alanRow

<i>Did they say there has only be a Lord Mayor for 12 years?</i>

The Lord Mayor (Dick Whittington and all that) is of the City of London which is the Square Mile. The LM is selected by the businesses based in the Square Mile.

Clifton

I do enjoy reading the locals banter over local politics, especially our British participants.

Not sure if it's underdiscussed, but if it weren't for Fodors, I'd have no more clue (or reason to have one) who was mayor of London than I would who was mayor of Tokyo, Rome, Moscow or Cairo. (clueless on all counts)

PatrickLondon

They don't begin counting the London Mayor and Assembly votes till a sensible hour this morning, and the results will be out in the late afternoon. It's (for us) a relatively complicated business, since we have a second preference vote for the Mayor, and, for the 25-member Assembly, two votes, one for a constituency member and a top-up for greater proportionality between parties.

Elsewhere across the country, there are also a fair number of local elections, and they have been counting overnight in the usual way. If psephology floats your boat, you can keep up at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17270000; and then on Sunday, of course, you can do that and practise your French at the same time:
http://presidentielle2012.canalplus.fr/

flanneruk

England, overall, voted massively last night that it wasn't at all interested in the idea of mayors. Or anything else connected with local politics.

Mayors in Britain aren't generally elected by popular vote and have practically no powers. They're more or less ceremonial figureheads, appointed by councillors, and meant to be neutral chairs of the town council - much like Presidents in most of the world's democracies.

A decade or so ago the idea of a New York-style elected mayor, though with far fewer powers than in most foreign big cities, was introduced for London. Among last night's many other elections were a number of referendums about introducing similarly-powered mayors in cities like Manchester and Birmingham.

The idea was tossed out by Manchester on a turnout of just 24%, with similar rejections and similarly pathetic turnouts in most other cities voting about the idea (the argument against being essentially that it's a pointless waste of money on just another layer of government).

Arguably, the really interesting result of the night was that the Prime Minister's ruling Tory party was heavily defeated in the election to retain their District Councillor in Chipping Norton - popularly seen as the Ur-Conservative heartland, and represented in Parliament by Cameron himself. The largest single swing against Cameron's party was their total humiliation in another District Council election elsewhere in the Chipping Norton postcode (on one of the country's very few turnouts of over 45%) after a catastrophically absurd canvassing expedition by Cameron in the local pub last Friday night.

alanRow

The London Mayorship which is basically a battle between egomaniacs has tainted the pool for any other.

Interestingly the one place where a new Mayordom has started - Liverpool - the new mayor is the leader of the main political group in Liverpool and no referendum was conducted to see if the people wanted it

Aduchamp1

Thanks Ann for the explanation.

I am watching the BEEB coverage of the elections. It sounds a great deal like our elections. The incumbents are responsible for the last 200 years of ills. Labor speaks of their support for pensioners, the young, and workers. The Tories lower taxes on the rich and have no idea of what they doing.

I am impressed that the news presenters know the proper plural of referendum. I think that is more that I expect less from US news anchors.

The coverage is much more understated and does not have paid talking heads spouting predictable defenses and means of victory. There have been reports from Scotland and Mrs. Adu thought they were speaking Italian. We are working on our burr and hope no one asks us a question that does not have anything to do with the elections.

emily71

So if there are no mayors then who has the final say in council votes? In America there's usually a city council and a mayor that's the "figurehead".

It's always fascinating to read about elections in other countries and suppose its the same for the rest of the world. I read somewhere where some Tories are blaming gay marriage for their loses. Sounds scarily like something a US politico would say.

PatrickLondon

>>So if there are no mayors then who has the final say in council votes?<<

The Council. I don't quite understand the question.

emily71

The mayors around here are usually the figureheads who do ribbon cutting, lead parades, etc. The public face of the city. Just surprising that England doesn't have them as I thought our city government were similar.

PatrickLondon

>>Just surprising that England doesn't have them<<

We do. In a few places, they went for the model of directly electing an executive mayor instead of a Leader of the Council, but so far only a few.

Kate

"It's always fascinating to read about elections in other countries and suppose its the same for the rest of the world. I read somewhere where some Tories are blaming gay marriage for their loses. Sounds scarily like something a US politico would say."

It's not gay marriage perse they're complaining about, it's that the PM is perceived to be focussing on issues that 'the country doesn't care about' (eg introducing gay marriage) when he should be just getting the economy sorted. Apparently some Tories (who are no doubt anti-gay marriage) think the government can only do one thing at once.

Kate

"The mayors around here are usually the figureheads who do ribbon cutting, lead parades, etc. The public face of the city. Just surprising that England doesn't have them as I thought our city government were similar."

Oh we have those, and they get to wear fancy outfits too as that's what us Brits love, obviously, but they tend to be already elected councillors who are selected by the council to serve the ceremonial role for one year only.

Here's pics of some Lord Mayors in their typical finery: http://preview.tinyurl.com/c62vptt

flanneruk

"Apparently some Tories (who are no doubt anti-gay marriage) think the government can only do one thing at once."

No. But they DO believe governments can't do everything at once, and this government's managerial capabilities are stretched way beyond their limited capacity already (as far as I can work out, the only member of the Cabinet who's ever done a real job is Vince Cable). So are Cameron's abilities to hold them all together - and even his charm's being lost (crude gibes at Derek Skinner's age are absolutely not what One Nation Toryism's all about).

Every Tory in the government heartland (the 5 mile radius of my house where the Chipping Norton Set keeps their redundant police horses and phone hacking files) has a list of tasks the government's taken on (from city mayors to House of Lord reform to VAT on pasties) which will absorb more scarce energy and create more unnecessary foulups like the Abu Qatada "they don't even know what day it is" fiasco. Those lists are remarkably identical whether they're held by homosexual free marketeers or the hang 'em and flog 'em Tufton Buftons.

PatrickLondon

>>Every Tory in the government heartland .... has a list <<

And David Davis has been <i>very</i> quiet.

Reshuffle next week, methinks.

annhig

There have been reports from Scotland and Mrs. Adu thought they were speaking Italian>>

there is a large italian community in Glasgow so conceivably they might have been! [not really - try getting a hold of a few episodes of a detective serious called "Taggart" if you want to one up on your scottish dialect].

normally they will have one representative from each of the 3 main parties plus a pundit or two. the party reps are expected not to crow if they win and not to whine if they lose. There is a tradition in parliamentary elections that the winner not only thanks the officials but also commiserates with the losers. British phlegm and stiff upper lips are much in evidence.

flanner - I see DC as essentially a well-intentioned bloke who, as one might expect from a PR man, lacks what is sometimes called "bottom". GO is an idiot - any Chancellor of the Exchequer who ADMITS that he didn't know that the rich were avoiding tax on a huge scale really shouldn't be doing the job - and the rest of them can't count. it has taken a shorter time than normal for the wheels to come off and the local election results reflect that.

emily71

Another question. In a British tv show, they showed all candidates in the same room as the election results are read. Do they all stand in the front of the room to hear the results?

alanRow

Pretty much unless they are drunk or have been arrested

annhig

Another question. In a British tv show, they showed all candidates in the same room as the election results are read. Do they all stand in the front of the room to hear the results?>>

the candidates and agents hover around the tables as counting gets underway, and towards the end, you can usually see smiles and the one hand, and head -shaking on the other. sometimes they have recounts which can get very tense. but they do it altogether and then the results get announced by the returning officer with everyone standing on a stage or similar.

PatrickLondon

>>Do they all stand in the front of the room to hear the results?<<

That's the custom. I don't think it's required, but it would be thought very bad form to stay away, unless you've actually been taken ill or something.

If you have been elected as a local councillor, then there are formalities to complete, and the council officers are quite keen to get all that done on the night so that everyone's ready to get on with regular business on Monday.

And whether you've won or lost as a candidate, the activists who've been observing the count* for you, and most likely out doing all the usual during the day ("knocking up", for those of you who like a giggle) will not thank you if you were too far up yourself to turn out on the night (nowadays, especially in the smaller parties, the candidate is his or her own activist as well).

*i.e., doing a bit of silent mental arithmetic to gauge how the voters in each individual polling station have voted, keeping an eye out for votes for the other lot that can be challenged, and for sorting/counting errors.

flanneruk

"There is a tradition in parliamentary elections that the winner not only thanks the officials but also commiserates with the losers. "

Actually the winner thanks the officials and congratulates the losers on having been worthy opponents (commiseration is really unEnglish). Worse, each loser is then expected (this is the bit you don't see on TV) to congratulate the winner, compliment him or her on the quality of their campaigning (often in practice through gritted teeth), encapsulate their message in an elevator pitch ("and I want to stress to all those who voted for me that this has been just the beginning of a fight for a just society here in South Barsetshire") and thank their supporters and spouse for their hard work.

At 6 am, after an eight hour count and after several have just seen years of personal sacrifice go up in smoke, the ultimate character test. You can determine, with almost 100% accuracy, the entire background of a candidate from their losers' speech. You can tell a lot about the audience too from how they handle this: there were six of them (losers' speeches) at the 2010 count I attended, and a staggering TEN in this constituency.