Peter Kent-Baguley

8 years on from Local Government Act 2000 which introduced the executive structure for local councils and partiuclarly the alien notion of elected mayors ONLY 12 elected mayors have appeared across England. Now there will be 11 as from May 2009 following the voters' decision in Stoke-on-Trent to be rid of the elected mayor system   

Frank Branston, Bedford BC Independent

Martin Winter, Doncaster MBC
Labour

Stuart Drummond, Hartlepool BC
Independent

Jules Pipe, LB Hackney
Labour

Steve Bullock, LB Lewisham
Labour

Sir Robin Wales, LB Newham
Labour

Tony Eggington, Mansfield DC
Independent

Ray Mallon, Middlesbrough Council
Independent

John Harrison, North Tyneside MBC
Labour

Mark Meredith, Stoke-on-Trent CC
Labour

Nicholas Bye, Torbay
Conservative

Dorothy Thornhill, Watford BC
Liberal Democrat

Government's flag-ship elected mayor system rejected

Stoke-on-Trent's controversial elected mayor system has been rejected by the 19.23% of the electorate that voted in yesterday's referendum. This morning's count revealed that of the 186,698 eligible voters, 21,231 voted to end the elected mayor system and return to a leader and cabinet model while 14,592 voted to retain the elected mayor sytem.

Fortunately, there was no show of triumphalism. The success of the Democracy4Stoke campaign to rid the City of the elected mayor system now presents the 60 councillors with a major challenge. But contrary to the mayor supporters who now predict doom and gloom for the city, I am confident that the leader and cabinet system which takes effect next May will revitalise open, honest debate, enable the widest possible cross-party involvement and enhance transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of the council decision making processes.

In the meantime, Labour elected mayor Mark Meredith will hopefully demonstrate a willingness to ebrace a transitional form of governance. He has always maintained, as have his so-called coalition cabinet of 10 advisers (embracing Labour, Tory and Lib Dem) that he is acting in the best interests of the City. Meredith's weakness was that he failed to appreciate that there are different valid views of what is best. He invariably interpreted difference as opposition and indeed formalised the "us" and "them" approach amongst the Council Members. That has to change, and before next May.

Mayor Meredith should not even contemplate pressing ahead with some deeply divisive and unpopular programmes, an oustanding example of which is the schools restructure BSF programme. He cannot claim to have a mandate for such policies. His term of office, it is true, in law extends until next May. His mandate expired at lunch time today.

»9:41 PM    »1 comments (0 )     »6 TrackBack(s)     »Send entry    

   in: NEWS

Am I bovard? Well, were you? 

The first referendum on the elected mayor issue in the City was held just over six years ago, on Thursday 2nd May 2002. I wrote in an article for Newchapel News: "However busy, bored or bothered you may be on 2nd May make time to vote." I have an impression that the turnout at today's second referendum on the issue will struggle to reach 20%. The London Borough of Lewisham voted in the elected mayor system by the slender margin of 2%; 51% in favour, 49% against BUT on a turnout of only 18%.

That was an unfortunately low democratic mandate, but without compulsory voting, people may exercise their choice by not voting. If tomorrow morning's count at Stoke Town Hall reveals a low turnout for today's referendum, it should generate a great deal of discussion about the state of democracy in the city. 

In the previous issue of the community magazine in an article I called Local Democracy: rhetoric and reality, I wrote:

"Do people want to devote time to debate or are they only concerned with what they want, and to be able to get it on demand, off the shelf, like goods at the supermarket? If that is the case, have we not abdicated any desire to influence the kind of community we live in? Are we saying, we do not need local councils to deal with essential services such as planning, housing, education, and social services? Do we want services provided by commercial profit making companies, with often massive public subsidies? Unless such  questions are addressed, a referendum for an elected mayor is at best, an irrelevant side-show."

Local democratic control of those four key public services, planning, housing, education and social services has declined markedly since I wrote that in February 2002. Profit-making companies are grabbing an ever bigger chunk of the City's public services for themselves and most of what is still nominally left within the council are governed by government-dictated policies.

Who knows, within another six years, democracy may have melted away even more with us being little more than prisoners of international profit-making bureacracies. During recent months we have experienced the awful reality of that scenario with a relatively small elite of money-makers accumulating fortunes, with democratic governments seemingly powerless to intervene...until the big crash...when predictably the fallen but still vastly rich manipulators are bailed out by governments, which in reality of course means you and me, our taxes!

Democracy is far from being a hardy perennial. Without constant feeding it dies. We have to find ways of re-engaging with people, re-invigorating their desire to be active citizens and thus re-taking control of our communities. 

Sentinel's shameful scare-mongering

The local daily paper's headline today reads:

REVEALED: If you decide to vote "YES" in the mayoral referendum tomorrow, the BNP could soon be leading YOUR council.

Illustrating the story right across the page is a picture of some of the BNP councillors with the BNP national leader, Nick Griffin. The story claims: "In an anonymous survey, The Sentinel asked every member who they would choose as council leader." Anonymous? Strange use of the word since the supposedly anonymous survey was a topic of conversation amongst most if not all councillors! And, though it may not have crossed the collective mind of those running The Sentinel's extremely biased, pro NO referendum campaign, The Sentinel was the last source to which the majority of councillors would confide their real thoughts on the issue of leader! So, given the councillors' reticence, not surprisingly the BNP leader emerges the front runner with a tally of 8 supporters, presumably all of his BNP colleagues.

The Sentinel well knows that there is not the slightest possibility of the 51 other councillors ever voting for a BNP councillor to be the leader of the council.

The Sentinel also well knows that if the referendum produces a majority of NO votes, there is every possibility that a BNP candidate would be elected in next May's elected mayor election.

The Sentinel's sly and shameful scam has turned reality on its head.

The stench of having sunk to the sewer of stitching up stories so shamefully will pervade the paper for a very long time.  

Were it merely an in-house magazine, it may have been a bit of a laugh, to be followed by something equally gutter press-ish from the opposing camp. But it isn't an in-house magazine or student rag but claims to be a serious daily newspaper. This kind of squalid journalism has done nothing to enhance the reputation of the paper. Like so many of the business people who make their money in Stoke-on-Trent, the editor lives well away from our city. Perhaps he could make that a permanent arrangement and perhaps the owners could consider installing an editor charged with upholding the highest standards of journalism and to try to rebuild confidence with the people of the city. After all, fewer than half of the households across the City see The Sentinel and that proportion continues to decline.

Unfortunately, its squalid, sordid, sniping at the YES campaign which advocate the quite sensible system of the councillors electing the leader of the council has unsettled some elderly readers. I know, because my telephone has been busy this evening. The supporters of the mayor system never mention that the prime minister is not elected by all of the electorate! Of course, business people are lining up in support of the elected mayor under the guise of strong leadership! More wishful thinking than so-called hard-headed business sense, since the past two elected mayors during the last six years have not demonstrated leadership, strong or otherwise!

Neither have had the remotest influence on the ever changing bureaucratic structure of the council and have singularly failed to enhance decision making processes, failed to enhance transparency of decision making and failed to be honest about most of the controversial issues such as the high schools' re-organisation, closure of elderly people's homes, withdrawal of council-run pre-school nursery provision, the sale of the council's stake in the Britainnia football stadium, privatisation fronted by a so-called strategic partnership, and much more, all compounded by endless spin, recycled stories and more spin.   

It is time that The Sentinel acted like a proper, mature newspaper, and thought more about its responsibilties to democracy and less about its rights for making profits through cheap journalism.

pitsnpots linked

http://pitsnpots.blogspot.com is the new link I have added in "my favourites" box. It is a dynamic blog site designed to foster broad-ranging political debate in Stoke-on-Trent. Anything that tries to do that deserves all the support it can get. It certainly attracts a broad range of comments, several barely politically literate, or literate for that matter, steeped in intemperate raving rather than reasoned response.

Transparency dribbles out just in time for the referendum

In June 2007 Full Council, misguidedly in my view, voted in favour of selling the Council's share in the Britannia stadium, home of Stoke City football club,  for a mere £4.5m cash plus £0.5m to be devoted to "community benefits". At no time was there the slightest hint that the cash would not be paid in full immediately the deal was signed. No hint in the officer's report to Full Council; no hint in any verbal clarifications and justifications from various officers; no hint from the Elected Mayor nor from any of his so-called cabinet members.

A year later, rumours develop to suggest that in fact the full payment has not been received but that payment would be extended over three years. A search of all Executive meetings since June 2007 has revealed no reference to the deal. The decision of Full Council, however, has certainly been corrupted by stealth through secrecy, so typical of this Labour elected mayor system in the City.

Today, finally, all is made clear. The man himself responsible for the extended payment admitted his role in the sorry, sordid saga. So-called cabinet member Cllr Roger Ibbs, leader of the Tory group, if not the Labour-Tory-Lib Dem coalition which has kept the lame duck elected mayor afloat, revealed today that he did in fact sign the legal agreement which allowed the extended payment, interest free.

Cllr Ibbs expressed surprise that the agreement in fact approved the extended payment! Why? After all, he had signed the agreement so surely he had read it before approving it? Well, er no, in fact he hadn't read it he said since it was "this thick" gesturing that the document consisted of more than one page. Self-justificaton reached towards the fact that, apparently, neither the legal officer nor the then Council Manager / Chief Executive Officer, Steve Robinson, explained what the agreement contained!

So, a responsible Councillor, member of the so-called cabinet that carries a £9,000 a year allowance, would have us believe that is how he exercises that responsibility. If we believe that explanation, then I am sure many a member of the Council Tax public will be more than a little perturbed; if we choose not to believe the explanation, we would surely be implying the councillor's denial of the truth. I for one would not wish to suggest that.

We are left, therefore, with the extremely worrying fact that a councillor in a senior position failed to exercise due care and attention in the performance of a highly important part of his responsibilities.

We are also left with the worrying fact that if Cllr Ibbs did not know at the time he approved the deal that it granted a three year payment period, then who did know? Even more to the point, who introduced the idea?

This is but one example of the absence of transparency associated with the elected mayor system. It has bred a sickness at the core of the council, a sickness with a cavalier attitude towards open, honest, democratic processes. The sooner it is consigned to history the better.

Labour group betrays the people yet again

Predictably, though perhaps not had 5 of the City Independents attended, Full Council on Thursday reaffirmed the insane commitment to the deeply divisive imposition of 5 academies on Stoke-on-Trent. My censure amendment lost by a couple of votes because of course Labour supported by the cobbled coalition Tories and Lib Dems blindly voted to support academies. They have never attempted to justify the policy. Nor have the officers of the private profit-making SERCO company sent in by government to run our Children & Young People's Services Directorate. They know they haven't got an argument so silence is all they can hide behind. Running for six hours, it was my longest Full Council meeting though the "father of the chamber" recalled one that lasted eight hours.

The opposition to the imposition of academies will not only continue but it will intensify. Sponsors should be under no illusions. They will not be welcome in Stoke-on-Trent if the 23rd October referendum kicks out the hated elected dictator system in the form of the elected mayor.

I'm on late summer leave now for a week until Monday 13th October.