« Get out in the sun more | Main | Off out to work »

Local Democracy and Prescott

Telegraph | News | Prescott's ethics fiasco 'hampering democracy'

The Deputy Prime Minister is accused today of undermining local democracy and stifling free speech by imposing "draconian" rules on thousands of councillors.
A damning report reveals how local authority members are being barred from speaking or voting on subjects simply because they are perceived to have taken a position on the issue.
Even councillors who have been elected specifically to fight a particular issue have fallen foul of the rules and found themselves told they cannot speak or vote on it.
The controversy centres on the Standards Board for England, which was launched by Mr Prescott in 2001.
...example, John Pickersgill, a member of Derwentside council in Co Durham, organised a local referendum on plans to build more wind turbines in his ward. His survey found that four out of five local people opposed the proposals.

However, when he tried to raise his findings in a council meeting on the issue, he was judged to have a "prejudicial interest" and was excluded from the room.

The crime of "predeterminism" in the larger world of politics would be called keeping to a manifesto - and it is strange how it is only "predetermined" ideas from car owners, non-greens, objectors to Government policy that are brought to book.
Prescott and ethics - cue old joke he the only ethics he knows is a place east of London...

Comments

The Leader of Telford Council was in the local paper more than once telling us how great the West Midlands City Region will be and then went on to head the meeting and vote on approving Telford's entry to it which he recommended the cabinet do. I complained BEFORE the meeting that he had a predetermined opinion and prejudicial interest and they said they disagreed. The Standards Board said I had to wait until he'd already done it before they could do anything.

It's a Labour council and city regions are Labour policy. Far be it from me to imply that that might have had a bearing on the outcome.

I cannot believe that a policy like this would survive the first court challenge, either on the human rights basis that threat of state power is being used to stifle dissent, or that the representation of the people is being interfered with (in that the elected counsellor is not allowed to speak and therefore actually yaknow represent them)
Has no one challenged this, or has two shags banned that as well.

This is fucking outrageous they're not even trying to hide it anymore. It's past time these Nu-Stalinists were stripped from power and replaced with an assortment of fruit-flavoured jellies.

Post a comment