Stoke-on-Trent

[timrollpickering]

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!

No I think they knew exactly what they were doing. The idea is to have the benefits of transferable vote to draw back in fringe party votes without the drawback of a third party "preference farming" and consolidating that to displace one of the main two parties. The election has to be fought as a two main candidate battle rather than risk confusing people by suggesting another candidate is viable. It seems almost perfectly designed against third parties, i.e. normally your lot.

The effect of this is that a lot of second prefs are wasted since the candidates have been eliminated before any transfers take place.

That's because it's normally a two horse race and the other candidates are just getting in the way.

Also some people vote for the same candidate for first and second prefs so their second pref is invalid.

Their fault for not reading the instructions perchance? The last Newham election had a single column ballot with clear instructions to use 1 & 2.

[Crimson King]

No I think they knew exactly what they were doing. The idea is to have the benefits of transferable vote to draw back in fringe party votes without the drawback of a third party "preference farming" and consolidating that to displace one of the main two parties. The election has to be fought as a two main candidate battle rather than risk confusing people by suggesting another candidate is viable. It seems almost perfectly designed against third parties, i.e. normally your lot.

And you think that is right? 

[timrollpickering]

I would personally use first past the post. Far more consistent and far less confusing for the voters, especially as Mayoral elections usually coincide with other elections run on clearer principles.

[Do Gooder]

The Stoke Sentinel today reports on the City Council meeting due on Thursday 11 September when it will decide which governance model it wants the Council to proceed with beyond May 2009.  It seems likely that the Councillors will seek to re-claim what they lost in 2002 and vote to change back to a Leader and Cabinet (although this will be accompanied with all-out elections every four years from 2011).  If the City Council adopts this option, there will be a referendum of the 183,000 voters in the City to endorse or reject this proposal.

The interesting aspect of all this is that the Councillors will have to campaign for a 'Yes' vote, whilst the pro-Mayor campaign gets to push for a 'No' vote.  One wonders if, in the current grumpy climate, whether asking people to vote 'No' has more resonance than asking for a 'Yes' vote, especially when the issue at stake is so arcane.

The City Council consultation on the future governance arrangements for the Council has just finished and it appears that some 5,525 people (or 3% of the electorate) returned the forms which were delivered to their households.

The date of the referendum will apparently be either 23 or 30 October, with the latter date being after the clocks have gone back.  One fears that the turnout will suffer if voters are being asked to go and vote on a date when darkness descends before six o'clock.

Nevertheless, this will be the first referendum of its kind in the Country - one that will either see a return to a Councillor run Authority or a re-affirmation of the position of Elected Mayor.  Neither option has been tested by a public vote before and the outcome will be very interesting for those who are interested!

[Iain Lindley]

The date of the referendum will apparently be either 23 or 30 October, with the latter date being after the clocks have gone back.  One fears that the turnout will suffer if voters are being asked to go and vote on a date when darkness descends before six o'clock.

The Greater Manchester TIF poll will be held in the middle of December. Nice.

[Neil M]

Good to see that the pro-charge folk in Manchester are leaving it for ages to grind the opposition into the ground.

What is the chance of Stoke sticking with a mayoral system at a referendum?

[simonk]

Good to see that the pro-charge folk in Manchester are leaving it for ages to grind the opposition into the ground.

What is the chance of Stoke sticking with a mayoral system at a referendum?

Quite low, I should think. It has been an unpopular post since its inception and, while I take the point about a 'no' vote having more negative resonance, a moderately competent 'abolish the mayor' campaign ought to win with some comfort. Of course there aren't that many moderately competent politicians in Stoke so you never know. There's also the implications for national policy, given that both main parties appear to be in favour of more mayors rather than fewer.

[Neil M]

Indeed. Any chance of the first mayor re-emerging from the CAB to campaign to keep the post?

[Do Gooder]

Can't argue wil SimonK's etimate of the current position, but then I couldn't argue with anyone who thinks that the Mayoral post will be retained by the voters.  It is the sheer incompetance and inability to campaign and total inwillingness of the anti-Mayoral people to get on the doorsteps and talk to voters that make the whole thing very difficult to call.  All of these people are already Councillors or political activists of most parties in the City, and it is they, collectively, who were trying to engineer a 'No' vote in 2002.  They are perceived by many voters as the 'established political class' and are viewed as somewhat self serving and campaigning from self interest.  However, the two Mayors (the Labour one especially) have never enjoyed a good press, whether from the local evening newspaper or the BBC radio.

The first Mayor, despite having moved to Manchester, does I think, still consider himself in the frame and may well involve himself in the pro-Mayoral campaign.  The present Mayor will probably prefer to keep a low profile while the referendum argument proceeds - better that the vote is about the governance model than about his popularity.

[Do Gooder]

At the Stoke on Trent City Council meeting last Thursday, the vote on the Referendum options were as follows:  For Leader and Cabinet - 41 votes; for Mayor and Cabinet 7 votes.  There were seven abstentions ( including the Elected Mayor) andsix councillors were absent.  This means that the question will be to invite voters to vote 'Yes' to a change back to Leader and Cabinet or 'No' to change to Mayor and Cabinet.  Yes indeed, some people are already confused!

It has actually got worse over the weekend with the revealation that both the 'Yes' and 'No' campaigns want to call themselves the same name - People's Choice.  It would appear though that the pro-Mayor 'No' campaigners have stolen a march by launching their  campaign straight after the Council meeting on Thursday.  They have apparently lodged this name with the Electoral Commission, published their new logo, and spent Saturday campaigning on the streets with it too. 

Some observers, myself included, are puzzled by the desire of the 'Yes' pro - Leader Campaign to use this name since it was assumed that they already had another one, namely Democracy4Stoke.  Perhaps they feel that the name has become too closely associated with the Stoke Labour Party, since all of their prominent members are either existing or previous Labour councillors.

All this has meant that the campaign has started rather acrimoniously.  Polling Day will be Thursday 23 October, so slightly shorter than first envisaged, but still plenty of time for nerves to become more frayed.

[Neil M]

Democracy4Stoke may confuse people who'd otherwise think it was backed by the first mayor, who I believe was Mayor4Stoke.

[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.

Got round to rereading the final report:

" In formulating our draft recommendations we
noted that there was a lack of consensus regarding
the appropriate number of councillors to serve
on Hammersmith & Fulham Council and the
number and boundaries of wards. Our draft
recommendations were based on a combination of
our own proposals and the schemes submitted.
Our proposals achieved improved electoral
equality, provided good boundaries while having
regard to the statutory criteria and proposed a
mixed pattern of two- and three-member wards."

[Do Gooder]

Democracy4Stoke may confuse people who'd otherwise think it was backed by the first mayor, who I believe was Mayor4Stoke.

Yes, there has been a distinct lack of originality in formulating campaign names ever since the Mayor4Stoke campaign got started.  I do think that the pro - Leader Campaigners need to be fairly nimble on their feet with this and get away from the 'People's Choice' name as quickly as possible.  They are being outflanked on this in the local media and if they persist with it, there is a danger of their continued usage of it being construed as support for the pro - Mayoral campaign.

I can't think of any great suggestions though.  How about People's Voice?  This was used in Blaenau Gwent by the Independents in 2006 with some success - they won two by-elections with it.  Still might cause some confusion though.

[Mark Senior]

   Ipsos Mori have conducted an opinion poll on local government in Stoke . The results are rather contradictory . There are slightly more dissatisfied with the way Stoke is currently governed 41% v 36% satisfied but 57% prefer a council run by an elected mayor rather than a council leader .

[Tucson]

Voting today on whether to keep the elcted mayor,or return to the cllr/cabinet system.

I have seen 3 leaflets from the 'Peoples Choice' campaign, campaigning for a 'no' vote (in order to keep the elected mayor),

and nothing from 'Democracy for Stoke' who are (supposed) to be campaigning for a 'yes' vote.

Last night's Evening Sentinel ran the headline that 'if you vote yes tomorrow,the BNP could be running your city soon',
due to the splintered nature of the polital make-up of the city council.

BTW, the Libertarian Cllr (ex LD ) has been allowed to rejoin the LD group.