Is it right that the council leader up for re-election can control social media in his own ward?
Is it right that the “Councillors News” page continues to pump out electioneering news for the Lib Dems?
Should ownership of the facebook group be declared on Keith House’s register of interests?
Is this right that the candidates can make social media posts without any imprint? I understand candidates are meant to be clear on material they publish during Purdah.
How should the press release from the council, council leader, or candidate differ at election time? Right now it all appears to be unfairly one voice.
Did the Eastleigh local Lib Dem Party breach Purdah rules?
How can I trust this council to be fair when the lines between the Eastleigh Lib Dem ruling party, and the operating council of 25+ years are so blurred?
Who can I take this complaint to after the local authority whom i no longer have faith, have rejected my complaint?
While we seem to be blurring the lines between local and national (unless you’re saying Paul Holmes or Eastleigh Conservatives is embroiled in sleaze), Labour have a leader who many of their supporters have said is a Red Tory and thus they won’t vote for Labour (as a means of protest)
… isn’t all of what @afdy has posted sourced the Internet though?
Those lines are always going to be blurred. Look at PMQs yesterday for an example - a chance to ask Boris a question about a local issue/campaign, yet Conservative MPs (in the interests of clarity, NOT @PaulHolmes88 ) chose to use it as a stage to ask Boris to "back Tory Candidate X for Mayor in the local elections ", which they did at least 5 times.
And while I mention Paul, is it fair that he’s publically backing the Conservatives and is seen out and about with them while being an Eastleigh MP and thus representing all of us?
I dont know the answers to any of the above. But I will say this, politics has never been the epitome of fairness. And, in a world where social media exists, it never will be. One could argue that all posts on Eastleigh Neighbours should also remain politically neutral (as one of the more prominent groups of Eastleigh) but that will be impossible
But - there is guidance from the LGA that states what fairness is, and it’s clearly not followed by the Eastleigh Lib Dems? Isn’t it up to us the people to speak up for what’s wrong? Focus on the bit that’s wrong and fight to get it corrected (without pointing the finger elsewhere?).
I don’t think pointing at tories here, or PMQ’s is helpful (despite them having problems too) - stay focussed and examine the facts at face value.
I don’t think we can just say “oh it’s ok it’s politics”, because that way the conversation will never improve and politics will be forever locked in a downward spiral of reduced engagement and “they’re all the same”. I think we need to hold people accountable for a better level of conversation.
As for Eastleigh Neighbours facebook group - its not possible to tell everyone to stay political neutral! . I’d argue that the Facebook group would become considerably less useful if you tried to stifle peoples views, and more new groups would just be born! Net result - same problem, different group name.
I’d say so because I’ve done my election when National purdah kicks in and so I’m not covered. I’m governed by central government purdah when parliament dissolves.
It’d be wonderful if you transcribed this so I could quote the right section… lol.
Anyway, from this response… the Council seem to be “living in the grey”, so to speak. They’ve disregarded purdah saying it doesn’t apply, and THEN brought in this whole other bit about the EC not having a proper social media policy for England .
So, the grey area I speak of when I say “living in the grey” may be pointing to the fact that social media actually has no real jurisdiction, which seems to form part of the Council’s defence
They definitely shouldn’t have published it via the Echo though. But again, it becomes a case of “who’s watching the watchers?”.
The way forward is to vote. If you need to get this to more people, I hear the Lib Dems have a printer on steroids that can get leaflets to people’s houses quickly
I am definitely not an expert but I think this is about spending public money on things which could reasonably be seen as campaigning
Example 1 - Woodland destruction
The council’s news item on this looks fine to me. Is there something else the council did to promote a candidate or candidates?
Example 2 - Horton Heath Politically Controversial Issue
I had thought the date might exempt this (I think it was before the statement of persons nominated) but the date on the LGA FAQ seems to be earlier than that. This seems like the most suspect example to me.
Example 3 - Allington Lane
If it wasn’t for the wording in that letter, I would personally have said the Allington Lane example was ok. Their usual squabbling might have crossed the line though.
Publish factual information to counteract misleading, controversial or extreme - for example, racist/sexist information. An example might be a media story which is critical of the council, such as a media enquiry claiming that the salaries of all the council’s senior managers have increased by five per cent. If this is not true, a response such as ‘none of the council’s senior management team have received any increase in salary in the last 12 months’ is acceptable. It is perfectly right and proper that the council responds, as long as it is factual.
Example 4 - Hedge End, West End, Botley & Local Facebook Group
I don’t think this has anything to do with the pre-election period but is actually really interesting. I hadn’t even realised that group existed - it’s not the biggest in Hedge End. It looks like he’s “only” a moderator, and I don’t see why he shouldn’t be if he’s open about it.
I can see why it might be nice to mention on a register of interests though. It would be interesting to see if there are any examples of councillors adding that kind of thing- I’ll ask around.
Example 5 - Local Plan Update
Summary
I personally think there is room for improvement and it might be worth taking some of the examples further, but it doesn’t quite seem on the same league as some other examples around.
I really like that some candidates have carried over the imprint to social media but I get the impression that the rules really haven’t kept up with society unfortunately.
Seems fine to me, why shouldn’t he campaign for his party’s candidates? It would be different if he used government resources, like the new Downing Street briefing room, to do it but he hasn’t as far as I’ve seen.
Wow @ACulley good spot! So Eastleigh Borough Council are one of 3 councils that literally helped write the guidance on election fairness!
Agree, i feel they really need to catch up fast! Looking at other local candidates I note the Bishopstoke Independents always post with a clear imprint. Looks like they set the bar.
The published item on the council website looks fine to me. However my point is - when Keith, the leader of the council posts on facebook, is he posting as the leader of the council or as a Lib Dem candidate? Judging by posts i’ve seen so far he posts as the council leader - in which case a voice of the council?
One of the guidelines states: “In general, authorities should not issue any publicity which seeks to influence voters”. Keith as leader of the council clearly shares a picture of Nick, who is up for election front and centre and advertises Nicks electioneering Facebook page. This seems wrong to me as its intention is to influence voters into seeing Nick as electable. The initial approach of Michelle (who is not a candidate) leading communications was correct, but this was flipped when publicity grew on the issue.
It’s the biggest discussion group in Hedge End I think? The others I think are selling only groups which work differently on facebook and are always larger. “only” a moderator? On Facebook a moderator has the same rights as an admin, except they can’t completely commandeer the group and adjust some minor settings which are rarely changed. They still have the same power to ban/mute/close topics/remove content. I’m intrigued if this is considered “Hosting a 3rd party blog/forum”.
Agree but I do think every case should be raised and tackled. One example shouldn’t be diminished just because “there is bigger around”. Small infractions lead to bigger, and bigger! We all need to call it out and nip these things in the bud before they grow.
If he’s posting on Facebook, and not using council resources to do it, I think that’s absolutely fine. The incumbent in any election has a natural advantage… well, unless they’re really bad at the job I guess!
The one I thought you meant has 12k members and seems like the same kind of group to me.
The council aren’t hosting it so from an election point of view I think it’s fine. I do think the register of interests thing is a really interesting question though- still looking into that.
Absolutely, unfortunately recent events have shown that the Electoral Commission is pretty toothless. Btw. have you seen the Fair Vote campaign?
This is a very interesting subject and strangely politically strategic on timing, but I am not nieve to avoid their obvious intentions, any party would take a similar position with the majority and dominance they have. Councillor House has always, in my opinion, been a very strong and dominant person ever since he started his political career on the local parish council many years ago. However whilst acknowledging that there are obviously aspects of the leadership that have happened to the benefit of their party’s political aims there have also been some, albeit small, projects that have benefitted the local people. However, in my opinion, all these things have taken place as a back drop of the major deveopments of massive housing/infrastucture development that are being allowed to take place because of the lack of a “local Plan”. Without a properly developed plan parties have seen this as a source of ample “politics” and blaming others for “non action” whilst all these major/broader issues being lost in a distracting smoke screen of these, lesser important local issues. Like all good politics you have to have an effective oppositition, which is not the case with our local politics. They have their strengths, but thier dominant position has gone to thier head. Strong opposition usually helps to ensure that a wide range of good issues are brought to the political table by a range of parties working for the benefit of the local populations. With out it you get bad legislation, unscrutinised, is allowed to developed for the aims of the dominant party: rather than the group. Current Scotland politics would, in my opinion, be a very good example of dominant politcs being undesirable. Having lived and worked in the area since the early 70s I have seen the decline in the mix of local parties, working for the local interest, and being prepared to be elected on their personal activities in the area rather than the aims and career objectives of a few individuals. So sadly without the return to a much better mix of stronger parties with a range of local initiatives, but also seeking to actively work together in a constructive manner to achieve the broader important issues for the area, we will continue to see this negative blaming culture of politics to the detriment of our long term culture, environment and society as a whole.
Can’t really have an effective opposition with Lib Dems having 34 of the 39 seats. Also, publishing the local Plan early would’ve put to bed all the talk when the Allington sign went up, but the LDs are comfortable to not have a plan it seems
Thank you for the response to this important issue but I think my original comments show what I feel can make “effective” opposition. Sound intellectual people, with integrity, working at a local level for the community but fully aware of the “macro” environment and being able to communicate this and the effects to the local populations in an open / honest “non political” manner that builds trust in the local electorate, thus allowing the electoral system to operate in a fully democratic manner. Which I think would result in the right person being elected, regardless of party politics, with the best track record for the community. It might be a pipe dream but we could learn from history, rather than ignoring it.
Hello Darren.
I quite agree but we have seen similar occasions of this sort of action over recent years, and feel without change we will continue to see them, all the time they can be used as a political smoke screen for the wider issues of the lack of a local Plan. I think the problem is obvious but the solution is not so apparent, or achievable, seeing the current political domination.
I have made the comments as part of a political debate and there would appear to be an element of similaruity of comments. I am not prepared, or consider it appropriate for this forum, to make specific critical comments that could be viewed as personal.
I don’t think it’s aimed at you on a personal level.
We’ve all seen on social media, someone kicks up a storm over something, and the LDs are silent, because they can be with 34 LDs of 39 Cllrs.
No matter how much you, Eastleigh Labour, Paul / Eastleigh Tories, or any of us mere citizens raise points, they can be dismissed with ease (and sometimes rudely so - Look at Mr House’s response to Mr Holmes MP about the Allington sign fiasco).
I think what Michael is trying to say is that, if there was a stronger opposition within EBC, we would have a better Borough overall. Maybe even the local plan would have been finalised sooner (and not when the LDs feel like it)
Another example of unfairness of the Eastleigh Lib Dem’s:
Letter from the Bishopstoke independents reads:
Dear Anne Winstanley
We are writing on behalf of the Bishopstoke and Fair Oak independent group of councillors and candidates to you as agent for Eastleigh Liberal Democrats.
On 8th March at 2pm, a briefing was held for candidates and agents by Eastleigh Borough Council’s election team. You will recall that a number of measures were described that aimed to make the local elections on 6th May as safe as possible given that we are still undergoing the covid19 pandemic.
One of the measures was a request from the Council that candidates and agents do not appoint tellers for these elections. The reasoning was that it was a key measure to help reduce congestion at the entrances & exits to polling stations. It was a clear request that related to community safety.
We have been disappointed to see tellers representing Eastleigh Liberal Democrats telling at polling stations today including the Memorial Hall and St Pauls in Bishopstoke and at the Village Hall on Shorts Road in Fair Oak. Your tellers seem not to have been relayed the request from the Council by yourself and indeed, you have been seen telling at the Memorial Hall.
Eastleigh Borough Council have informed us that they received notification late yesterday afternoon (5th May) that your party had decided to go against their request and undertake telling. Both the decision and timing appear to us to be driven entirely by desire for political advantage.
We are disappointed that your party has opted to prioritise political gain over community safety. Your group’s behaviour in this regard is shameful. We can only hope that if your candidates are successful that they opt to prioritise public health at a higher level than your group’s behaviour today demonstrates.
. I’d argue that the Facebook group would become considerably less useful if you tried to stifle peoples views, and more new groups would just be born! Net result - same problem, different group name. 
