# May 22



## mikeinmalaga (May 17, 2010)

This may not interest you, local Spanish politics is not everyone's glass of warm vino, but I would value your input. There are 2 months to go before the local elections on May 22, and I have been making comparisons between my experience as a councillor in England what happens here.
For example
1) The Mayor and all the councillors here become full time paid employees. They give up their day jobs, and councillors in the winning party are given jobs. So you can guess that some committee chairs are pretty superfluous.

2) The debt in my local Town Hall is equal to the annual budget. (There are no reserves) But the mayor does not worry because it is 'within the amount laid down by law.' The fact that the interest on the debt prevents the council from spending any money on new services is not mentioned

3) Finally, Dates for full Council meetings are not planned ahead. They are held with 3 days notice. That gives the opposition parties little or no time to prepare for a meaningful debate. And the General Public even less, if they ever hear about it.

Don't you just love this place 
Mike


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

mikeinmalaga said:


> This may not interest you, local Spanish politics is not everyone's glass of warm vino, but I would value your input. There are 2 months to go before the local elections on May 22, and I have been making comparisons between my experience as a councillor in England what happens here.
> For example
> 1) The Mayor and all the councillors here become full time paid employees. They give up their day jobs, and councillors in the winning party are given jobs. So you can guess that some committee chairs are pretty superfluous.
> 
> ...



I share your incomprehension as I too was a Councillor, Mayor and Group Leader in the UK. Having had a little experience of local government and politics in Prague - my friend's husband was local Mayor - and now in Spain where I'm helping one of our local candidates - I've come to accept that a one-size-fits-all model, although perhaps desirable if it's our model, just doesn't export.
Both the Czech Republic and Spain have in the last century experienced totalitarianism and have practised democracy only for comparatively few decades.
We've had centuries to 'perfect' our structures yet I'm sure you'd agree that a few alterations in the way we do things might be desirable. 
But politics here does seem to be more of a 'closed shop' than in the UK and accountability and transparency don't feature high on the 'things to do' wish-list.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

They´ve been holding "citizen participation" workshops in our town to try and get people more involved, But most people here (pop. 5000) are related to at least one of the councillors, so maybe they find out what´s going on that way!


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

This is why, rightly or wrongly, I dont want to vote in the elections here. I have no understanding of their practices or policies and unless I'm comfortable with what I'm voting for then its wrong for me to do it IMO. 

Jo xxx


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

jojo said:


> This is why, rightly or wrongly, I dont want to vote in the elections here. I have no understanding of their practices or policies and unless I'm comfortable with what I'm voting for then its wrong for me to do it IMO.
> 
> Jo xxx


I felt like that when I left the UK. By the time I left (2008) the three main parties´manifestos were so similar I couldn´t tell them apart. 

Unfortunately I will be in the UK on 22 May. Does anyone know if there is proxy or postal voting here?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> I felt like that when I left the UK. By the time I left (2008) the three main parties´manifestos were so similar I couldn´t tell them apart.


Yes, I agree. But why do you think that is? That is the interesting question.
The only time in my memory when there has been clear red/blue water between the main Parties was in 1983 when Labour's Manifesto presented a clear alternative invoving state ownership and higher taxation plus nuclear disarmament. It was, rightly as it turned out, described as 'the longest suicide note in history' and brought Labour the lowest vote of the century.
There is a disturbing inevitability about this apparent convergence between the main Parties.
As for postal votes....I doubt it very much. In a process already considered dubious by many the possibilities of fraud involved in a postal vote system are far too obvious....as we have seen in parts of the UK.
My grandmother actually came back early from a trip to Canada in the 1970s to see my aunt in order to vote in a local election. She was old enough to remember the Suffragettes....To her a vote was so important. She had a very long life - died in her nineties - and it was said that she never missed an election.
Do we care that much these days, I wonder.... After all, our voice doesn't count for much when it comes down to it.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

It seems to me that the parties, in a desperate bid to attract EVERYONE, have sold themselves and just agree with everyone and everything. They've become an amalgam!! That coupled with the fact that from what I can see, behind the scenes, they're all pretty much run by big businesses, and dressed up by PR companies! It makes a mockery of "democracy". Its simply who can say the right things, in the right way and look the prettiest while saying it!

There!! Thats my naive view on politics 

Jo xxx


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

mikeinmalaga said:


> This may not interest you, local Spanish politics is not everyone's glass of warm vino, but I would value your input. There are 2 months to go before the local elections on May 22, and I have been making comparisons between my experience as a councillor in England what happens here.
> For example
> 1) The Mayor and all the councillors here become full time paid employees. They give up their day jobs, and councillors in the winning party are given jobs. So you can guess that some committee chairs are pretty superfluous.
> 
> ...


Yes, I do actually!!

Do you know if your number 1 is automatically true in all town halls, or is it just the bigger ones?

2, and 3. Yes, I think that's the way it's done in Spain. Planning ahead and financial planning are just not a strong points, but I don't see why they shouldn't be changed slowly, in fact they have to be if any headway is going to be made, but there's no use moaning about it and comparing to the UK 'cos this isn't the UK, and I hope it never will be.

And of course there is a postal vote!


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> It seems to me that the parties, in a desperate bid to attract EVERYONE, have sold themselves and just agree with everyone and everything. They've become an amalgam!! That coupled with the fact that from what I can see, behind the scenes, they're all pretty much run by big businesses, and dressed up by PR companies! It makes a mockery of "democracy". Its simply who can say the right things, in the right way and look the prettiest while saying it!
> 
> There!! Thats my naive view on politics
> 
> Jo xxx


There really is very little wiggle room for any politician to make drastic changes, in the UK or anywhere.
It's got nothing to do with 'selling themselves' or PR although I agree that PR is a major part of the presentation process and democracy does exist albeit if only in a superficial way. We do get the chance to vote, albeit for clones.
Fact is, that the world is run by global corporations and financial institutions. Since the fall of Communism neo-con/neo-liberal economic theories have been adopted by international institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. Tony Blair, nor Cameron, is heir to Thatcher.
We accept this because most people in the world have to a greater or lesser degree benefitted from this state of affairs. We rarely come across those at the bottom of the pile and only get a glimpse of the shocking poverty that is the norm in many parts of the world from the media.
We feel bad about this but are too busy clinging to our own precarious lives to do more than spare a passing thought or put a few coppers in a collecting tin.
The fact that people care more about an interrupted holiday than the well-being of the workers of a country whose hospitality we enjoy is a symptom of this.
There is very little we can do to change the world for the better so we get on with our own lives and turn our backs on politics as we see it as a pointless exercise. I'm only helping our local candidate because by his actions he has proved himself an honest decent man and I suspect his chief opponent isn't.
Neither you, nor I, nor any politician has the power to make the world a better place. Religion won't help either. We can only do the little we can in our own lives and in our own circle.
Sadly.


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

It used to be so much easier when Conservatives all owned factories and stately homes and went hunting every weekend and mistreated the underpaid workers and labour party supporters owned whippets, ate black pudding, went on strike at the drop of a hat and fancied pigeons. 

You used to know who to vote for back in the good old days....


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

jimenato said:


> It used to be so much easier when Conservatives all owned factories and stately homes and went hunting every weekend and mistreated the underpaid workers and labour party supporters owned whippets, ate black pudding, went on strike at the drop of a hat and fancied pigeons.
> 
> You used to know who to vote for back in the good old days....


Actually, you're probably right. What seems to have happened is as the poor become richer and the rich become poorer, the line between the two parties seems to have overlapped somewhat !!! 


Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jimenato said:


> It used to be so much easier when Conservatives all owned factories and stately homes and went hunting every weekend and mistreated the underpaid workers and labour party supporters owned whippets, ate black pudding, went on strike at the drop of a hat and fancied pigeons.
> 
> You used to know who to vote for back in the good old days....


If you take your tongue out of your cheek......I'll agree with you.
Yes, a few decades ago you would have been right. That's why I got involved in leftish politics. As a 'scholarship' girl with a widowed mother who scrubbed floors to earn a living I became acutely aware of class differences and the unfairness of outcomes in our society. My views were confirmed when I went to University and met others who shared my beliefs - although oddly they were mainly well-off middle-class students. Because uncles and other family members had been killed or injured in the War I was committed to the pacifist movement and CND.
It was, to me at least, clear-cut in those days...we were the good guys. 
As I got older and became involved in 'real' politics it became clear that things weren't so simple. Life is complicated and doesn't put things in neat categories. I found that some of the Tories I worked with were decent people who wanted the same ends as I but preferred different means to those ends. I also discovered that some of my 'brothers and sisters' in the 'movement' were actually self-promoting ideologues who loved humanity in general but had little time for real people.
I also found that you rarely got the chance to do what you saw as the right thing but were obliged by circumstances beyond your control to choose the less evil of the choices you did have.
I now have no faith in any version of politics that promises a better future based on the implementation of some secular religion, be it socialism, neo-conservatism, whatever.
I try to consider each issue objectively whilst keeping in mind basic principles of human decency. I know that my comparatively easy life and the things that compose it is in part earned at the expense of those worst off than I.
But as there is little I can do about it on a global scale and certainly not by putting a cross against a name on a ballot paper, I don't lose much sleep over it.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> Actually, you're probably right. What seems to have happened is as the poor become richer and the rich become poorer, the line between the two parties seems to have overlapped somewhat !!!
> 
> 
> Jo xxx


But that hasn't happened in the UK. The better-off have got more wealthy and because of the huge inequality -the highest in Europe - between rich and poor the poor have actually become poorer.
The gap between the Parties has narrowed because all three have accepted the current economic status quo and so have most of us because we are much better off materially and even our 'poor' have the modern equivalent of bread and circuses in the form of flash cars, hi-tech gadgetry and holidays, albeit of a lesser quality than the better-off..
I actually think it's obscene to talk of 'poverty' in the UK. Real poverty is Somalia, Ethiopia, rural India.....not a council flat and benefits in Brixton.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

mrypg9 said:


> But that hasn't happened in the UK. The better-off have got more wealthy and because of the huge inequality -the highest in Europe - between rich and poor the poor have actually become poorer.
> The gap between the Parties has narrowed because all three have accepted the current economic status quo and so have most of us because we are much better off materially and even our 'poor' have the modern equivalent of bread and circuses in the form of flash cars, hi-tech gadgetry and holidays, albeit of a lesser quality than the better-off..
> I actually think it's obscene to talk of 'poverty' in the UK. Real poverty is Somalia, Ethiopia, rural India.....not a council flat and benefits in Brixton.



The poor in the UK dont appear to be poorer than they used to be, say in my grandmothers time (my father had tales of woe from his childhood - only one out of his eight siblings could go to school cos there was only one pair of shoes...etc...) and nothing like the hard lives of those you mention in Somalia etc! I think there are more "middle class" in the UK these days which has bridged the gap and IMO are the people who vote and who the politicians tend to target?

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> The poor in the UK dont appear to be poorer than they used to be, say in my grandmothers time (my father had tales of woe from his childhood - only one out of his eight siblings could go to school cos there was only one pair of shoes...etc...) and nothing like the hard lives of those you mention in Somalia etc! I think there are more "middle class" in the UK these days which has bridged the gap and IMO are the people who vote and who the politicians tend to target?
> 
> Jo xxx


Well, the latest 'buzz-phrase' in the UK seems to be the 'squeezed middle'. This seems to refer to people with house-hold incomes of around £40k a year. 
No way a vast fortune.
I think that these class labels matter less and less which is a good thing. 
What worries me is that as a society we seem to be 'dumbing down'.
People I viewed as middle-class when I was at school/university had a certain code of behaviour which they adhered to in public if not always in private.
Ditto 'respectable' working-class families.
Reading about the vulgar antics of some of the Royal family and the behaviour of the nouveau-riche all around the world it's clear that these views are seen as very old-fashioned and outdated.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> The poor in the UK dont appear to be poorer than they used to be, say in my grandmothers time (my father had tales of woe from his childhood - Jo xxx


That's because all poverty is relative. People are only poor if someone is richer than they.
So...if I were a millionaire and you a billionaire...I would be poor compared to you.
Economists and sociologists use terms such as 'absolute poverty' and 'relative poverty' to clarify the issue but politicians of the left tend to ignore such distinctions.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

mrypg9 said:


> Well, the latest 'buzz-phrase' in the UK seems to be the 'squeezed middle'. This seems to refer to people with house-hold incomes of around £40k a year.
> No way a vast fortune.
> I think that these class labels matter less and less which is a good thing.
> What worries me is that as a society we seem to be 'dumbing down'.
> ...



.....Which brings on the point that I find irritating/interesting/confusing. Is "middle class" a money issue or a behaviour issue!!!!!!! I think of myself as "middle class" (for want of a better description??) it has nothing to do with the money that I may or may not have or how wealthy my family may or may not be. It has to do with my values, my up bringing and the way I live and behave!

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> .....Which brings on the point that I find irritating/interesting/confusing. Is "middle class" a money issue or a behaviour issue!!!!!!! I think of myself as "middle class" (for want of a better description??) it has nothing to do with the money that I may or may not have or how wealthy my family may or may not be. It has to do with my values, my up bringing and the way I live and behave!
> 
> Jo xxx


When I was a Councillor I had colleagues (Tories or Independents) who were 'titled'....Lady Something-or-other or Major So-and-So. Some of them lived in quite posh houses but were quite hard up! I remember observing one titled guy, a friend of Royalty, who had frayed cuffs on his Tattersall shirt.
They were to my mind middle-class because of their 'culture'...the clothes they wore (tweedy and conservative), the cars they drove (solid but not flashy), their accents and their pastimes and amusements.
My political beliefs then had little in common with theirs but we did share common values. I think that's where we're both coming from. 
My childhood was shaped by injunctions not to give the family a 'showing-up'. 
Keeping family matters private, not owing money, being clean and sober, paying lip service to religion, being seen and not heard when young, respecting your elders and betters...not unnaturally, for a while I rebelled against all that.
But the older I get the more I regret the loss of many of these values, hypocritical as they might seem...after all, isn't hypocrisy the glue that holds society together?


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

jojo said:


> It seems to me that the parties, in a desperate bid to attract EVERYONE, have sold themselves and just agree with everyone and everything. They've become an amalgam!! That coupled with the fact that from what I can see, behind the scenes, they're all pretty much run by big businesses, and dressed up by PR companies! It makes a mockery of "democracy". Its simply who can say the right things, in the right way and look the prettiest while saying it!
> 
> There!! Thats my naive view on politics
> 
> Jo xxx


I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Getting votes has becomes their main preoccupation, and nobody dares say anything controversial in case they upset potential voters. They must get elected at all costs and by promising everything to everyone, end up saying nothing.

They have taken politics out of politics, if that makes sense. 

At least when Labour Chancellor Denis Healey said in 1974 "We will squeeze property speculators till their pips squeak", you knew what you were voting for (or against)!


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

jojo said:


> .....Which brings on the point that I find irritating/interesting/confusing. Is "middle class" a money issue or a behaviour issue!!!!!!! I think of myself as "middle class" (for want of a better description??) it has nothing to do with the money that I may or may not have or how wealthy my family may or may not be. It has to do with my values, my up bringing and the way I live and behave!
> 
> Jo xxx


It's a made-up expression and can mean anything you want it to.

When the concept of social classes was first defined, after the Industrial Revolution, the working-class were those who had to work for a living (because they had no other way to survive), and the ruling class those who didn't (basically the landed gentry) who lived off the income from their property. 

Then over the years it all got mixed up, working class people started owning property, dukes and earls had to get "proper jobs" ... the term 'middle class' came into use to describe those people in the middle; first economically, and later by their values and behaviour. It is pretty meaningless these days.

So call yourself what you like.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Getting votes has becomes their main preoccupation, and nobody dares say anything controversial in case they upset potential voters. They must get elected at all costs and by promising everything to everyone, end up saying nothing.
> 
> They have taken politics out of politics, if that makes sense.
> 
> At least when Labour Chancellor Denis Healey said in 1974 "We will squeeze property speculators till their pips squeak", you knew what you were voting for (or against)!


Of course getting votes is their main preoccupation. In order to do anything at all politicians have to win elections - not a trivial point.
What you have written sounds like the 'no compromise with the electorate' attitude which kept the Tories in power for eighteen years.
Do the views of the electorate however they differ from yours mean nothing? 
Your attitude sounds rather elitist although I'm sure you don't intend it to be. 
The implication is that the electorate are all simple-minded dupes who fall for snake-oil salesmen. Maybe it's a more case of not wanting a statist collective philosophy of Government-which has been seen to fail wherever it has been implemented, in countries as diverse as Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Angola et al.
Look back at my earlier posts ......I asked you *why* there is little difference between the Parties and I gave you my theory. I'd like to know what you think.
As for Dennis Healey's words: they were words, nothing more. Said to reestablish his 'Labour' credentials. Property speculators were not squeezed...far from it. Property speculation flourished in the 70s and 80s.
Let's not forget that Healey was Chancellor when we called in the IMF. I admire him but he was considered a traitor by many in the Labour Party for his realistic views. It was Healey who first introduced privatisation by selling off BP, don't forget. He was a seller-off of public assets long before Thatcher. 
I find it ironic that to pin your argument you use the vacuous words of a man whose views you would not have supported as he was by Labour terms so right-wing.
What has made me despair of the left is its refusal to base its thinking on what is instead ofhow they would like the world to be. 
We need to deal more with specifics, to see things as they are, not as we would like them to be. That is pure Marxism which is why I would describe myself as a Marxist, if only in recognising the need to deal with the world as it is and not play a parlour game of debating abstracts.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> At least when Labour Chancellor Denis Healey said in 1974 "We will squeeze property speculators till their pips squeak", you knew what you were voting for (or against)!


The 1983 Labour Manifesto promised to do more than make the pips squeak - whatever that means. It spoke of nationalising the 'commanding heights of the economy', taxing the rich, scrapping the nuclear deterrent...real lefty stuff.
As I pointed out, it was rejected by the voters...who are people whose views matter even if we regard them as having 'false consciouness' - which really means 'Poor misguided dupes, unlike us they have fallen for Tory propaganda'. Not only is it rather patronising, this view is mistaken. Most people aren't daft, they can judge for themselves. It's the left who swallow the slogans and the propaganda because for them it's an article of faith that their way is the right way and the only way.
Is that what you would like to see...a Manifesto 'red in tooth and claw'?
Because to quote another 'revolutionary'......it will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
We all know what happened to that comrade, don't we??
And our politicians haven't 'taken politics out of politics'...thery've taken IDEOLOGY out of politics, apart from the neo-cons and neo-liberals who also have a secular religion. Politics means governing the 'polis'. It does not imply ideology, rather the use of reason.


----------



## gill556 (Dec 23, 2010)

why is everyone discussing politics in the UK when most of us live in Spain?


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

gill556 said:


> why is everyone discussing politics in the UK when most of us live in Spain?



Good point!!! I guess cos most of us know more about politics in the UK??

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

gill556 said:


> why is everyone discussing politics in the UK when most of us live in Spain?


Because it's an open forum and we have a broad range of interests and views??
The OP talked about his experience of UK politics in his thread starter.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> Of course getting votes is their main preoccupation. In order to do anything at all politicians have to win elections - not a trivial point.
> What you have written sounds like the 'no compromise with the electorate' attitude which kept the Tories in power for eighteen years.
> Do the views of the electorate however they differ from yours mean nothing?
> Your attitude sounds rather elitist although I'm sure you don't intend it to be.
> ...


I was simply commenting that politicians in the UK no longer give any indication of their underlying ideology while they are electioneering. So unless you actively take an interest in politics and bother to find out, there is no apparent difference between them. It's no wonder so many people lose interest and don't even bother to vote.

I am most definitely not a fan of Denis Healey. That was just a quote to make the point that things used to be different. No Labour chancellor would dare say that now.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> I was simply commenting that politicians in the UK no longer give any indication of their underlying ideology while they are electioneering. So unless you actively take an interest in politics and bother to find out, there is no apparent difference between them. It's no wonder so many people lose interest and don't even bother to vote.
> 
> I am most definitely not a fan of Denis Healey. That was just a quote to make the point that things used to be different. No Labour chancellor would dare say that now.


I don't think most politicians here or in the UK who are successful at the polls have an underlying ideology. They are pragmatists.
Those who do have an ideology - BNP, Respect etc. get trounced.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> I don't think most politicians here or in the UK who are successful at the polls have an underlying ideology. They are pragmatists.
> Those who do have an ideology - BNP, Respect etc. get trounced.


Exactly. But that's why I find Spanish politics so refreshing - the different parties still, or at least they did before this wretched crisis, had clearly distinct political identities. Unfortunately circumstances have turned ZP into a pragmatist, or at least to behave like one.

I saw on TV last night that the defence minster Carme Chacón is catching up with Rubalcaba in the polls as the next PSOE leader. That would be interesting.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> Exactly. But that's why I find Spanish politics so refreshing - the different parties still, or at least they did before this wretched crisis, had clearly distinct political identities. Unfortunately circumstances have turned ZP into a pragmatist, or at least to behave like one.
> 
> I saw on TV last night that the defence minster Carme Chacón is catching up with Rubalcaba in the polls as the next PSOE leader. That would be interesting.


But the whole point of politics, whether in Spain or the UK or anywhere, is to get into a position where you have power to change things you think wrong...in other words, you have to get elected. Otherwise it's just an interesting debate (like ours)
The PSOE, in spite of its name, is a social-democratic party and I doubt very much if there was much 'socialist' in its last election manifesto. People have, rightly imo, come to mistrust an overblown state sector. In order to properly fund a social welfare system that is a safety net and not a way of life any Government needs revenue which can only come from the tax receipts from a flourishing business sector and from those who are well-paid for working within it. Countries with a socialist economic structure such as Poland, Czechoslovakia et al had inefficient industrial and business sectors and were unable to fund adequate health, education and other social services. 
I can't see what's wrong with Zap being a pragmatist. Better that than an ideologue like Chavez or Castro whohave to turn to the market when their socialist policies cripple the economy. Where I think he is wrong is that he isn't being pragmatic enough. There can be no economic growth in Spain until the current labour laws are reformed, for one thing. Small wonder that businesses are unwilling to take on workers on permanent contracts.
Like Cameron in the UK, Zap and Rajoy have no credible plan for growth. 
Fact is, the global hegemony of big business and finance leaves democratic politicians with little wiggle room.
And as I said earlier, since much of the world has become richer and accepting of the current status quo and the even more impoverished poor have no voice, there is, as the Lady famously said, no alternative.
Not for the foreseeable future but hopefully not forever.
Meantime, responsible politicians have to learn to work within the limits of the possible. For proof of that, consider Enda Kenny in ROI and Socrates in Portugal.
As the Lady also said, you can't buck the markets.
For now.


----------



## morlandg (Jun 8, 2008)

mikeinmalaga said:


> This may not interest you, local Spanish politics is not everyone's glass of warm vino, but I would value your input. There are 2 months to go before the local elections on May 22, and I have been making comparisons between my experience as a councillor in England what happens here.
> For example
> 1) The Mayor and all the councillors here become full time paid employees. They give up their day jobs, and councillors in the winning party are given jobs. So you can guess that some committee chairs are pretty superfluous.
> 
> ...


 This 'debate' has been very one-sided - all about the UK and nothing about Spain.
If my sums are correct then these are the running totals so far:-
Mike - 1
A-6
M-13
J-6
Others - 3
Hardly a full council meeting!

G :focus:


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

I think the only reason Chacón is getting a look in is because Rubalcaba has a black mark next to his name due to shady dealings in Felipe Gonzalez's government in the past. Something to do with ETA in "El caso faisan". The PP, especially Soraya, goes on and on about this at every possible opportunity, so in case anything ever comes of this investigation they have to have someone else lined up to take over from Zappie. Chacón seems like a weak candidate next to Rubalcaba to me. When Gonzalez was President (aka as Dios/ God by other party members ) Rubalcaba was in his government, so he's been around for some time.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

As far as local government is concerned it seems to me that many of the parties contesting the May elections have nothing to offer in the way of 'ideology' - thank God - but are mainly based on personality...some sincere, others on ego -trips.
There are fifteen parties contesting the twenty-five seats in our Municipality.
With luck that should keep our current PSOE Mayor in office.

PS....to those complaining about straying from topic....one of the good points aboput this forum is that we do, on most topics, bring in other reference points and relevant comparisons.
We don't often do Post Police.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> But the whole point of politics, whether in Spain or the UK or anywhere, is to get into a position where you have power to change things you think wrong...in other words, you have to get elected. Otherwise it's just an interesting debate (like ours)
> The PSOE, in spite of its name, is a social-democratic party and I doubt very much if there was much 'socialist' in its last election manifesto.


Well, I remember being impressed by their manifesto in 2008, but having just moved from the UK anything would have looked better than what New Labour were dishing up. 

Since this thread is about the forthcoming local elections, I would say there is definitely a clear political difference between the parties here. And there is a lively local interest, people do talk politics in the bars, not just about their own interests, but about political principles. That might just be our town though, it is the birthplace of several eminent politicians and half the population are related to them.

So tell me, are you supporting your PSOE mayor purely because he is not corrupt and is supporting ADANA? Not because of his politics?


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Alcalaina said:


> So tell me, are you supporting your PSOE mayor purely because he is not corrupt and is supporting ADANA? Not because of his politics?


Deviating slightly, thats an interesting point and one that always bothers me re our "democratic" societies!! Do people vote for what they think is best for the good of the country or do they vote for what is best for themselves??? The other problem with democracy is that plans can only ever be short term - for the duration of office. Surely straightening out huge problems takes longer than 5 years and needs a long term plan, which no party is in a position to offer????

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> So tell me, are you supporting your PSOE mayor purely because he is not corrupt and is supporting ADANA? Not because of his politics?


I'm supporting him for both reasons. He is manifestly dedicated to rooting out corruption wherever he finds it as proved by his actions but he also has put forward sound plans for regenerating the local economy by focused and costed spending.
His principles are fairness coupled with what works. Nothing specifically 'socialist' or ideological in his programme.
He has been a good manager who recognises that before any money is spent on social projects it has to be received as income from local business and regional/national sources which in turn rely on revenue generated in the first place by private enterprise. He has wisely used money from various sources to instigate several projects that have benefited the town and its dependent villages such as new educational and sports facilities, repairs to infrastructure, repayment of tax and social security debts run up by previous administrations so as to qualify for regional and national government grants, support for local businesses and although I'll believe it when it happens, has promised repairs to start next week to the track to our perrera that we've been pressing for for the past couple of years.
No hint of red flags or busts of Lenin, thank goodness (revived memories of Islington Town Hall in the '80s where Group Leader Margaret Hodge was responsible for the display of both of these dreadful artefacts which to my mind represent not freedom but the oppression and murder of millions of working-class people the world over).
I've met the other contenders for the post of Alcalde. One is quite clearly an also-ran. The other PP candidate has spoken of the 'alleged crimes of the Franco era' and there is evidence to show he is somewhat economical avec la verite in matters relating to the governance of his own town hall. I wouldn't support him anyway even if he were squeaky clean as I don't do parties of the clueless right any more than the doctrinaire left.
Our current Mayor is a practical man with a sense of fair play and decency. What more can you ask of a politician in these times?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> Deviating slightly, thats an interesting point and one that always bothers me re our "democratic" societies!! Do people vote for what they think is best for the good of the country or do they vote for what is best for themselves??? The other problem with democracy is that plans can only ever be short term - for the duration of office. Surely straightening out huge problems takes longer than 5 years and needs a long term plan, which no party is in a position to offer????
> 
> Jo xxx


Most people vote for what they perceive as their own good, as has been shown by many voter surveys, and thank goodness that they do.
To vote for the good of your country....what does that mean, precisely? For the good of the Queen? This is an empty concept that is usually trotted out to justify sending people to fight pointless wars or to rob the poorest to keep the rich in business.
When we were in business and I was earning well as an education professional we were strong supporters, both of us, of the Labour Party - apart from its descent into lunacy under that very nice man but hopeless politician Michael Foot.
People told us we were working against our interests. Our reply was that no, quite the opposite since our livelihood and that of our workers depended on a strong, growing economy, money in customers' pockets so they could afford our services and sound infrastructure which we did not believe that Conservative policies would provide. We got all that and more under New Labour which is mainly why we were able to retire early and wander around Europe.
Of course plans can never be more than short or medium term. Governments quite rightly have a limited lifespan. No one Party owns the future.
Again, thankfully. One-party rule of any hue leads to complacency and often corruption.


----------



## JoCatalunya (Mar 16, 2011)

So far I have no idea who is standing for election as our Alcalde, the present one is hoping to keep her job obviously, but seeing as no one is seemingly standing against her from what we can see, it seems a done deal.


----------

