Council Election 2007

Post by **wangi** » 08 May 2007, 21:00

Mrs Mangle wrote:Seems that ... apparently said so ... to another councillor ... Lets assume it's one of the above...

Give it a chance..you have hardly been elected.

Listen to yourself. The guy's not even in the place yet and already you've got him down as "not representing Craigmillar".

Perhaps judge someone on their actions, not some unsubstantiated gossip that someone somewhere said to some somewhere else, apparently.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 09 May 2007, 09:49

Mrs Mangle wrote:As for Mr. Hawkins I don't know the man, but he was honest at the hustings saying he knew nothing of much under the tunnel at Brighton Place.

The Portobello Golf Course is the 'other side of the tunnel' and Stephen Hawkins has been doing loads of work to save it!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 May 2007, 17:57

I think Mrs Mangle raises an interesting point concerning how the responsibilities for the 3 councillor ward will be divided up. Each councillor was elected to represent the entire Portobello/Craigmillar ward, from the Brightons to Bingham, not just the bit they fancy.

Up until now, if I wanted to raise an issue with my local councillor I would direct it to either Lawrence or Maureen, depending on which ward it related to, or both if I felt it was a Portobello-wide issue. Their roles were distinct but also complementary and that teamwork produced results.

Now, with three representatives from three different parties, who knows how it will work? As far as I am aware, the three haven't yet met to discuss it.

In any case, I have already decided to adopt Maureen as my local councillor, whether she likes it or not. Who will you adopt?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 11 May 2007, 15:14

Lib-Dem / SNP alliance now rule Edinburgh :

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... =730992007

Mrs Mangle · Post by **Mrs Mangle** » 11 May 2007, 15:54

With a little help from the tories it seems, but they are not in on the coalition it seems, just promising to help them out next week.
It makes a mockery of the SNP consistution, the say they will NEVER work with the unionist (tories), but so long as it helps us get what we want and then if we call it a agreement nobody will say anything.
Proves the point that Stevie Cardownie will jump in with anyone, as he did when things were not going his way with the Labour Party a few years back.

I fell for Labour cause Lib-dems manifestio was written on the other side of the paper to Labours.
4 years seems ever such a long time, still it gives the coouncillors that are wet behind the ears a chance to learn.
At least now he (Cardownie) gets his status back, with deputy Provost and deputy leader.

Mrs M

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 May 2007, 16:48

Brian Monteith's view in today's EN makes the interesting point that if the Council election had been decided in traditional 'first past the post' fashion then the result would have looked quite different

STV disease will give us electoral jaundice

It is no coincidence that the Liberal Democrats wanted this new fangled voting system adopted - as the "say anything to please anyone" party they are always likely to receive the transfers of voters who find them the next least offensive choice.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 11 May 2007, 17:01

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Over the next few years the electorate are going to get a taste of SNP pudding with Lib Dem sauce

(with some Green sprinkles and a Margo on top at Holyrood)

magbagpuss · Post by **magbagpuss** » 12 May 2007, 08:22

Mrs Mangle wrote:Proportional representation. A council (and country) which isn't simply stuffed full of Labour representatives. Sure Lawrence done a good job, but how come you can't assume Micheal Bridgeman & Stephen Hawkins wont either?

Mike Bridgman is a good man and will do for the ward what the people ask of him. As for Mr. Hawkins I don't know the man, but he was honest at the hustings saying he knew nothing of much under the tunnel at Brighton Place.
I feel for Lawerence, Maureen is a god person also, I don't really think the party has much to do with it, it's how the individual will represent us surely.
I don't honestly think Lawerence will go away, I think he will still be very much around, you can do just as much or more when you are not a councillor.
The only Independant that got anywhere near a good result was Norrie Davies, another man who has been a community activist for 20 odd year just because he wasn't elected means he will continue the good work he has done for 20 odd year, that's the type of man I would have wanted representing me.
But lets all give Mike, Maureen, and Stephen a chance at least safe in the knowledge that if their best isn't good enough then in 4 years we get rid of them.
Mrs M

Well

said, that's it in a nutshell, we'll just have to wait and see how things go.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Jul 2007, 10:40

The Scottish Elections Review has been set up by the Electoral Commission to independently report on the administration of both the Scottish Parliamentary and local government elections held on 3 May.

People who were eligible to vote in the Scottish elections (including voters, election officials, candidates and agents) are being asked to submit their views on any of the issues being considered by the Review or any other matters concerning the administration of the elections to arrive by 31 July 2007.

This is Lawrence Marshall's submission:

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for allowing me to comment on the administration of this May's Scottish Parliament and Council elections. I was a councillor for 13 years until this year - but lost out on this occasion (though my Labour colleague was elected - her surname was Child).

1. The combined elections: it was always going to be a mistake to hold these different elections on the same day on this occasion. You could argue that in principle local government should have its own set of elections and not be submerged by the national debate but I understand the desire to encourage as many people as possible to vote and not to have too many occasions on which people are asked to vote - voter fatigue might otherwise set in.

Combining the elections hasn't really been a problem before in terms of people understanding how to vote but on this occasion the "vote as many times as you want" message inherent in STV really spectacularly backfired on the Scottish Parliament combined ballot paper. Aside from the design of the ballot paper, this message encouraged folk to put multiple Xs on their paper.

The Council elections should have been held in May 2008 with a 5-year term for the new Councils so that Scottish Parliament and Council elections would in future fall 2 years apart from each other. This may further diminish voter turnout but what's the point in turning out if your vote is rejected anyway? So many elderly people have told me that they're not sure if they voted correctly - and this after a lifetime of being perfectly able to vote correctly previously. They'll take some persuading to feel confident about voting in the future.

The different voting systems now in play require, I'm afraid, that separate elections be held for the Scottish Parliament and Councils. Given the warnings conveyed beforehand to the relevant bodies, it was sheer doggedness and complacency that led to this year's fiasco. It could and should have been avoided.

2. Ballot design: putting the list candidates on the same ballot paper as the constituency candidates was a disaster. Many folk perceived it as being one whole list and, although correctly in most cases making their mark with an "X", did so more often than they should have because of confusion with the STV "vote as many times as you want" message.

It was also disgraceful that an election slogan was allowed to be used by the SNP on the list vote rather than their official party name. This alone brings the whole system into disrepute - as well as powerfully confirming the influence of the alphabetical listing on electoral outcome.

Re. the Scottish Parliament, the 2 separate votes should have been cast on 2 separate ballot papers. That would have gone a long way to reduce the number of rejected ballot papers.

Re. the Council ballot paper, in principle voting preferentially isn't that difficult to grasp - but it shouldn't happen on the same day as marking "X"s elsewhere.

That academic research was clear beforehand re. the influence of candidates' surnames should have set warning bells ringing. Such research was discounted. It surely can't be now.

Where 2 candidates are standing for the same party the evidence is that the candidate further up the ballot paper is almost certain to gain more votes than their colleague further down the list. Should your surname be a factor in getting elected or not? Of course not! I'm actually surprised that legal challenges have not been mounted to contest many Council results. In my ward there were 250 or so rejected ballot papers - over 100 I guess due to folk marking an "X" against both myself and my Labour colleague. It wasn't allowed to split these 50:50 and so they were all binned. The rejected ballot rate where there were 2 candidates from the same party must surely have been higher than where only 1 candidate was being fielded by each party or independent.

How to overcome this known about but unintentional alpabetical bias? I would suggest that if paper ballots are still to be used then, if the number of candidates is x, then the number of ballot papers printed should come in x types with candidate 1 dropping to second place then third place, etc. and polling clerks having to take a sheet from the next bundle type in turn as they hand ballot papers to the voters.

Better still would be to vote on screen so that ballot papers could be completely randomised for each elector as they vote - and they could also then be alerted to the fact that they've made a mistake (e.g. marking 2 "X"s).

The old and the poor were treated disgracefully this May. They were discriminated against in practice and I'm reminded of the old days when Oxbridge graduates got 2 votes to everyone else's 1. This year the old and the poor found their votes rejected whilst the votes of the more able were counted.

It was bad enough to be told by a polling clerk that electors were being told to "vote as many times as you want" even in the Scottish Parliament elections. It was even worse that folk couldn't get help once thay had their ballot paper in their hand. If confused, people have the right to ask for help. This right to vote correctly so that your vote counts is paramount and must override any secrecy requirement. That's why I think that electronic voting is a possible way forward here. Folk need to know when they've made a mistake when voting. It's not good enough that thousands now wonder if their votes counted or not.

3. The count arrangements: Robert Mugabe would have been proud of these! I never saw one single ballot paper that unequivocally counted - only those in dispute and/or rejected. I trust the system - but it was completely untransparent. At least in the old days of hand counting you saw every ballot paper counted in front of you and many others around you of all parties and none. Hand counting the Scottish Parliament votes would also have been quicker than electronic counting. Again the whole thing was driven by the decision to move to STV voting.

As a candidate at Ingliston you had no clue what was happening to your vote - it was all inside a computer somewhere. It should be possible to at least display on a screen the moving totals of first preference votes and then the transfers, etc.. On the day this year and after many hours you realised you had lost because your name wasn't read out in a corner of a hall where there were many other distractions. People deserve better than that kind of treatment.

4. The electronic counting system: I'm sure it was accurate - but who could tell? It's also crazy that the only thing to do at the count was stare at uncertain, disputed and rejected ballot papers for hours on end. Also, whether a ballot paper was accepted or passed on or rejected seemed at times to depend on who shouted loudest at the clerks rather than any objective set of rules firmly adhered to.

5. Public information: I personally thought the "Vote Scotland" leaflets and adverts were good - but I already knew how the system worked. Obviously a good proportion of the electorate didn't manage to look at or understand the information provided. The posters at the entrance to polling stations were also helpful, I thought - but again obviously didn't help enough.

One thing that concerned me at times were the Electoral Reform Society postcards, etc. available at hustings meetings, libraries, etc.. These were often taken by folk to be from independent officialdom but were of course partisan, emananting as they do from a pressure group. They obviously have a right to produce literature but I think it should be made clear that it's not official or independent election information - their availablity in libraries and even Lothian Buses offices, theatres, etc.. seemed to imply an official imprimatur.

6. Roles, relationships and accountability: I don't think that politicians should decide on the form of the ballot paper - this should be up to The Electoral Commission. Similarly with the method of voting - paper or electronic. Ditto with the method of counting - hand or electronic. The Electoral Commission should then be accountable to the politicians who, if they wish, can appoint others to look into shortcomings with the work of the Commission.

All in all, May's elections, while not a travesty of the electoral truth, were nevertheless a disaster in terms of allowing people to effectively register their votes and to be confident in doing so. The counting system was also almost totally opaque.

I'd actually prefer that the AMS voting system be used for Council elections as well as, as is currently the case, for elections to the Scottish Parliament. Marking an "X" on separate ballot papers is readily understood by all sections of the population. Its legitimacy is worldwide and I believe that this is the way forward for Scotland in this age of proportional representation. You could even then hold both sets of elections on the same day without mishap, hopefully!

Yours sincerely

Lawrence Marshall
One of two Labour candidates in the Portobello/Craigmillar ward of the City of Edinburgh Council

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 16 Jul 2007, 23:01

Can he not just accept that it wasn't a case of whose surname came first on the list, there must be much more to it than that? I for one have always relied on Maureen for more positive input and advice and she wasn't my Councillor previously.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 16 Jul 2007, 23:12

He makes some valid points, I suppose, but why say that "the poor and elderly" were the ones to miss out most - does being poor and/or elderly naturally make you stupid. Does that mean the better-off and young are geniuses? Doubt it!! That's an emotive slant [and kind of lazy one - if it is true it needs to explained] that doesn't help the argument.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 17 Jul 2007, 22:12

He does make some valid points, and the reason behind the spoiled ballots have to be investigated....but from an independent viewpoint, not one that still reeks of sour grapes.

Lawrence Marshall · Post by **Lawrence Marshall** » 19 Jul 2007, 21:30

I'm not saying that my surname was the only factor in my not getting re-elected.
Obviously the new proportional voting system was going to make things difficult.
I lost half my ward due to the boundary changes required to introduce multi-member wards.
Maureen and I split the new bigger Portobello/Craigmillar ward 50:50 in terms of number of electors re. where she was to be Labour's number 1 candidate and where I was to be number 1. Because I had lost half my ward due to the boundary changes that meant that Maureen was already the councillor for 70% of the folk she was trying to be number 1 for whereas I was the councillor for only 30% of the folk I was trying to be number 1 for.
And in that half of the ward a strong local candidate - Norrie Davies - stood as an independent and got the largest vote of any independent candidate who stood.
Finally, of course, my surname placed me well below Maureen in the alphabetical list of candidates.
This bias re. surname was already well known before the election from use of STV elsewhere in the world and academic research thereafter. I think it was Heriot-Watt who analysed the results from this year's local elections and stated that there was a 1 in 500 chance of the results re. surname of candidate panning out as they did by chance alone. You can see this for yourself if you look at the results for any local authority where any party put up 2 candidates.
As for the remark about the elderly and the poor being effectively discriminated against by the new voting system - again, I made this remark on the basis of academic analysis of this year's elections. The number of rejected ballot papers was looked at and was far higher in areas with a high percentage of the poor and/or elderly. This research by Strathclyde University was widely reported in the press just a couple of weeks ago.
As I said at the time of losing my seat - "that's life". However, I do think it right that where things can be improved to allow the system to do its job properly and not be subject to things you can't change such as your surname or your age or probably how well off or educated you are, then these changes should be made. It's just a real shame that the new STV voting system has allowed these extraneous factors to come into play in a way which voting with an X (including the Additional Member System of proportional representation) never did. But nobody heeded the warnings and STV was the backroom deal put together quickly after the 2003 Scottish Parliament elections.

ali · Post by **ali** » 20 Jul 2007, 09:20

Lawrence Marshall wrote:............................................................................STV was the backroom deal put together quickly after the 2003 Scottish Parliament elections.

Yes - a backroom deal done by your own party.

And it was Douglas Alexander, the wee totty Secretary of State for Scotland and a lot of other things, who overruled the advice from many quarters and stuck both ballot papers on one sheet. I suppose it saved money at the printers or something.

And as for the old being bamboozled by the ballot paper well, it it confused some of us young and good-looking folk too you know.

And then there was your party's warmongering leader and the Cabinet, MP's and ordinary party members who stood back and let it happen. I suppose that might've had something to do with it.............
Anyway, your rejection was in many ways a result of your own party's decisions
cheers
ali

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Jul 2007, 09:58

Lawrence personally speaking I was saddened that you lwere not elected. I believe you were an outstanding councillor.

There appears to be strong evdence to suggest that ones surname can influence the chance of being elected and it seems you have been dealt a poor hand with M for Marshall which is slap bang in the middle of the alphabet. I've thought of a cunning plan to rectify this travesty and will doubtless ensure your re-relection should you choose to stand in 2011. Simply use the deed poll process and change your surname to Arabia. In fact you can go the whole hog and give yourself a new middle name too assuming you can think of something appropriate.

Lawrence Marshall · Post by **Lawrence Marshall** » 21 Jul 2007, 13:11

Porty,
thanks for the nice compliment!
I had thought before the election to change my name to Aaron Aaranovitch - but that seemed a bit drastic! Maybe I should just drop the "M" from Marshall!
I'm going to get on with my life and hopefully still try to make a contribution to life in Portobello and further afield - but I thought that I should at least try to see if I could make some points that I thought of relevance to the current inquiry into this year's elections.

Lawrence

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Jul 2007, 13:54

No problem at all Lawrence.

I have had a rethink and instead of dropping Marshall I think we should incorporate it in your new name.

Lawrence: Marshall of Arabia.

I would say that its a winner given the alphabetically impaired opponents that you are likely to face. I wouldn't get to comfy or optimistic tho.

As I'm sure you know Politics is a dirty business and it will only be a matter of time before some wise guys in the enemy camp come up with something like:

Maureen: Child of ABBA

or

Mike: Bridgman of Alcatraz

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 21 Jul 2007, 20:27

Porty wrote:Lawrence personally speaking I was saddened that you lwere not elected. I believe you were an outstanding councillor.

I agree.

Porty wrote:Simply use the deed poll process and change your surname to Arabia.

Aardvark would be better

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 21 Jul 2007, 21:42

whatever, there is always 2011, if you can be bothered standing again.