Portland mayor making postponed amid chaotic scenes

VIDEO: Portland mayor making postponed amid chaotic scenes

Portland mayor election postponed

Portland mayor election postponed

First published in News
Last updated
Dorset Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

 Portland’s mayor making was cancelled amid chaotic scenes last night.

Residents gathered at the annual ceremony to protest at the election of Tim Munro to the role.

They paraded banners saying ‘No to Munro’ outside the council offices in Fortuneswell.

But proceedings were postponed by town mayor Les Ames due to a ‘serious difference of opinion’ regarding the nomination.

Les Ames told the council: “I am going to defer this meeting due to the serious difference of opinion.

“I cannot act on the different information I have received. I feel like I have to defer it.”

Mr Ames refused to elaborate on who or what the 'difference of opinion' related to.

He said he was waiting on ‘firm advice’ on the issue from a monitoring officer and the meeting would now take place next Wednesday.

Speaking to the Echo town Clerk Ian Looker said: “It was a very controversial affair that rose from the precept issue and there are some strong feelings about Tim Munro.

“In the last few days we became aware that some councillors might be putting forward an alternative nomination.”

He added that it was Mr Ames's decision to defer the meeting.

Mr Munro said that he thought the decision to defer was 'sensible' one made by Mr Ames. 

Residents Sue Lees, June Morley, Gail Pickering and Dave Sanderson, of the Voice of Portland group, stood outside the council offices in Fortuneswell with protest signs.

Mr Sanderson said: “It started with the precept issue and since then we think the running of Portland town council has been undemocratic and not representative of the people.”

Ms Lees added: “We don’t think Tim Munro is right to represent Portland.

“He is very disliked and we don’t want him as our mayor. Les Ames has been a very respected mayor and councillor on the island since 1979 and it is not right that Tim Munro should follow on after him.”

Last month Mr Munro narrowly avoided an attempt to remove him as the nominee for Portland Town Mayor.

A motion was put forward at a Portland Town Council meeting to ‘review the decision’ to nominate Cllr Tim Munro for mayor in 2014/15.

It was backed by councillors Sandra Reynolds, Ray Nowak, Andy Matthews and outgoing mayor Les Ames, who decided to act following a ‘public outcry’ about the single nomination.

It read: “In the light of the council decision to nominate Cllr Tim Munro to be mayor in 2014/15 and the following public outcry we wish to review this decision and thereby move that the decision be rescinded under Standing Order 36.”

Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion.

The five remaining present members – including Les Ames, Ray Nowak, Sylvia Bradley, Sandra Reynolds, Andy Matthews, voted to pass it.

The five-six vote meant the motion was not passed and Cllr Munro remained as the nominated town mayor.

At a previous town council meeting, Cllr Tim Munro was nominated with no contest for the role, with Rob Hughes becoming the official nominee for deputy over Richard Denton-White.

Seven councillors voted for him to be nominated for mayor, three against and two abstained.

Residents voiced criticisms against Cllr Munro filling the role after he ‘led the way’ with the proposed 1000 per cent council tax precept increase. The increase was scrapped following a backlash.

At the recent council meeting, Cllr Reynolds told the council that Cllr Munro ‘was only nominated because there was no other alternative’.

Cllr Munro responded: “I was elected in the council chamber. It was a democratic decision.”

Existing policy guidelines state that the nomination for town mayor is carried out from a seniority list.

 

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:05pm Wed 14 May 14

Giblet says...

I can see those four peaceful protesters are causing absolute chaos standing there quietly with their placards.
I can see those four peaceful protesters are causing absolute chaos standing there quietly with their placards. Giblet
  • Score: 32

8:27pm Wed 14 May 14

arlbergbahn says...

My heavens, how much more chaos can we take? There were... why, there were at least FOUR people, and they were... they were standing there quietly! It's anarchy, I tell you!
My heavens, how much more chaos can we take? There were... why, there were at least FOUR people, and they were... they were standing there quietly! It's anarchy, I tell you! arlbergbahn
  • Score: 20

9:05pm Wed 14 May 14

Laadeeda says...

Hurrah for common sense.

When will Mr Munro get it through to himself the people of Portland do not want him to represent them. I just wish he would do the honourable thing and stand down.
Hurrah for common sense. When will Mr Munro get it through to himself the people of Portland do not want him to represent them. I just wish he would do the honourable thing and stand down. Laadeeda
  • Score: 33

9:41pm Wed 14 May 14

portlandresident says...

Tim, if you're reading this, for goodness sake do the decent thing and accept that as a councillor, you're not wanted any more. You're not what the people of Portland want. We've asked you time and time again to stand down, resign, quit, get out, or whatever else we need to say to stop you being so miserable on our isle and representing people who you're out of touch with!!
Tim, if you're reading this, for goodness sake do the decent thing and accept that as a councillor, you're not wanted any more. You're not what the people of Portland want. We've asked you time and time again to stand down, resign, quit, get out, or whatever else we need to say to stop you being so miserable on our isle and representing people who you're out of touch with!! portlandresident
  • Score: 30

9:43pm Wed 14 May 14

navelgazer says...

I’ve never met Mr Munro, but the impression gained from the Echo reports and readers’ comments seem to suggest a degree of megalomania, a condition characterised by delusional fantasies of power and relevance, and inflated self esteem.

Given the bad press accorded Mr Munro and his colleague Denton-White, it is difficult to understand why they proceed against a wave of general anger and distrust...... which is in itself quite an achievement in a society where, when local politics is concerned, apathy rules.
Perhaps he is misunderstood.
Perhaps he has a vainglorious estimate of his own abilities.

In the event that Mr Munro achieves his ambition of becoming mayor, or at least (for those who can recall the television series of the late 60’s) the equivalent of Boss Hogg, then surely it would be the greatest Pyrrhic victory in Portland’s history. He has at least to be respected for that.

Note to Reporter Emma Walker:
Please look up and understand the definition of the adjective ‘Chaotic’ .

My dictionary supports my understanding that it means disorderly, disordered, in disorder, in chaos, in disarray, disorganized, in pandemonium, in turmoil, tumultuous, disrupted, frenzied, in uproar, anarchic, lawless.

The “Gang of Four” holding banners give quite the opposite impression.
I’ve never met Mr Munro, but the impression gained from the Echo reports and readers’ comments seem to suggest a degree of megalomania, a condition characterised by delusional fantasies of power and relevance, and inflated self esteem. Given the bad press accorded Mr Munro and his colleague Denton-White, it is difficult to understand why they proceed against a wave of general anger and distrust...... which is in itself quite an achievement in a society where, when local politics is concerned, apathy rules. Perhaps he is misunderstood. Perhaps he has a vainglorious estimate of his own abilities. In the event that Mr Munro achieves his ambition of becoming mayor, or at least (for those who can recall the television series of the late 60’s) the equivalent of Boss Hogg, then surely it would be the greatest Pyrrhic victory in Portland’s history. He has at least to be respected for that. Note to Reporter Emma Walker: Please look up and understand the definition of the adjective ‘Chaotic’ . My dictionary supports my understanding that it means disorderly, disordered, in disorder, in chaos, in disarray, disorganized, in pandemonium, in turmoil, tumultuous, disrupted, frenzied, in uproar, anarchic, lawless. The “Gang of Four” holding banners give quite the opposite impression. navelgazer
  • Score: 25

9:45pm Wed 14 May 14

John New says...

At a time when costs are being cut we do not need a mayor, it is a non-essential ceremonial service therefore should be the first thing to be cut. Services before a person in fancy dress any day.
At a time when costs are being cut we do not need a mayor, it is a non-essential ceremonial service therefore should be the first thing to be cut. Services before a person in fancy dress any day. John New
  • Score: 25

9:46pm Wed 14 May 14

lous22 says...

Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion.

Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up!
Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion. Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up! lous22
  • Score: 28

9:46pm Wed 14 May 14

John New says...

John New wrote:
At a time when costs are being cut we do not need a mayor, it is a non-essential ceremonial service therefore should be the first thing to be cut. Services before a person in fancy dress any day.
and the same applies to the Weymouth (Borough?) mayor too.
[quote][p][bold]John New[/bold] wrote: At a time when costs are being cut we do not need a mayor, it is a non-essential ceremonial service therefore should be the first thing to be cut. Services before a person in fancy dress any day.[/p][/quote]and the same applies to the Weymouth (Borough?) mayor too. John New
  • Score: 9

10:06pm Wed 14 May 14

portlandboi says...

I think portland needs someone fresh and new on the scene, someone young! After all they are responsible for helping the island in the future and being young we are the future of the island! Kick out the miserable munro and put someone in with some good ideas, why is it always idiots that end up in the places that matters.
I think portland needs someone fresh and new on the scene, someone young! After all they are responsible for helping the island in the future and being young we are the future of the island! Kick out the miserable munro and put someone in with some good ideas, why is it always idiots that end up in the places that matters. portlandboi
  • Score: 21

10:21pm Wed 14 May 14

common cence says...

Laadeeda wrote:
Hurrah for common sense.

When will Mr Munro get it through to himself the people of Portland do not want him to represent them. I just wish he would do the honourable thing and stand down.
He is to thick to do that he has not yet got the message,
[quote][p][bold]Laadeeda[/bold] wrote: Hurrah for common sense. When will Mr Munro get it through to himself the people of Portland do not want him to represent them. I just wish he would do the honourable thing and stand down.[/p][/quote]He is to thick to do that he has not yet got the message, common cence
  • Score: 17

10:21pm Wed 14 May 14

common cence says...

Laadeeda wrote:
Hurrah for common sense.

When will Mr Munro get it through to himself the people of Portland do not want him to represent them. I just wish he would do the honourable thing and stand down.
He is to thick to do that he has not yet got the message,
[quote][p][bold]Laadeeda[/bold] wrote: Hurrah for common sense. When will Mr Munro get it through to himself the people of Portland do not want him to represent them. I just wish he would do the honourable thing and stand down.[/p][/quote]He is to thick to do that he has not yet got the message, common cence
  • Score: 12

10:22pm Wed 14 May 14

oldbrock says...

just how Hitler's NAZI party got in, apathy and there being no credible alternative, 2 cases of "democracy" at its best when the electorate either don't vote or find alternative candidates
just how Hitler's NAZI party got in, apathy and there being no credible alternative, 2 cases of "democracy" at its best when the electorate either don't vote or find alternative candidates oldbrock
  • Score: -4

10:51pm Wed 14 May 14

Rocksalt says...

In defence of the reporter, I don't think the written account suggests that four people constitutes chaotic scenes . My reading of this was that the meeting broke up in disarray.

I concede that the insertion of the picture of the protesters above the paragraph confuses the issue somewhat, but the layout of the page might be down to someone else altogether.
In defence of the reporter, I don't think the written account suggests that four people constitutes chaotic scenes . My reading of this was that the meeting broke up in disarray. I concede that the insertion of the picture of the protesters above the paragraph confuses the issue somewhat, but the layout of the page might be down to someone else altogether. Rocksalt
  • Score: 7

8:13am Thu 15 May 14

Naturalised southerner says...

lous22 wrote:
Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion.

Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up!
These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy.
If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.
[quote][p][bold]lous22[/bold] wrote: Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion. Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up![/p][/quote]These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy. If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper. Naturalised southerner
  • Score: 12

8:26am Thu 15 May 14

Newground says...

The 'mare of Portland!
The 'mare of Portland! Newground
  • Score: 6

10:22am Thu 15 May 14

Wilbraham says...

Naturalised southerner wrote:
lous22 wrote:
Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion.

Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up!
These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy.
If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.
Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.
[quote][p][bold]Naturalised southerner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lous22[/bold] wrote: Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion. Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up![/p][/quote]These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy. If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.[/p][/quote]Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted. Wilbraham
  • Score: 5

12:15pm Thu 15 May 14

Bob Goulding says...

Wilbraham wrote:
Naturalised southerner wrote:
lous22 wrote:
Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion.

Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up!
These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy.
If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.
Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.
Actually it is even worse than that. The 4 that were 'elected' to represent Underhill were 4 of only 5 that stood for election the fifth being Denton-White who was rejected by the electorate only to be co-opted shortly after. In effect this means that only one of the seats was actually 'contested' and the decision made by the electorate to reject Denton-White was eventually disregarded by the council. Democratic? I don't think so.
[quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Naturalised southerner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lous22[/bold] wrote: Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion. Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up![/p][/quote]These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy. If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.[/p][/quote]Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.[/p][/quote]Actually it is even worse than that. The 4 that were 'elected' to represent Underhill were 4 of only 5 that stood for election the fifth being Denton-White who was rejected by the electorate only to be co-opted shortly after. In effect this means that only one of the seats was actually 'contested' and the decision made by the electorate to reject Denton-White was eventually disregarded by the council. Democratic? I don't think so. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 11

12:50pm Thu 15 May 14

Get a grip says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
Wilbraham wrote:
Naturalised southerner wrote:
lous22 wrote: Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion. Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up!
These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy. If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.
Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.
Actually it is even worse than that. The 4 that were 'elected' to represent Underhill were 4 of only 5 that stood for election the fifth being Denton-White who was rejected by the electorate only to be co-opted shortly after. In effect this means that only one of the seats was actually 'contested' and the decision made by the electorate to reject Denton-White was eventually disregarded by the council. Democratic? I don't think so.
So these were co opted because no one else would stand.

We stand against them and get yourself voted in.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Naturalised southerner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lous22[/bold] wrote: Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion. Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up![/p][/quote]These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy. If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.[/p][/quote]Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.[/p][/quote]Actually it is even worse than that. The 4 that were 'elected' to represent Underhill were 4 of only 5 that stood for election the fifth being Denton-White who was rejected by the electorate only to be co-opted shortly after. In effect this means that only one of the seats was actually 'contested' and the decision made by the electorate to reject Denton-White was eventually disregarded by the council. Democratic? I don't think so.[/p][/quote]So these were co opted because no one else would stand. We stand against them and get yourself voted in. Get a grip
  • Score: 5

12:53pm Thu 15 May 14

Bob Goulding says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
Wilbraham wrote:
Naturalised southerner wrote:
lous22 wrote:
Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion.

Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up!
These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy.
If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.
Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.
Actually it is even worse than that. The 4 that were 'elected' to represent Underhill were 4 of only 5 that stood for election the fifth being Denton-White who was rejected by the electorate only to be co-opted shortly after. In effect this means that only one of the seats was actually 'contested' and the decision made by the electorate to reject Denton-White was eventually disregarded by the council. Democratic? I don't think so.
... and by the way, who do you think came 4th in the election? Yes, you've guessed it, Tim Buchanan-Munro. He polled only two votes more than Denton-White.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Naturalised southerner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lous22[/bold] wrote: Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion. Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up![/p][/quote]These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy. If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.[/p][/quote]Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.[/p][/quote]Actually it is even worse than that. The 4 that were 'elected' to represent Underhill were 4 of only 5 that stood for election the fifth being Denton-White who was rejected by the electorate only to be co-opted shortly after. In effect this means that only one of the seats was actually 'contested' and the decision made by the electorate to reject Denton-White was eventually disregarded by the council. Democratic? I don't think so.[/p][/quote]... and by the way, who do you think came 4th in the election? Yes, you've guessed it, Tim Buchanan-Munro. He polled only two votes more than Denton-White. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 4

2:00pm Thu 15 May 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

The law must be changed to prevent more than one member of the same family ( biological or through marriage) from being allowed to be on the same council or any public body.
The law must be changed to prevent more than one member of the same family ( biological or through marriage) from being allowed to be on the same council or any public body. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 12

2:13pm Thu 15 May 14

Bob Goulding says...

Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
The law must be changed to prevent more than one member of the same family ( biological or through marriage) from being allowed to be on the same council or any public body.
Or at least they should not be allowed to vote for each others proposals as that would clearly represent a conflict of interests.
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: The law must be changed to prevent more than one member of the same family ( biological or through marriage) from being allowed to be on the same council or any public body.[/p][/quote]Or at least they should not be allowed to vote for each others proposals as that would clearly represent a conflict of interests. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 12

3:00pm Thu 15 May 14

portlandboy says...

I would imagine that the sort of person suitable for the role of Mayor in any district should be someone who is selfless, well-regarded, widely supported, in touch with the community and popular with the local electorate.

Anyone who has experienced a backlash of such disdain and simply shrugs it off, carrying on as if they are ignorant of such feeling within the community they serve has absolutely no right to command such a position within that community.

For Mr Munro to even hope to be Mayor, let alone accepting the role, after all that has happened is proof enough that he is not worthy of the position.
I would imagine that the sort of person suitable for the role of Mayor in any district should be someone who is selfless, well-regarded, widely supported, in touch with the community and popular with the local electorate. Anyone who has experienced a backlash of such disdain and simply shrugs it off, carrying on as if they are ignorant of such feeling within the community they serve has absolutely no right to command such a position within that community. For Mr Munro to even hope to be Mayor, let alone accepting the role, after all that has happened is proof enough that he is not worthy of the position. portlandboy
  • Score: 16

4:36pm Fri 16 May 14

Genghis says...

Wilbraham wrote:
Naturalised southerner wrote:
lous22 wrote:
Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion.

Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up!
These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy.
If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.
Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.
But that is the democratic system in operation. Four were voted in as they had opponents standing against them. The rest were elected unopposed because nobody stood against them. That is hardly their fault. As to co-option, again, if only one person is interested in the vacancy, then that person will be co-opted. You can't force people to become councillors.

As for removing the people that so many dislike. Where are the people to stand against them? The one's with the biggest voices had their chance a few weeks back but nobody put themselves forward. I certainly won't as I think Portland Town Council is well past it's sale by date. It should be scrapped as it's not fit for purpose and obviously does not gain enough support to perform it's function . Local Government in Dorset needs reforming.
[quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Naturalised southerner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lous22[/bold] wrote: Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion. Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up![/p][/quote]These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy. If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.[/p][/quote]Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.[/p][/quote]But that is the democratic system in operation. Four were voted in as they had opponents standing against them. The rest were elected unopposed because nobody stood against them. That is hardly their fault. As to co-option, again, if only one person is interested in the vacancy, then that person will be co-opted. You can't force people to become councillors. As for removing the people that so many dislike. Where are the people to stand against them? The one's with the biggest voices had their chance a few weeks back but nobody put themselves forward. I certainly won't as I think Portland Town Council is well past it's sale by date. It should be scrapped as it's not fit for purpose and obviously does not gain enough support to perform it's function . Local Government in Dorset needs reforming. Genghis
  • Score: 2

5:14pm Fri 16 May 14

Bob Goulding says...

Genghis wrote:
Wilbraham wrote:
Naturalised southerner wrote:
lous22 wrote:
Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion.

Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up!
These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy.
If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.
Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.
But that is the democratic system in operation. Four were voted in as they had opponents standing against them. The rest were elected unopposed because nobody stood against them. That is hardly their fault. As to co-option, again, if only one person is interested in the vacancy, then that person will be co-opted. You can't force people to become councillors.

As for removing the people that so many dislike. Where are the people to stand against them? The one's with the biggest voices had their chance a few weeks back but nobody put themselves forward. I certainly won't as I think Portland Town Council is well past it's sale by date. It should be scrapped as it's not fit for purpose and obviously does not gain enough support to perform it's function . Local Government in Dorset needs reforming.
You clearly have not read my earlier post. There were only five candidates for four seats in the election to which you refer. That means that, in effect, only one seat was contested and the candidate that was not 'elected' was subsequently co-opted against the will of the electorate.

I think we have to draw a distinction between what is democratic and what is legitimate. The appointment of the council was indeed legitimate but it was, in my view, far from democratic. You need at least two candidates for every seat for an election to be truly democratic.

I think the people of Portland have now learned this lesson and, in future, will not allow vacancies on the council to be filled without a proper contest.
[quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Naturalised southerner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lous22[/bold] wrote: Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion. Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up![/p][/quote]These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy. If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.[/p][/quote]Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.[/p][/quote]But that is the democratic system in operation. Four were voted in as they had opponents standing against them. The rest were elected unopposed because nobody stood against them. That is hardly their fault. As to co-option, again, if only one person is interested in the vacancy, then that person will be co-opted. You can't force people to become councillors. As for removing the people that so many dislike. Where are the people to stand against them? The one's with the biggest voices had their chance a few weeks back but nobody put themselves forward. I certainly won't as I think Portland Town Council is well past it's sale by date. It should be scrapped as it's not fit for purpose and obviously does not gain enough support to perform it's function . Local Government in Dorset needs reforming.[/p][/quote]You clearly have not read my earlier post. There were only five candidates for four seats in the election to which you refer. That means that, in effect, only one seat was contested and the candidate that was not 'elected' was subsequently co-opted against the will of the electorate. I think we have to draw a distinction between what is democratic and what is legitimate. The appointment of the council was indeed legitimate but it was, in my view, far from democratic. You need at least two candidates for every seat for an election to be truly democratic. I think the people of Portland have now learned this lesson and, in future, will not allow vacancies on the council to be filled without a proper contest. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 1

5:33pm Fri 16 May 14

killingjoke says...

its quite clear by certain comments made on hear that the people
of portland are adamant that tim munro is not the right person to
represent them, listen to the people tim ,after all it is part of the role and
walk away man!!!!.
its quite clear by certain comments made on hear that the people of portland are adamant that tim munro is not the right person to represent them, listen to the people tim ,after all it is part of the role and walk away man!!!!. killingjoke
  • Score: 3

6:24pm Fri 16 May 14

Genghis says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Wilbraham wrote:
Naturalised southerner wrote:
lous22 wrote:
Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion.

Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up!
These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy.
If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.
Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.
But that is the democratic system in operation. Four were voted in as they had opponents standing against them. The rest were elected unopposed because nobody stood against them. That is hardly their fault. As to co-option, again, if only one person is interested in the vacancy, then that person will be co-opted. You can't force people to become councillors.

As for removing the people that so many dislike. Where are the people to stand against them? The one's with the biggest voices had their chance a few weeks back but nobody put themselves forward. I certainly won't as I think Portland Town Council is well past it's sale by date. It should be scrapped as it's not fit for purpose and obviously does not gain enough support to perform it's function . Local Government in Dorset needs reforming.
You clearly have not read my earlier post. There were only five candidates for four seats in the election to which you refer. That means that, in effect, only one seat was contested and the candidate that was not 'elected' was subsequently co-opted against the will of the electorate.

I think we have to draw a distinction between what is democratic and what is legitimate. The appointment of the council was indeed legitimate but it was, in my view, far from democratic. You need at least two candidates for every seat for an election to be truly democratic.

I think the people of Portland have now learned this lesson and, in future, will not allow vacancies on the council to be filled without a proper contest.
All four seats were contested. The system in operation for Portland Town Council's Underhill ward, is that all four seats are offered in one block and there is only one poll to determine the successful candidate. There is not a separate poll for each individual seat. The four candidates that top the poll are elected as councillors for the ward.

In the last election only five candidates stood, and the four candidates that gained most votes were elected. The candidate that wasn't successful was indeed then co-opted to an unfilled vacancy on the council. This wouldn't have been the case if there were more interested people putting themselves forward as candidates. Only people willing to stand for the Council can be elected or co-opted. That is the system.

That there aren't people willing to stand as councillors shows that there isn't enough support to make the council viable. It also shows that the only people willing to put themselves in to the firing line, are the usual suspects, despite their lack of popularity with the majority of people.

As for the people of Portland not allowing vacancies to be filled without a proper contest in future, I find that hard to believe. Just a few weeks ago a vacancy was advertised and nobody put their name forward. Yet another seat that will probably have a co-opted member.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Naturalised southerner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lous22[/bold] wrote: Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion. Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up![/p][/quote]These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy. If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.[/p][/quote]Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.[/p][/quote]But that is the democratic system in operation. Four were voted in as they had opponents standing against them. The rest were elected unopposed because nobody stood against them. That is hardly their fault. As to co-option, again, if only one person is interested in the vacancy, then that person will be co-opted. You can't force people to become councillors. As for removing the people that so many dislike. Where are the people to stand against them? The one's with the biggest voices had their chance a few weeks back but nobody put themselves forward. I certainly won't as I think Portland Town Council is well past it's sale by date. It should be scrapped as it's not fit for purpose and obviously does not gain enough support to perform it's function . Local Government in Dorset needs reforming.[/p][/quote]You clearly have not read my earlier post. There were only five candidates for four seats in the election to which you refer. That means that, in effect, only one seat was contested and the candidate that was not 'elected' was subsequently co-opted against the will of the electorate. I think we have to draw a distinction between what is democratic and what is legitimate. The appointment of the council was indeed legitimate but it was, in my view, far from democratic. You need at least two candidates for every seat for an election to be truly democratic. I think the people of Portland have now learned this lesson and, in future, will not allow vacancies on the council to be filled without a proper contest.[/p][/quote]All four seats were contested. The system in operation for Portland Town Council's Underhill ward, is that all four seats are offered in one block and there is only one poll to determine the successful candidate. There is not a separate poll for each individual seat. The four candidates that top the poll are elected as councillors for the ward. In the last election only five candidates stood, and the four candidates that gained most votes were elected. The candidate that wasn't successful was indeed then co-opted to an unfilled vacancy on the council. This wouldn't have been the case if there were more interested people putting themselves forward as candidates. Only people willing to stand for the Council can be elected or co-opted. That is the system. That there aren't people willing to stand as councillors shows that there isn't enough support to make the council viable. It also shows that the only people willing to put themselves in to the firing line, are the usual suspects, despite their lack of popularity with the majority of people. As for the people of Portland not allowing vacancies to be filled without a proper contest in future, I find that hard to believe. Just a few weeks ago a vacancy was advertised and nobody put their name forward. Yet another seat that will probably have a co-opted member. Genghis
  • Score: 1

7:06pm Fri 16 May 14

Bob Goulding says...

Genghis wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Wilbraham wrote:
Naturalised southerner wrote:
lous22 wrote:
Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion.

Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up!
These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy.
If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.
Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.
But that is the democratic system in operation. Four were voted in as they had opponents standing against them. The rest were elected unopposed because nobody stood against them. That is hardly their fault. As to co-option, again, if only one person is interested in the vacancy, then that person will be co-opted. You can't force people to become councillors.

As for removing the people that so many dislike. Where are the people to stand against them? The one's with the biggest voices had their chance a few weeks back but nobody put themselves forward. I certainly won't as I think Portland Town Council is well past it's sale by date. It should be scrapped as it's not fit for purpose and obviously does not gain enough support to perform it's function . Local Government in Dorset needs reforming.
You clearly have not read my earlier post. There were only five candidates for four seats in the election to which you refer. That means that, in effect, only one seat was contested and the candidate that was not 'elected' was subsequently co-opted against the will of the electorate.

I think we have to draw a distinction between what is democratic and what is legitimate. The appointment of the council was indeed legitimate but it was, in my view, far from democratic. You need at least two candidates for every seat for an election to be truly democratic.

I think the people of Portland have now learned this lesson and, in future, will not allow vacancies on the council to be filled without a proper contest.
All four seats were contested. The system in operation for Portland Town Council's Underhill ward, is that all four seats are offered in one block and there is only one poll to determine the successful candidate. There is not a separate poll for each individual seat. The four candidates that top the poll are elected as councillors for the ward.

In the last election only five candidates stood, and the four candidates that gained most votes were elected. The candidate that wasn't successful was indeed then co-opted to an unfilled vacancy on the council. This wouldn't have been the case if there were more interested people putting themselves forward as candidates. Only people willing to stand for the Council can be elected or co-opted. That is the system.

That there aren't people willing to stand as councillors shows that there isn't enough support to make the council viable. It also shows that the only people willing to put themselves in to the firing line, are the usual suspects, despite their lack of popularity with the majority of people.

As for the people of Portland not allowing vacancies to be filled without a proper contest in future, I find that hard to believe. Just a few weeks ago a vacancy was advertised and nobody put their name forward. Yet another seat that will probably have a co-opted member.
No, you are wrong. The seats are not offered as one block. They are up for election at the same time, and the electorate are able to vote for up to four candidates, but it is blindingly obvious that, with only five candidates, three will be elected by default. The only contest is for the fourth seat.

Although there are clear rules about advertising vacancies, the very short notice period between the vacancy being publicised and the close date for 'applications' (28 days I believe) leaves little time for prospective candidates to offer themselves for election with the necessary sponsorship. It is very easy for less scrupulous Councillors to 'down play' upcoming vacancies and prime their preferred candidates in advance.

You have to realise that the current town council (with a few notable exceptions who are sadly in the minority) is regarded with disdain and no-one is prepared to serve with them until the next full election when I am sure the 'old guard' will be dumped. Can't happen soon enough.
[quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Naturalised southerner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lous22[/bold] wrote: Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion. Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up![/p][/quote]These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy. If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.[/p][/quote]Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.[/p][/quote]But that is the democratic system in operation. Four were voted in as they had opponents standing against them. The rest were elected unopposed because nobody stood against them. That is hardly their fault. As to co-option, again, if only one person is interested in the vacancy, then that person will be co-opted. You can't force people to become councillors. As for removing the people that so many dislike. Where are the people to stand against them? The one's with the biggest voices had their chance a few weeks back but nobody put themselves forward. I certainly won't as I think Portland Town Council is well past it's sale by date. It should be scrapped as it's not fit for purpose and obviously does not gain enough support to perform it's function . Local Government in Dorset needs reforming.[/p][/quote]You clearly have not read my earlier post. There were only five candidates for four seats in the election to which you refer. That means that, in effect, only one seat was contested and the candidate that was not 'elected' was subsequently co-opted against the will of the electorate. I think we have to draw a distinction between what is democratic and what is legitimate. The appointment of the council was indeed legitimate but it was, in my view, far from democratic. You need at least two candidates for every seat for an election to be truly democratic. I think the people of Portland have now learned this lesson and, in future, will not allow vacancies on the council to be filled without a proper contest.[/p][/quote]All four seats were contested. The system in operation for Portland Town Council's Underhill ward, is that all four seats are offered in one block and there is only one poll to determine the successful candidate. There is not a separate poll for each individual seat. The four candidates that top the poll are elected as councillors for the ward. In the last election only five candidates stood, and the four candidates that gained most votes were elected. The candidate that wasn't successful was indeed then co-opted to an unfilled vacancy on the council. This wouldn't have been the case if there were more interested people putting themselves forward as candidates. Only people willing to stand for the Council can be elected or co-opted. That is the system. That there aren't people willing to stand as councillors shows that there isn't enough support to make the council viable. It also shows that the only people willing to put themselves in to the firing line, are the usual suspects, despite their lack of popularity with the majority of people. As for the people of Portland not allowing vacancies to be filled without a proper contest in future, I find that hard to believe. Just a few weeks ago a vacancy was advertised and nobody put their name forward. Yet another seat that will probably have a co-opted member.[/p][/quote]No, you are wrong. The seats are not offered as one block. They are up for election at the same time, and the electorate are able to vote for up to four candidates, but it is blindingly obvious that, with only five candidates, three will be elected by default. The only contest is for the fourth seat. Although there are clear rules about advertising vacancies, the very short notice period between the vacancy being publicised and the close date for 'applications' (28 days I believe) leaves little time for prospective candidates to offer themselves for election with the necessary sponsorship. It is very easy for less scrupulous Councillors to 'down play' upcoming vacancies and prime their preferred candidates in advance. You have to realise that the current town council (with a few notable exceptions who are sadly in the minority) is regarded with disdain and no-one is prepared to serve with them until the next full election when I am sure the 'old guard' will be dumped. Can't happen soon enough. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 3

7:41pm Fri 16 May 14

Genghis says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Wilbraham wrote:
Naturalised southerner wrote:
lous22 wrote:
Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion.

Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up!
These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy.
If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.
Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.
But that is the democratic system in operation. Four were voted in as they had opponents standing against them. The rest were elected unopposed because nobody stood against them. That is hardly their fault. As to co-option, again, if only one person is interested in the vacancy, then that person will be co-opted. You can't force people to become councillors.

As for removing the people that so many dislike. Where are the people to stand against them? The one's with the biggest voices had their chance a few weeks back but nobody put themselves forward. I certainly won't as I think Portland Town Council is well past it's sale by date. It should be scrapped as it's not fit for purpose and obviously does not gain enough support to perform it's function . Local Government in Dorset needs reforming.
You clearly have not read my earlier post. There were only five candidates for four seats in the election to which you refer. That means that, in effect, only one seat was contested and the candidate that was not 'elected' was subsequently co-opted against the will of the electorate.

I think we have to draw a distinction between what is democratic and what is legitimate. The appointment of the council was indeed legitimate but it was, in my view, far from democratic. You need at least two candidates for every seat for an election to be truly democratic.

I think the people of Portland have now learned this lesson and, in future, will not allow vacancies on the council to be filled without a proper contest.
All four seats were contested. The system in operation for Portland Town Council's Underhill ward, is that all four seats are offered in one block and there is only one poll to determine the successful candidate. There is not a separate poll for each individual seat. The four candidates that top the poll are elected as councillors for the ward.

In the last election only five candidates stood, and the four candidates that gained most votes were elected. The candidate that wasn't successful was indeed then co-opted to an unfilled vacancy on the council. This wouldn't have been the case if there were more interested people putting themselves forward as candidates. Only people willing to stand for the Council can be elected or co-opted. That is the system.

That there aren't people willing to stand as councillors shows that there isn't enough support to make the council viable. It also shows that the only people willing to put themselves in to the firing line, are the usual suspects, despite their lack of popularity with the majority of people.

As for the people of Portland not allowing vacancies to be filled without a proper contest in future, I find that hard to believe. Just a few weeks ago a vacancy was advertised and nobody put their name forward. Yet another seat that will probably have a co-opted member.
No, you are wrong. The seats are not offered as one block. They are up for election at the same time, and the electorate are able to vote for up to four candidates, but it is blindingly obvious that, with only five candidates, three will be elected by default. The only contest is for the fourth seat.

Although there are clear rules about advertising vacancies, the very short notice period between the vacancy being publicised and the close date for 'applications' (28 days I believe) leaves little time for prospective candidates to offer themselves for election with the necessary sponsorship. It is very easy for less scrupulous Councillors to 'down play' upcoming vacancies and prime their preferred candidates in advance.

You have to realise that the current town council (with a few notable exceptions who are sadly in the minority) is regarded with disdain and no-one is prepared to serve with them until the next full election when I am sure the 'old guard' will be dumped. Can't happen soon enough.
There was only one electoral poll for the four seats on offer.Five candidates contested that single poll and the four with the highest amount of votes were elected. All four seats were contested. Here is the link to the official result of that one poll: https://www.dorsetfo
ryou.com/media.jsp?m
ediaid=193814&filety
pe=pdf It's like a 100m race but with four medals on offer. Only one race is run and the first four over the line get the medals. There are no separate races for the individual medals.

Regardless of who people are prepared to serve with, the facts of political life is that undoubtedly you will have to work with people you don't wish to serve with. Can't happen soon enough? Well 2015 is a long way off, and the 'old guard' are going to run the show all the way there. And in 2015, I bet it will only be the 'old guard' standing once again.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Naturalised southerner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lous22[/bold] wrote: Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion. Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up![/p][/quote]These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy. If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.[/p][/quote]Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.[/p][/quote]But that is the democratic system in operation. Four were voted in as they had opponents standing against them. The rest were elected unopposed because nobody stood against them. That is hardly their fault. As to co-option, again, if only one person is interested in the vacancy, then that person will be co-opted. You can't force people to become councillors. As for removing the people that so many dislike. Where are the people to stand against them? The one's with the biggest voices had their chance a few weeks back but nobody put themselves forward. I certainly won't as I think Portland Town Council is well past it's sale by date. It should be scrapped as it's not fit for purpose and obviously does not gain enough support to perform it's function . Local Government in Dorset needs reforming.[/p][/quote]You clearly have not read my earlier post. There were only five candidates for four seats in the election to which you refer. That means that, in effect, only one seat was contested and the candidate that was not 'elected' was subsequently co-opted against the will of the electorate. I think we have to draw a distinction between what is democratic and what is legitimate. The appointment of the council was indeed legitimate but it was, in my view, far from democratic. You need at least two candidates for every seat for an election to be truly democratic. I think the people of Portland have now learned this lesson and, in future, will not allow vacancies on the council to be filled without a proper contest.[/p][/quote]All four seats were contested. The system in operation for Portland Town Council's Underhill ward, is that all four seats are offered in one block and there is only one poll to determine the successful candidate. There is not a separate poll for each individual seat. The four candidates that top the poll are elected as councillors for the ward. In the last election only five candidates stood, and the four candidates that gained most votes were elected. The candidate that wasn't successful was indeed then co-opted to an unfilled vacancy on the council. This wouldn't have been the case if there were more interested people putting themselves forward as candidates. Only people willing to stand for the Council can be elected or co-opted. That is the system. That there aren't people willing to stand as councillors shows that there isn't enough support to make the council viable. It also shows that the only people willing to put themselves in to the firing line, are the usual suspects, despite their lack of popularity with the majority of people. As for the people of Portland not allowing vacancies to be filled without a proper contest in future, I find that hard to believe. Just a few weeks ago a vacancy was advertised and nobody put their name forward. Yet another seat that will probably have a co-opted member.[/p][/quote]No, you are wrong. The seats are not offered as one block. They are up for election at the same time, and the electorate are able to vote for up to four candidates, but it is blindingly obvious that, with only five candidates, three will be elected by default. The only contest is for the fourth seat. Although there are clear rules about advertising vacancies, the very short notice period between the vacancy being publicised and the close date for 'applications' (28 days I believe) leaves little time for prospective candidates to offer themselves for election with the necessary sponsorship. It is very easy for less scrupulous Councillors to 'down play' upcoming vacancies and prime their preferred candidates in advance. You have to realise that the current town council (with a few notable exceptions who are sadly in the minority) is regarded with disdain and no-one is prepared to serve with them until the next full election when I am sure the 'old guard' will be dumped. Can't happen soon enough.[/p][/quote]There was only one electoral poll for the four seats on offer.Five candidates contested that single poll and the four with the highest amount of votes were elected. All four seats were contested. Here is the link to the official result of that one poll: https://www.dorsetfo ryou.com/media.jsp?m ediaid=193814&filety pe=pdf It's like a 100m race but with four medals on offer. Only one race is run and the first four over the line get the medals. There are no separate races for the individual medals. Regardless of who people are prepared to serve with, the facts of political life is that undoubtedly you will have to work with people you don't wish to serve with. Can't happen soon enough? Well 2015 is a long way off, and the 'old guard' are going to run the show all the way there. And in 2015, I bet it will only be the 'old guard' standing once again. Genghis
  • Score: 1

9:07pm Fri 16 May 14

Bob Goulding says...

Genghis wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Wilbraham wrote:
Naturalised southerner wrote:
lous22 wrote:
Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion.

Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up!
These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy.
If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.
Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.
But that is the democratic system in operation. Four were voted in as they had opponents standing against them. The rest were elected unopposed because nobody stood against them. That is hardly their fault. As to co-option, again, if only one person is interested in the vacancy, then that person will be co-opted. You can't force people to become councillors.

As for removing the people that so many dislike. Where are the people to stand against them? The one's with the biggest voices had their chance a few weeks back but nobody put themselves forward. I certainly won't as I think Portland Town Council is well past it's sale by date. It should be scrapped as it's not fit for purpose and obviously does not gain enough support to perform it's function . Local Government in Dorset needs reforming.
You clearly have not read my earlier post. There were only five candidates for four seats in the election to which you refer. That means that, in effect, only one seat was contested and the candidate that was not 'elected' was subsequently co-opted against the will of the electorate.

I think we have to draw a distinction between what is democratic and what is legitimate. The appointment of the council was indeed legitimate but it was, in my view, far from democratic. You need at least two candidates for every seat for an election to be truly democratic.

I think the people of Portland have now learned this lesson and, in future, will not allow vacancies on the council to be filled without a proper contest.
All four seats were contested. The system in operation for Portland Town Council's Underhill ward, is that all four seats are offered in one block and there is only one poll to determine the successful candidate. There is not a separate poll for each individual seat. The four candidates that top the poll are elected as councillors for the ward.

In the last election only five candidates stood, and the four candidates that gained most votes were elected. The candidate that wasn't successful was indeed then co-opted to an unfilled vacancy on the council. This wouldn't have been the case if there were more interested people putting themselves forward as candidates. Only people willing to stand for the Council can be elected or co-opted. That is the system.

That there aren't people willing to stand as councillors shows that there isn't enough support to make the council viable. It also shows that the only people willing to put themselves in to the firing line, are the usual suspects, despite their lack of popularity with the majority of people.

As for the people of Portland not allowing vacancies to be filled without a proper contest in future, I find that hard to believe. Just a few weeks ago a vacancy was advertised and nobody put their name forward. Yet another seat that will probably have a co-opted member.
No, you are wrong. The seats are not offered as one block. They are up for election at the same time, and the electorate are able to vote for up to four candidates, but it is blindingly obvious that, with only five candidates, three will be elected by default. The only contest is for the fourth seat.

Although there are clear rules about advertising vacancies, the very short notice period between the vacancy being publicised and the close date for 'applications' (28 days I believe) leaves little time for prospective candidates to offer themselves for election with the necessary sponsorship. It is very easy for less scrupulous Councillors to 'down play' upcoming vacancies and prime their preferred candidates in advance.

You have to realise that the current town council (with a few notable exceptions who are sadly in the minority) is regarded with disdain and no-one is prepared to serve with them until the next full election when I am sure the 'old guard' will be dumped. Can't happen soon enough.
There was only one electoral poll for the four seats on offer.Five candidates contested that single poll and the four with the highest amount of votes were elected. All four seats were contested. Here is the link to the official result of that one poll: https://www.dorsetfo

ryou.com/media.jsp?m

ediaid=193814&fi
lety
pe=pdf It's like a 100m race but with four medals on offer. Only one race is run and the first four over the line get the medals. There are no separate races for the individual medals.

Regardless of who people are prepared to serve with, the facts of political life is that undoubtedly you will have to work with people you don't wish to serve with. Can't happen soon enough? Well 2015 is a long way off, and the 'old guard' are going to run the show all the way there. And in 2015, I bet it will only be the 'old guard' standing once again.
You really don't get it do you. If it was simply a case of first four past the post then the electorate would only need one vote each. The fact that an elector has four votes means that there are four separate simultaneous elections. The strange aspect of these elections is that candidates effectively stand for all four seats and, if defeated in one, are able to carry their votes on to the next. I would be very interested to see what the results would have been if the electorate had had only one vote each.

By the way, I have a hard copy of the election results in front of me to which I have been referring in posts for months.
[quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Naturalised southerner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lous22[/bold] wrote: Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion. Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up![/p][/quote]These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy. If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.[/p][/quote]Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.[/p][/quote]But that is the democratic system in operation. Four were voted in as they had opponents standing against them. The rest were elected unopposed because nobody stood against them. That is hardly their fault. As to co-option, again, if only one person is interested in the vacancy, then that person will be co-opted. You can't force people to become councillors. As for removing the people that so many dislike. Where are the people to stand against them? The one's with the biggest voices had their chance a few weeks back but nobody put themselves forward. I certainly won't as I think Portland Town Council is well past it's sale by date. It should be scrapped as it's not fit for purpose and obviously does not gain enough support to perform it's function . Local Government in Dorset needs reforming.[/p][/quote]You clearly have not read my earlier post. There were only five candidates for four seats in the election to which you refer. That means that, in effect, only one seat was contested and the candidate that was not 'elected' was subsequently co-opted against the will of the electorate. I think we have to draw a distinction between what is democratic and what is legitimate. The appointment of the council was indeed legitimate but it was, in my view, far from democratic. You need at least two candidates for every seat for an election to be truly democratic. I think the people of Portland have now learned this lesson and, in future, will not allow vacancies on the council to be filled without a proper contest.[/p][/quote]All four seats were contested. The system in operation for Portland Town Council's Underhill ward, is that all four seats are offered in one block and there is only one poll to determine the successful candidate. There is not a separate poll for each individual seat. The four candidates that top the poll are elected as councillors for the ward. In the last election only five candidates stood, and the four candidates that gained most votes were elected. The candidate that wasn't successful was indeed then co-opted to an unfilled vacancy on the council. This wouldn't have been the case if there were more interested people putting themselves forward as candidates. Only people willing to stand for the Council can be elected or co-opted. That is the system. That there aren't people willing to stand as councillors shows that there isn't enough support to make the council viable. It also shows that the only people willing to put themselves in to the firing line, are the usual suspects, despite their lack of popularity with the majority of people. As for the people of Portland not allowing vacancies to be filled without a proper contest in future, I find that hard to believe. Just a few weeks ago a vacancy was advertised and nobody put their name forward. Yet another seat that will probably have a co-opted member.[/p][/quote]No, you are wrong. The seats are not offered as one block. They are up for election at the same time, and the electorate are able to vote for up to four candidates, but it is blindingly obvious that, with only five candidates, three will be elected by default. The only contest is for the fourth seat. Although there are clear rules about advertising vacancies, the very short notice period between the vacancy being publicised and the close date for 'applications' (28 days I believe) leaves little time for prospective candidates to offer themselves for election with the necessary sponsorship. It is very easy for less scrupulous Councillors to 'down play' upcoming vacancies and prime their preferred candidates in advance. You have to realise that the current town council (with a few notable exceptions who are sadly in the minority) is regarded with disdain and no-one is prepared to serve with them until the next full election when I am sure the 'old guard' will be dumped. Can't happen soon enough.[/p][/quote]There was only one electoral poll for the four seats on offer.Five candidates contested that single poll and the four with the highest amount of votes were elected. All four seats were contested. Here is the link to the official result of that one poll: https://www.dorsetfo ryou.com/media.jsp?m ediaid=193814&fi lety pe=pdf It's like a 100m race but with four medals on offer. Only one race is run and the first four over the line get the medals. There are no separate races for the individual medals. Regardless of who people are prepared to serve with, the facts of political life is that undoubtedly you will have to work with people you don't wish to serve with. Can't happen soon enough? Well 2015 is a long way off, and the 'old guard' are going to run the show all the way there. And in 2015, I bet it will only be the 'old guard' standing once again.[/p][/quote]You really don't get it do you. If it was simply a case of first four past the post then the electorate would only need one vote each. The fact that an elector has four votes means that there are four separate simultaneous elections. The strange aspect of these elections is that candidates effectively stand for all four seats and, if defeated in one, are able to carry their votes on to the next. I would be very interested to see what the results would have been if the electorate had had only one vote each. By the way, I have a hard copy of the election results in front of me to which I have been referring in posts for months. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 1

4:24pm Sat 17 May 14

Genghis says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Wilbraham wrote:
Naturalised southerner wrote:
lous22 wrote:
Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion.

Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up!
These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy.
If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.
Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.
But that is the democratic system in operation. Four were voted in as they had opponents standing against them. The rest were elected unopposed because nobody stood against them. That is hardly their fault. As to co-option, again, if only one person is interested in the vacancy, then that person will be co-opted. You can't force people to become councillors.

As for removing the people that so many dislike. Where are the people to stand against them? The one's with the biggest voices had their chance a few weeks back but nobody put themselves forward. I certainly won't as I think Portland Town Council is well past it's sale by date. It should be scrapped as it's not fit for purpose and obviously does not gain enough support to perform it's function . Local Government in Dorset needs reforming.
You clearly have not read my earlier post. There were only five candidates for four seats in the election to which you refer. That means that, in effect, only one seat was contested and the candidate that was not 'elected' was subsequently co-opted against the will of the electorate.

I think we have to draw a distinction between what is democratic and what is legitimate. The appointment of the council was indeed legitimate but it was, in my view, far from democratic. You need at least two candidates for every seat for an election to be truly democratic.

I think the people of Portland have now learned this lesson and, in future, will not allow vacancies on the council to be filled without a proper contest.
All four seats were contested. The system in operation for Portland Town Council's Underhill ward, is that all four seats are offered in one block and there is only one poll to determine the successful candidate. There is not a separate poll for each individual seat. The four candidates that top the poll are elected as councillors for the ward.

In the last election only five candidates stood, and the four candidates that gained most votes were elected. The candidate that wasn't successful was indeed then co-opted to an unfilled vacancy on the council. This wouldn't have been the case if there were more interested people putting themselves forward as candidates. Only people willing to stand for the Council can be elected or co-opted. That is the system.

That there aren't people willing to stand as councillors shows that there isn't enough support to make the council viable. It also shows that the only people willing to put themselves in to the firing line, are the usual suspects, despite their lack of popularity with the majority of people.

As for the people of Portland not allowing vacancies to be filled without a proper contest in future, I find that hard to believe. Just a few weeks ago a vacancy was advertised and nobody put their name forward. Yet another seat that will probably have a co-opted member.
No, you are wrong. The seats are not offered as one block. They are up for election at the same time, and the electorate are able to vote for up to four candidates, but it is blindingly obvious that, with only five candidates, three will be elected by default. The only contest is for the fourth seat.

Although there are clear rules about advertising vacancies, the very short notice period between the vacancy being publicised and the close date for 'applications' (28 days I believe) leaves little time for prospective candidates to offer themselves for election with the necessary sponsorship. It is very easy for less scrupulous Councillors to 'down play' upcoming vacancies and prime their preferred candidates in advance.

You have to realise that the current town council (with a few notable exceptions who are sadly in the minority) is regarded with disdain and no-one is prepared to serve with them until the next full election when I am sure the 'old guard' will be dumped. Can't happen soon enough.
There was only one electoral poll for the four seats on offer.Five candidates contested that single poll and the four with the highest amount of votes were elected. All four seats were contested. Here is the link to the official result of that one poll: https://www.dorsetfo


ryou.com/media.jsp?m


ediaid=193814&fi

lety
pe=pdf It's like a 100m race but with four medals on offer. Only one race is run and the first four over the line get the medals. There are no separate races for the individual medals.

Regardless of who people are prepared to serve with, the facts of political life is that undoubtedly you will have to work with people you don't wish to serve with. Can't happen soon enough? Well 2015 is a long way off, and the 'old guard' are going to run the show all the way there. And in 2015, I bet it will only be the 'old guard' standing once again.
You really don't get it do you. If it was simply a case of first four past the post then the electorate would only need one vote each. The fact that an elector has four votes means that there are four separate simultaneous elections. The strange aspect of these elections is that candidates effectively stand for all four seats and, if defeated in one, are able to carry their votes on to the next. I would be very interested to see what the results would have been if the electorate had had only one vote each.

By the way, I have a hard copy of the election results in front of me to which I have been referring in posts for months.
https://www.gov.uk/v
oting-in-the-uk/voti
ng-systems

"First-past-the-post
.......


4 In an election for more than 1 person, it’s the relevant number of candidates with the highest number of votes that get elected (eg in an election for 2 local councillors, the 2 candidates with the highest number of votes would be elected)..." Or, in an election for 4 local councillors, the 4 candidates with the highest number of votes would be elected.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Naturalised southerner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lous22[/bold] wrote: Really democratic isn't it.?.. look at the councillors who voted against the motion to review his nomination to mayor... Six councillors, including Richard Denton-White, Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, Rodney Wild and Tim Munro himself voted against the motion. Godsake ... Elspie Munro-Price, Ian Munro-Price, Amanda Munro, and Tim are all from the Munro family!!!!! this is not democracy is it? Good on you guys for standing up![/p][/quote]These people were voted in under a democratic system by the electorate of Portland, yes it is democracy. If you want to stop this sort of nepotism then you the people of Portland must do it at an election and not through a comment column in the local newspaper.[/p][/quote]Only 4 were voted in and one of these has resigned. The rest were elected unopposed or co-opted.[/p][/quote]But that is the democratic system in operation. Four were voted in as they had opponents standing against them. The rest were elected unopposed because nobody stood against them. That is hardly their fault. As to co-option, again, if only one person is interested in the vacancy, then that person will be co-opted. You can't force people to become councillors. As for removing the people that so many dislike. Where are the people to stand against them? The one's with the biggest voices had their chance a few weeks back but nobody put themselves forward. I certainly won't as I think Portland Town Council is well past it's sale by date. It should be scrapped as it's not fit for purpose and obviously does not gain enough support to perform it's function . Local Government in Dorset needs reforming.[/p][/quote]You clearly have not read my earlier post. There were only five candidates for four seats in the election to which you refer. That means that, in effect, only one seat was contested and the candidate that was not 'elected' was subsequently co-opted against the will of the electorate. I think we have to draw a distinction between what is democratic and what is legitimate. The appointment of the council was indeed legitimate but it was, in my view, far from democratic. You need at least two candidates for every seat for an election to be truly democratic. I think the people of Portland have now learned this lesson and, in future, will not allow vacancies on the council to be filled without a proper contest.[/p][/quote]All four seats were contested. The system in operation for Portland Town Council's Underhill ward, is that all four seats are offered in one block and there is only one poll to determine the successful candidate. There is not a separate poll for each individual seat. The four candidates that top the poll are elected as councillors for the ward. In the last election only five candidates stood, and the four candidates that gained most votes were elected. The candidate that wasn't successful was indeed then co-opted to an unfilled vacancy on the council. This wouldn't have been the case if there were more interested people putting themselves forward as candidates. Only people willing to stand for the Council can be elected or co-opted. That is the system. That there aren't people willing to stand as councillors shows that there isn't enough support to make the council viable. It also shows that the only people willing to put themselves in to the firing line, are the usual suspects, despite their lack of popularity with the majority of people. As for the people of Portland not allowing vacancies to be filled without a proper contest in future, I find that hard to believe. Just a few weeks ago a vacancy was advertised and nobody put their name forward. Yet another seat that will probably have a co-opted member.[/p][/quote]No, you are wrong. The seats are not offered as one block. They are up for election at the same time, and the electorate are able to vote for up to four candidates, but it is blindingly obvious that, with only five candidates, three will be elected by default. The only contest is for the fourth seat. Although there are clear rules about advertising vacancies, the very short notice period between the vacancy being publicised and the close date for 'applications' (28 days I believe) leaves little time for prospective candidates to offer themselves for election with the necessary sponsorship. It is very easy for less scrupulous Councillors to 'down play' upcoming vacancies and prime their preferred candidates in advance. You have to realise that the current town council (with a few notable exceptions who are sadly in the minority) is regarded with disdain and no-one is prepared to serve with them until the next full election when I am sure the 'old guard' will be dumped. Can't happen soon enough.[/p][/quote]There was only one electoral poll for the four seats on offer.Five candidates contested that single poll and the four with the highest amount of votes were elected. All four seats were contested. Here is the link to the official result of that one poll: https://www.dorsetfo ryou.com/media.jsp?m ediaid=193814&fi lety pe=pdf It's like a 100m race but with four medals on offer. Only one race is run and the first four over the line get the medals. There are no separate races for the individual medals. Regardless of who people are prepared to serve with, the facts of political life is that undoubtedly you will have to work with people you don't wish to serve with. Can't happen soon enough? Well 2015 is a long way off, and the 'old guard' are going to run the show all the way there. And in 2015, I bet it will only be the 'old guard' standing once again.[/p][/quote]You really don't get it do you. If it was simply a case of first four past the post then the electorate would only need one vote each. The fact that an elector has four votes means that there are four separate simultaneous elections. The strange aspect of these elections is that candidates effectively stand for all four seats and, if defeated in one, are able to carry their votes on to the next. I would be very interested to see what the results would have been if the electorate had had only one vote each. By the way, I have a hard copy of the election results in front of me to which I have been referring in posts for months.[/p][/quote]https://www.gov.uk/v oting-in-the-uk/voti ng-systems "First-past-the-post ....... 4 In an election for more than 1 person, it’s the relevant number of candidates with the highest number of votes that get elected (eg in an election for 2 local councillors, the 2 candidates with the highest number of votes would be elected)..." Or, in an election for 4 local councillors, the 4 candidates with the highest number of votes would be elected. Genghis
  • Score: 0

9:58am Fri 23 May 14

PhaedrusTWonder says...

Tim Munro Is A ****.
Tim Munro Is A ****. PhaedrusTWonder
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree