Logo Image
return to the previous page

 

 

 

 

report offensive content
click to view site banner advert 2

click to view site banner advert 3

 

text version

 

 

Homepage

bookmark this website print this page    


   

BROCANTE AND OTHER NONSENSE

A picture for WHITE ELEPHANT RUNS AMOK IN TISBURY

BROCANTE AND OTHER NONSENSE. Well what of the Great Tisbury Brocante. Tisbury Parish Councillors, with the encouragement of the Tisbury Business Asscn. has agreed to allocate some £2,500 of our money to this venture and has been promised subject to conditions a grant £1,900 by Western Area of the County. That of course is your money too. Tisbury PC has specifically added that £2,500 to its precept for next year, so set aside a little extra cash to pay your share of this £4,400 on your forthcoming Community Charge Bill. The PC had first requested a whole lot more money from the County. It may so be that The Tisbury Business Asscn. Wishes to mount this BROCANTE, and if they do lets hope all enjoy it, but speaking personally I have no wish to pay for it, nor can I imagine why any Parish Councillor has agreed to finance such a White Elephant.

WHAT THEN OF THE PARISH COUNCIL ?

Elections are dispiriting for all candidates who offer their services, rather than just for those whom the electorate fails to elect. On Thursday 2nd. May 2013, only 648 of our 1724 Electorate Voted for our eleven Tisbury Parish Councillors. A 37.59% turn-out is regarded a good one for a Parish Council Election. However it follows that 62.41% of the Electorate didnít involve itself in the Election. There is no telling why it didnít , nor how it might have voted had it done so. Hopefully it wasnít because any thought a Parish Council irrelevant to their life style. If they did, the Electorate couldnít be more wrong.

What bemuses me are the 648 who actually voted, who could have cast all of (648 X 11) 7128 votes between them but didnít, for only 3953 votes were cast, these shared between thirteen candidates. If one subtracts from that figure the 416 votes given to the unsuccessful candidates, then the duly elected Parish Councillors shared but 3537 votes between them, which if averaged would give an expectancy of circa 321 votes each. { 3537 divided by 11} As many as five of our elected Parish Councillors exceeded that figure whilst all the rest, for which ever reason didnít make it.

However had all of those 7128 votes been cast, then by the same maths each elected Councillor might have expected to receive, give or take 610 votes , but none got anywhere near that figure, for seemingly 49.62% of those who actually took part in the election decided not to use all the 11 votes each had available. There are only two explanations for that which come to mind, the more likely being that, as in all elections one enhances the worth of those one favours, by not voting to fill all the seats that need to be filled. As things stand there is no reason that one shouldnít so do . That is but one deficiency in our voting system.

Is it surprising that that 62.41% of the Tisbury Electorate just doesnít want to know? JBP 26/02/2015.

contact : JOHN B. POPE