Peter Kent-Baguley

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

News that MPs in their debate on the Bill on Wednesday 24th October agreed with the Lords' rejection of one of the three proposed Executive arrangements for Local Councils, has not become generally known. The demise of the "whole elected Executive" option now leaves local authorities with a choice of two systems: EITHER a directly elected mayor OR a Council leader, elected by Full Council. Whether or not it matters much which of those prevails may be of relatively little importance. Why? Because BOTH are invested with TOTAL executive authority; BOTH delegate that authority in whatever way they wish; BOTH have a Cabinet of a maximum of 9. Interestingly, a number of MPs lamented the absence of the option of a reformed or enhanced committee arrangement. It is that system for which the Democracy4Stoke movement campaigns. The Blair-Brown Labour consensus blindly believe the more centralised, authoritarian system is MORE efficient, effective and transparent. What a joke! The government still maintain that a directly elected mayor increases accountability, makes clear where decisions are made. Really? Where is the evidence?    

19th June 2007 

It will be six months after Councillors all-but unanimously rejected the setting up of a DEMOCRACY COMMISSION when City Council Manager, Steve Robinson, presents a Report to the Full Council meeting on 4th August 2007 recommending that Councillors approve the establishment of a DEMOCRACY COMMISSION. I have been pressing for this since December last year. Earlier this year, at Full Council on 1st February, I withdrew my motion proposing the estabishment of a Democracy Commission in the face of total opposition from around the Chamber. Now, apparently, the Conservative-Labour coalition on the City Council have at long last reluctantly come round to the idea of voting for it. Perhaps, however, for no better reason than they now know that the government will impose a Democracy Commission so we might as well appear to be in favour! The spin on that will be nauseating to witness. 

Earlier this year in my blog entry for 22nd January I wrote|:

It is absolutely essential that the various options for a new system of local government in our City are set out clearly and objectively. If there were to be the slightest whiff of party political bias or councillor self-interest, the process would not command the respect and support of the voters.

A Democracy Commission, with an independent chairperson with the appropriate experience and expertise will command respect. The Commission's terms of reference would be agreed by Full Council. All individuals and groups that wished to give their views on what they regard as the best way forward for the governance of the City Council would be invited to do so. The Commission would collect and collate all submissions for a Report which would be published and thus made available for all interested indviduals and groups. The Report would subsequently be presented to Full Council for debate and decision.

I can't think of a more open, honest and systematic way to gain the views of all interested parties and to ensure that the public have a clear and comprehensive outline of the suggested system of government for the City, each with their key features, advantages and drawbacks.

What on earth have councillors to fear from such an open and trasparent approach?

Some of my entries have commented on a DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT in relation to particular issues. My aim is to develop a debate in this section of my website to highlight some key issues about local democracy, leading up to this year's City Council elections on THURSDAY 3rd May 2007. Little more than a quarter of all those entitled to vote do in fact cast their vote in the City Council's elections. I think that is unfortunate, particularly given the fact that a great many people campaigned for a great many years for the right of all adults, men and women, to have the right to vote. We should not throw away that right.

I think there are some fundamental reasons, however, why 75% of the electorate do NOT bother to vote in City Council elections, such as:

*     it makes no difference who gets elected/they're all the same/nothing changes.

*     having elections every year for only some Councillors each time is confusing.

*     don't know who are my Councillors/no idea what they do/I didn't get any help from them.

*     the Elected Mayor makes all the decisions so why bother to have Councillors?

*     the Council Manager makes all the decisions so Councillors are a waste of time.

I will start to give my responses to these points next week. Do write in and join in the debate.

»1:16 AM    »2 comments (0 )     »Send entry