Starmer abandons plans to cancel local elections

Rosie51

That would be the Stephen Kinnock who thought the Covid regulations didn't apply to him and his parents when one had a birthday would it?

Oh dear, we are playing that game again are we? Really?

That would be the Stephen Kinnock who thought the Covid regulations didn't apply to him and his parents when one had a birthday would it?

Primrose53

sixandahalf

They also have to pay the legal fees to Reform so very embarrassing for Labour

So you are not merely passing on information, you are enjoying it and hoping Reform do well on the back of it?

I fear for the chaos which is coming our way.

Have a go at Starmer, not me. He’s the one who caused all this.

In what way am I "having a go"

Things seem to be in almighty mess.

Where you and I possibly differ is ,I don't believe Reform and its hateful rhetoric is the way to improve things.

I doubt you'll ever know MayBee70 and does it really matter? Surely the point is respecting people's right to vote whether they exercise that right or not? It just seems to have not been thought through adequately.

Do wonder how many of the electorate that are bemoaning the fact that they wouldn’t get to vote have never bothered to vote in the council elections.

From a BBC article

^Explaining the U-turn, the government said its legal advice had changed - but it has not provided further details, and is now facing pressure from opposition parties to publish the advice.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Heath Minister Stephen Kinnock said: "We had a process that we went through, and then that changed.

"Sometimes circumstances change, and that's the nature of the beast."^

in a way that it was contended was not in the spirit it had been written.

Again, broken the Law.

Dont think spirit matters at all!

Whatever. We shall see.

Sorry, that was for fancythat.

No, it was not broken. It was interpreted by the government in a way that it was contended was not in the spirit it had been written. The government was advised by its lawyers that the challenge could be successful. That is not the same thing as the government breaking the law..

Was it really beyond the remit of those responsible to plan these boundary changes to coincide with planned election dates? It's not as if the dates of local elections aren't known well in advance. If it wasn't illegal to defer those elections for a further year then why have they u-turned, it makes no sense? Either it was a sound plan or not. The pandemic hadn't been known about in advance to allow for planning, nor a foot and mouth outbreak. They are not directly comparable.

Casdon

You must know that the interpretation is what causes most changes to the law fancythat. It’s not illegal to interpret a law in a way that was not intended or not thought of when the law was written. It results in challenges to laws, statutes etc. and different ones being reworded all the time?

That was what I thought and assumed.

But your post of 11.10am made me wonder otherwise.

So the Law is still the Law.
And it was broken by Sir Kier.
Was it not?

For once I’m looking forward to the local council elections. The council has been IMO very high-handed in closing much of a local road, which has resulted in a huge, rush hour build up of traffic on a major road nearby, and has adversely affected local small shops - as if they don’t have enough problems anyway!

An independent councillor has been campaigning very vigorously against it, so he’s definitely getting my vote this time.

You must know that the interpretation is what causes most changes to the law fancythat. It’s not illegal to interpret a law in a way that was not intended or not thought of when the law was written. It results in challenges to laws, statutes etc. and different ones being reworded all the time?

It is about the interpretation of the law, not the actual law,

But that is the Law.

As happens every day of the week. Is it not.

winterwhite

I’m fairly sure this has happened before in the year preceding boundary changes. And I’m fairly sure that some posters on this thread have previously said that all parties are as bad as one another and they don’t trust anyone ànd never bother to vote.
I don’t think that extending the mandate of some current councillors for a further year at a time of changing electoral structures and boundaries is a very big deal. Storms in teacups.

It has happened a number of times before, during the pandemic, during the foot and mouth outbreak, and so on.

fancythat

^To be clear, the postponement of local elections was not illegal^

I have said a couple of times upthread, people need to wait until details come out about the Law aspect.

I dont understand why they are not already out.

Something has gone amiss somewhere.

I think it’s quite straightforward fancythat. The challenge was about the scale of the postponements, and the justification for opening the offer to postpone for additional councils at the end of last year. It is about the interpretation of the law, not the actual law, and also about whether the law should exist at all, which is a different question. .

I’m fairly sure this has happened before in the year preceding boundary changes. And I’m fairly sure that some posters on this thread have previously said that all parties are as bad as one another and they don’t trust anyone ànd never bother to vote.
I don’t think that extending the mandate of some current councillors for a further year at a time of changing electoral structures and boundaries is a very big deal. Storms in teacups.

To be clear, the postponement of local elections was not illegal

I have said a couple of times upthread, people need to wait until details come out about the Law aspect.

I dont understand why they are not already out.

Something has gone amiss somewhere.

GrannyGravy13

Then again Labour want to let 16 year olds vote, what life experience have they had to make a decision on who/how the country is run?

More to the point, who will they be more likely to vote for? On GN I’ve read accounts about GC who are incredibly politically aware, or who are studying politics at UNI or like AGAA4’s DGC and my DGC who are eloquent and passionate about what interests them but will that make them vote for the party who gave them the vote?

Mhari black elected at 20. Nadia whittome - 23. They were Mps rather than councillors.
To be fair I am not sure am helping the argument, they were both in my view catastrophically bad

AGAA4

Really? Reform seem to recruit people who are little more than children. Hasn't even finished his education. No life to experience.

I have GCs around that age and they are very eloquent but taking on that responsibility is too much for a 19 year old.

No life experience at 19?

Then again Labour want to let 16 year olds vote, what life experience have they had to make a decision on who/how the country is run?

I do think there is a bit of a place for them.

And also, we are then being ageist ourselves.

^Really? Reform seem to recruit people who are little more than children. Hasn't even finished his education. No life to experience.
^

There was a Labour MP, 27, I think it was said[didnt look more than that], on TV who tried[a bit] to defend the cancelling of local elections.
I had wondered who would be wheeled out.

The village next to me has another incredibly young Reform councillor, too. How can people of that age possibly deal with social issues. Then to the other side of me the Reform council has closed the state nursing homes.

Really? Reform seem to recruit people who are little more than children. Hasn't even finished his education. No life to experience.

I have GCs around that age and they are very eloquent but taking on that responsibility is too much for a 19 year old.