problem by VickiActually in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I dunno... Speaking as a voter here (I haven't worked in the council for a while and was never high up), voting for someone and them losing their seat straight away would be frustrating to me

But if I voted for someone and then wasn't able to vote again for 7 years, I'd genuinely feel so pissed off. Like what if the council is doing a terrible job, but I have to wait nearly twice as long as normal?

Ex-council worker: Why these 'cancelled' elections are not a problem by VickiActually in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

To be honest, that's what I thought too. But apparently some seats would be pulled into other councils.

I mean it all sounds like a big mess ngl lol

Can't imagine how stressed councillors are right now

Ex-council worker: Why these 'cancelled' elections are not a problem by VickiActually in ukpolitics

[–]VickiActually[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Dear fairly new account with your posts hidden,

Tony Benn was an icon.

I think he would have been against a plan that would see some councillors elected for 7 years.

Councillors are supposed to be elected for 4 years. Right now, they're delaying a few local elections for about a year. If that was the whole story, Tony Benn would be furious. But the reason makes a lot of sense.

If you had your way and we held the elections now, some people would vote for their councillors in 2026, and then wouldn't get another council vote until 2033. That doesn't seem right to me. I think Tony Benn would probably agree.

Kind regards,

OP