On 24 Apr 2021 21:35:54 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

And AISB, they aren't as far as both potentially managing the
ongoing's and therefore the impact thereafter. Have you never seen
someone ask another to 'have a word in private' or wondered why they
might do that?

A member of the public attending such a meeting doesn't have any opportunity
to "have a word in private".

Oh you left brainers are so difficult to communicate with!

I didn't suggest the saying related to the actual situation of being
in a council meeting but the *point* that there are often several
levels / layers of communication between people / groups / countries,
there is what is done in open and what is done 'beside the scenes'.

Examples like opposing lawyers making deals with each other in the
toilets during a court recession, where one takes the fall then they
spilt the costs afterwards.

You have the council chanmber where the
councillors are debating. You have a spectators' gallery where the public is.

I know, I've both been and seen on TV.

These are separate spaces, just like in Parliament. The councillors can ignore
completely that public if they feel like it.

Of course, but I'm not talking about 'heckling'.

Ok, let's try it another way. Have you ever done anything where it
impacted what or how you did what you did because others or someone
was or could have been (just) watching? Maybe you haven't because you
have no 'self awareness', not unusual in left brainers (they do what
they do without considering how it looks to others or what others may
feel / consider).

Unless invited to address the meeting.

See above. 'Most people' *will* modify their words / actions if they
are being monitored by someone (anyone) who may have the ability to
'report' the nuisances of any 'goings on'.

The minutes, the press, and opposition members will already do that job.

Ok ...

You have already admitted the minutes are not a complete 'recording'
on the entire process (I have been in enough minuted meetings to know
how that works). Strike 1.

The press many not and are likely not to be there for most low profile
council meetings. Strike 2.

By 'opposition members' do you mean what could be one 'opposition
membeR' (the one other councillor representing one ward in the
borough) or 'candidates' from other parties (but not including the
public which is all non-elected candidates actually are)?

You
don't naively imagine, do you, that some councillors planning a scam are going
to discuss that publicly in the council chamber are you, with that as an item
on the published agenda. Give over.

Nope, and only someone who didn't really have a grasp of what I'm
taking about would get / suggest such.

I am talking about the smaller things (obviously I thought) that they
may mention in passing (to each other) that can give clues to future
plans that could impact people negatively. Things often get 'sneaked
in' (to discussion / future plans) by an expression or by vague
phrasing or even body language and the question was, would our 1 in 10
opposition be able to do any more / with / about that than Joe Public?

If he (and not Joe public) can *always* play a fully interactive part
then he *does* have greater power than them in_that_scenario (he could
then ask questions and try to pin them down (on the record) etc) but
at the same time, his(/her) awareness and presence could spoil a good
project, simply because it goes against opposition policies, even if
it is appreciated by the residents in general (stating the obvious
etc).

They aren't
allowed to take part in any subsequent discussion or debate amoongst the
councillors.

They don't need to (to have some impact) as long as they are present.

Nope.

OFFS.

Chances are the councillors will not even notice them.

'Chances are' .... they would *if* they are on a sticky wicket or
trying to sidestep public conversation about something. They *WILL BE*
aware there are 'extra ears' that may hear something that never makes
the minutes.

So y'see, mere
"attendance" won't do.

See above (and remember, I have been to both council and other
minuited meetings).

The press will be there if something that interests them is up for discussion.

The press *may* be there ...

The press will have studied the agenda.

Quite and so 'may' be there to cover anything *knowingly* likely to be
big or controversial. They may not for some potential background
matter that also carries inter councillor communications about
something else.

and
(c) so will oppostion councillors on at least most councils.

And part of my question, where there *are* no opposition councillors.

I can't immediately find such a council;

Why would that impact my question? The candidate representing the one
of many wards who rang me personally highlighted the fact that they
could easily loose it.

Loose? I think you mean lose. And in any case, lose what?

OFFS, that / their / his ward. Borough with say 10 wards. 9 of them
are currently controlled by one political party, and ONE by one other
(If I understand this whole ward thing)?


I thought Hull was one such but
apparently not. In any case, where one party holds all the seats you will find
that it splits into factions. So there will always be an opposition of some
sort.

Infighting you mean? So yet another suggestion that my vote will make
little

Little what? Difference?

Well done, yes! ;-)

Councillor got in in this ward by one vote, some
12-odd years ago.

Not the real point in this case. The question was actually even if (by
whatever votes), they managed to retain the 1 in 10, how much 'power'
would they have (more to veto than support etc)?

And infighting - sure. So what. It's what humans do.

OK, It's just that I wasn't sure if your programming had covered that
part of 'what humans do' yet. ;-)

Are you
a human - or are you from Vega?

Of the two of us, you are more likely to be an off worlder
(particularly from Mars ... as they seem to like eating all sorts of
animals, including humans if TWOTW is to believed). ;-)

And by doing so and showing how
easy it was and how there was no oversight and no accountablity,

Which isn't actually true of course.

Yes it is. MEPs don't have to justify their expenses claims.

So, they could put in anything they liked and would never get pulled
up over it?

I have a feeling they don't have to submit anything.

Well, in principle, they are in a position of trust but we know that
counts for f-all ITRW. 'Cash for questions', greasing palms etc.

he showed how
rotten the entire structure was and remains so to this day.

Whist benefiting from it personally. Hypocrisy anyone?

So, what have we learned so far.

You never learn anything, so the idea of you doing such a summary is risible.

I think you are getting confused with me just not rolling over and
accepting anything you say.

You mean you can't distinguish between when someone is trying to aid you with
information, when someone is taking the ****, or just giving you a hard time?
Gosh.

Yes, I can and why I'm actually talking to you, trying to understand,
.... however, you really need to learn that just because you say it,
doesn't mean it's true, as has been proven, even in this thread by
people correcting *you*.

So, my questioning you isn't me simply denying your information or
'help', but trying to pin it down in ways you may not have even
considered because you are very much more politically minded and (I
believe) are often involved in things like the voting process (even if
only sharpening the pencils). weg

I'm treating it as a discussion where I may play 'devils advocate' to
try to get you to see a point and you might be thinking it more you
lecturing me with your 'facts', when many things are no more than your
opinion / understanding.

Anyone can turn up to (most?) council meetings and monitor the
progress (and therefore potentially impact the outcome, even if not
allowed to directly participate) therefore being a councillor may not
offer any real advantage.

As a councillor you get to affect policy and decide about things. And vote on
them.

Appreciated. But what about one councillor versus 9?

Well you won't if you're the sole opposition councillor. But you are
nonetheless there at the meetings and are in a position to observe and note
any b/s and make sure the press are well-informed.

Ok, so that *could* be a good thing, worth supporting (voting for the
1 in 10 opposition candidate etc) (unless what could be a good project
in the end get's stymied(sp?) before it gets off the ground because of
a biased view, (falsely) reported to the media etc (and we know that
does happen)).

And you can prepare
leaflets and distribute them to your constituents on a regular basis, in which
you tell the public what a horlicks the council is making of whatever it is.

OK, good point. Not really thought of inter-election canvassing
before. I'm guessing that's allowed then? Is it only during the run-up
to a government election they have to balance the PPBs out equally?

This is known as "holding the council (or government) to account" and it's
what the opposition's job is when they are not running things.

Yes, I know. But as an aside to that here, can they not also put
'spanners in the works' screwing up otherwise 'good ideas' (simply
because they conflict with the political leanings etc)?

Councillors are unlikely to champion any cause that is proven to be
beneficial to the people, (like their health, the environment and
animal suffering) if it conflicts with their own morals and ethics.

This is a mere assertion on your part not backed by by anything.

Agreed ... other than from my personal experience of / with 'people'.

But have you not noticed that people don't agree on things.

Oh please. Have you just started here? ;-)

They differ about
how things should be done.

See above.

You seem to think that there is one "right and
obvious" way to get something done and that all should "obviously" just agree
to it.

Nope, not always.

Sometimes that is the case,

Quite?

but more often than not it isn't.

Agreed. However, if we *knew* 100% how to differentiate between all
those things, life (and positive progress for 'most people') would be
easy eh. ;-)

For example. I love animals and couldn't hurt one so when I was given
a chance to align my morals with my actions, I changed my lifestyle to
reflect my morals. Easy, black and white, wish I'd done it (much )
sooner.

Now, what makes it easy for all of us is (currently) daughter does our
shopping and so knows where to get what ... and I do all the cooking
and it's only for the Mrs and I, so no 'other' people to satisfy
(elderly parents who don't 'get it' or fussy eater kids etc).

How many
councillors do you know,

3?

and with how many have you discussed what they
actually do at the council,

2.

or asked them what they have achieved or are
working on.

1.

Well that's more than most I agree but not that many, in terms of getting a
rounded picture of what they're like.

Well, in addition I've been to several events where maybe 8 (of the
10) councillors have been present and have engaged conversation with
some of them after the meal / presentation etc. For daughter it's been
even more, ride sharing, personal meetups to discuss community
projects, guiding them round facilities (publicly and on the QT [1]
etc). So we have a reasonable idea of the sort of people that make
most councillors and in the main they are just the 'ordinary people'
one should see them as. Most ... (therefore) Some I wouldn't really
trust to mow my lawn and others are very friendly and sociable who may
not have what it takes to 'get things done'.

So, the conclusion could be that only maybe a coalition of 'parties'
may be worth having but could in turn hamper and positive projects
'because'.

'because' what?

No, that was it, 'because' ... the existence of something (a coalition
in this case).

What does "hamper and positive projects" mean?

Sorry, 'hamper anY positive projects'. (Covered above probably).

eg. Merely because of the very 'human interest' / 'party politics',
good things could suffer.

eg, The whole thing is a cluster**** and therefore I have no interest
in it (outside 'making the effort' to spoil my paper etc).

So that's your conclusion,

So far, yes.

based on no evidence,

See above.

no research,

Correct (explained previously).

no knowledge of what councillors do

See above. We have known one personally for over 30 years and spent
time with them several times.

or how they organise themselves.

See above.

Typical of you, really.

Or not, now you know how much of an ass your assumptions have made of
you.

I haven't made any assumptions.

You did see above. 'no knowledge of what councillors do'.

'making the effort' to spoil your paper, eh?

Yup, effort over and above all those who don't bother or *even*, put
no effort into actually placing their vote.

Gosh, I'll alert the media to
your tremendous sacrifice and contribution to democracy and making the world a
better, safer place to live in.

That's a bit OTT considering?

No.

So 'yes' to that bit then.

I'd say you not bothering at all most accurately reflects your position.

Agreed. Given that I'm not 'politically minded' (and have never been)
I'm not (therefore) politically aware AND don't have any issues or
'axes to grind' re the current situation, what / who would I vote FOR?
They are all promising a similar range of things, like every Miss
World wanting 'World peace' and to help the children.

And remember that's what we are supposed to do, we are voting FOR
someone (that's what it says on all the leaflets and banners), it's
not really ideal (democratically) that we vote strategically or
against someone. I'm not saying we can't or don't (obviously), just
it's not an in / out ballot but (supposedly) a pro-active choice
between several.


Thanks for continuing to live down to my expectations.

And thank you for confirming my real-world understanding of how
pointless it all is (my vote) in this case (specifically).

I will still bother though as I want to maintain my right, even if
it's currently not democracy as I would like to play a part in.

Then you need to define what would be democracy as you'd like to see it.

To you or to the council / government?

Either way, some form of 'Political awareness' testing, some social
profiling and EQ tests for a start g, plus decent margins on counts,
none of this 51:49 BS. The government / council (/Police) are
supposed to be looking after us 'by consent' ... on our behalf, so
they need to demonstrate their full suitability to the task, ideally
from some history of doing such, not just because they put themselves
up for it and enough schmucks fall for their snakeoil.

Being able to vote for Mrs Thatcher because 'I like the colour of her
dress' or Farrige 'because he's a beer drinking, smoking lout' are not
necessarily 'pertinent credentials' for managing all of us effectively
and efficiently and with appropriate levels of compassion and empathy.

Make it a proper paying job where the real motivators and leaders of
industry might want to apply and hopefully the other tests would stop
people voting for the nutters, like Trump.

Had they been right (the Trump voters), he would have done better and
have been in his second term by now. QED.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Often the time where you get a good insight about someones real
goals, drive, attitude and personality.