Stoke-on-Trent

[Neil M]

I know someone who swears by the Star and the Sun on the grounds that they give him bitesize chunks of easily digestible news that he can flick through and then look up on t'internet if he wants to read more.

[JimPage]

I never noticed any news at all in the Daily Star - perhaps I should look again!

My thoughts exactly, but was actually a fairly in depth article by Star standards- in a paper which has a circulation of double of the Guardian- and, probably, read on the whole by white working class men- the BNPs core vote

[Simon Cooke]

I never said there wasn't any news in the Star just that I hadn't noticed any

[Do Gooder]

The situation in Stoke-on-Trent has taken another turn with the announcement by the City Council Chief Executive that he is resigning to take up a position in the new West Cheshire & Chester Uniatry Authority.  This is forcing Stoke on Trent City Council to appoint an interim CE whilst it looks for a more permanent posting.  It means that since the beginning of 2006, the City Council will be on to its fifth Chief Executive (in one capacity or another) by the time they get around to making a new permanent appointment.  All this takes place as the City Council is processing changes to its management structure and altering the composition of the Council itself.

They Council has agreed to reduce the number of councillors from 3 per ward (60) to two per ward (40), and is yet to determine whether it wants to hold a referendum on changing back to a Leader and Cabinet or changing to a Mayor and Cabinet model.

It is working to a programme of having everything in place by 2011, so losing the CE now is a tad inconvenient to say the least!

[erlend]

This agrement to change the size of the council. Is this a proposal to the Electoral Commission's Boundary Commttee? It is not within the remit of a council to change it's own size.

[Do Gooder]

Yes indeed, but Stoke-on-Trent travels is fairly unchartered waters these days!  The Secretary of State asked the City Council (prior to an optional Mayoral referendum) to hold a wide ranging consultation on what might be the options for a way forward in terms of management structure and composition of the City Council itself.  To this end a Governance Commission was set up (see earlier posts) and, amongst other proposals, it suggested a move away from election by thirds to all-out elections every four years and a reduction from sixty councillors (three per ward at present) to single member wards totalling possibly twenty.

The City Council last month finally decided on this and opted for forty Councillors (two per ward) to be elected in all-out elections in 2010.  This decision has avoided the need for a lengthy boundary review of the wards.

Quite a few other issues remain unresolved.  The government's White Paper on local government made special mention of Stoke-on-Trent because it was the only local authority in England that was operating with an Elected Mayor and Council Manager model.  It has now decided that this model will be withdrawn from any future consideration in mayoral referenda, but Stoke-on-Trent needs to decide what type of system it will use from 2011 because of this.  There are a number of options, but the two most discussed models under consideration are Mayor and Cabinet and Leader and Cabinet.

Whether the Council will decide on another referendum; will make the change themselves or whether the government will intervene itself remains to be seen.  And how the transition progresses will be interesting too.

I think that the events in Stoke on Trent with its Mayor and City Council are as fascinating as they are unique.  Watch this space!

[DBIV]

The Electoral Commission normally listens to local opinion and goes along with a consensus on council size. Hammersmith and Fulham reduced significantly in size in the 2002 changes after all the parties agreed to it.

[Zoe]

The Electoral Commission normally listens to local opinion and goes along with a consensus on council size. Hammersmith and Fulham reduced significantly in size in the 2002 changes after all the parties agreed to it.

Not quite true.

[erlend]

I had missed the fact that SoT was p for review. DBIV suggests that the EC listens to consensus and normally follows it. In my experience and reading that is only if there is a wish to cut the no of cllrs. They are often quite strongly against increased size. An exception in my experiece was Devon CC.

[Iain Lindley]

Why is Stoke so special as to require a Governance Commission?

[Simon Cooke]

Why is Stoke so special as to require a Governance Commission?

Is it becuase the labour Party keeps losing here and odd parties and nazis keep winning seats?

[erlend]

Stoke seems to be the curent equivalent of pre 94 Lameth or Brent in the 80s. Hackney for a period seemed to be going down the same road although it appears to have retreated to moderately crap.

I feel it to be a bit of an abuse to change an electoral system just because unacceptable people (BNP) are elected. If a seat one day elects one to Parliament will we abolish elections to that?

[Do Gooder]

The outside perception is probably that Stoke-on-Trent City Council is indeed moderately crap.  Erland mentions Lambeth, it was this year that both Lambeth and Stoke-on-Trent Council moved up from a one star rating to three star.  This has been achieved by the Elected Mayor (Mark Meredith) sorting out a few of the problems which the councillors previously failed to address.  Only three years ago, the City Council was heading for a £12 million 'black hole'.  As a result of some pretty swinging cuts to the service and the staffing, this has now been eradicated, although staff cuts continue even now.  The Mayor has also got the Housing Benefit system working properly.  Previously the average wait for a claimant between lodging a claim and receiving benefit was 119 days (which must cause difficulty for those in private rented accommodation) to just 19 days.  So if the perception is that the City Council is making only slow progress, if any, then that may be a bit unfair.

Perhaps it was precisely these kind of logjam problems that the government had in mind when it proposed having Elected Mayors in the first place.  Certainly there was a local perception that the City Council being run by a Leader and Cabinet, was no more than an incompetent, money wasting, talking shop.  This was the reason that the 2002 referendum result in a 58% 'Yes' vote, and is still the main weakness in the campaign to restore the Councillors' status to direct decision making.

The outside perception of 'odd parties and nazis' winning seats is not entirely shared by people in North Staffordshire.  The BNP advance is still only localised and there is evidence that where they win initially, they are not able to sustain this, but it is still early days.

I don't think there is a party political agenda at work in proposing to change the management structure of the City Council.  There is broad agreement that the present model is not suitable.  If the City goes back to the Leader and Cabinet model, then obviously FPTP will be used to elect them all.  If the City changes to Mayor and Cabinet model, then the previous voting method for electing the Mayor will be used (Alternative Vote?).  I'm not sure that an extremist candidate with either voting system will have anything like the necessary City-wide support to be elected - depends on timing and turnout.

[Neil M]

An exception in my experiece was Devon CC.

And look where that has led us too...

[tonygreaves]

single member seats are easier for the BNP to win and they were never going to get the mayor under the funny proportional system used in England for these election.

The system of election for elected mayors in England is not proportional (it cannot be proportional for one seat whatever the system), neither is it the alternative vote. It is the "supplementary vote", a system dreamed up by Labour policy wonks who seem to have had little understanding of elections and an aversion to voting by numbers!

People are asked to vote for a first choice (with an X) and a second choice (with an X). If no-one has 50% of the first prefs, the top two candidates (only) stay in the race and the second prefs are redistributed to them - but obviously only those for either of the two candidates still in.

The effect of this is that a lot of second prefs are wasted since the candidates have been eliminated before any transfers take place. Also some people vote for the same candidate for first and second prefs so their second pref is invalid.

It's a completely crap system and I am waging an occasional campaign against it (though apart from the ERS no-one else seems very bothered). One of the problems is that the full pattern of voting is not always published and available so proving the nonsenses is not always easy.

Tony Greaves