OP
OP
briantrumpet
Timewaster
Yeah, not a ringing endorsement, and really needs some thought if Burnham's devolution plans feature mayors as the local democracy element.
Burnham
- Thread starter briantrumpet
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Yeah, not a ringing endorsement, and really needs some thought if Burnham's devolution plans feature mayors as the local democracy element.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
Well exactly. I honestly don't think there's any great appetite for another layer of politicians and bureaucracy at a local level. People often list law and order as a priority issue but the turnout for police commissioner elections was even more woeful. Perhaps they want national policies that sort stuff out.
Stevo 666
Guru
You gave a unique way of reading things. Keep your head in the sand if you really want to. However there are plenty other articles saying the same thing if you don't.
Psamathe
Legendary Member
Why mayors and not Councils?
Councils include a broad base of views, experience, local represntation where as a mayor is just one person at the top.
Far better decisions are made by consensus than by view/ideology of a single individual.
OP
OP
briantrumpet
Timewaster
I'd tend to agree, but it seems to have worked reasonably well in London and Manchester, and 'stuff has got done' in both places.
Pblakeney
Shaman
From my experience of committees, they are more of a hindrance than anything.
Consensus of opinions is fine as advice but it takes someone making a decision for things to get done.
Psamathe
Legendary Member
Difficulty comes maybe in that eg with Burnham declaring bigger %age of income tax going to mayors, one Conservative Mayor has already declared he'll be using the money for tax rebates not to develop eg public transport, not to develop improved infrastructure, just giving it to the wealthier constituents. If it all happens as currently proposed then that mayor's personal ideology is determining whereas I suspect even many voting for him might be business owners who need eg better parking so people can spend money in their shops, better public transport so people come into city centre and spend money rather than give it to Bézos, etc.
Councils would debate the issue and thus electorate can be more aware of the options, more accountability, constituents can lobby their Councillors, etc. Opposition can be expressed.
I find "Consensus" interesting as it really can work. WikiMedia (incl. Wikipedia) runs very smoothly using Consensus. No edicts from Jimmy Wales but as policy questions arise they are discussed on talk pages and discussion continues until such time as Jimmy consensus is reached at which point the consensus decision is implemented. And that can be for trivial things eg what convention of time formats to major things like should be start a new Wiki Project (eg WikiVoyage). It works.
Pblakeney
Shaman
Interesting that you should choose that example.
I was listening to a podcast last week and the guest mentioned that his Wiki page has his full name, age, and place of birth all wrong.
Psamathe
Legendary Member
Consensus on WikiMedia is not about specific edits but about policy, standards, governance, etc. And the guest can go to Wikipedia and correct the content, even without registering, etc.
If you want details of the "real" history and background of Wikipedia:
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
Wikipedia is not only unreliable these days but increasingly biased. I wouldn't trust it for much beyond things like finding how much rain you get in Burundi or an actor's age.
Psamathe
Legendary Member
Malicious edits are fairly carefully monitored but there can be a backlog and most changes go live immediately. Generally questionable edits will be reverted and repeat such edits will cause additional constraints on the page limiting who can apply edits eg go try and edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump.
Edit/revert wars are controlled even for editors (eg throttled revert even for approved editors).
Also an increasing requirement on citations so you see the source for the information and like everything you take your view as to the source reliability.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
OP
OP
briantrumpet
Timewaster
Psamathe
Legendary Member
Re: Early Prisoner Release
Whilst I don't fully appreciate the criminal justice system but with early prisoner release to resolve over-crowding, why are we not using the unused military bases currently intended for housing refugees? Instead of housing refugees, move prisoners to them as a "Open Prison" making it clear that should they abscond not only will they be returned to prison but they will impact any future parole decisions.
Prisoners could be moved to sites far from their victims, etc.
I appreciate the security would be weak but it's higher than just complete release and back to the same area as their victims.
I'm sure it has been considered but I've not seen it raised nor reasons why it can't work.
Whilst I don't fully appreciate the criminal justice system but with early prisoner release to resolve over-crowding, why are we not using the unused military bases currently intended for housing refugees? Instead of housing refugees, move prisoners to them as a "Open Prison" making it clear that should they abscond not only will they be returned to prison but they will impact any future parole decisions.
Prisoners could be moved to sites far from their victims, etc.
I appreciate the security would be weak but it's higher than just complete release and back to the same area as their victims.
I'm sure it has been considered but I've not seen it raised nor reasons why it can't work.
