The Southend blogosphere (and what a detestable term that is…) is all a twitter about the upcoming debate and vote at the next council meeting whether the borough should switch to electing its councillors all at once or in thirds. As I noted at the end of last week, council leader Nigel Holdcroft has already declared himself for the changes — as well as possibly against democracy.
Now a few more voices have spoken up.
Firstly, the stalwart Cllr Cox has followed his leader’s, erm, lead. Tony wants all-up elections, and makes a pretty sound argument for it on the basis of cost, saying:
“By electing all councillors once every four years it is estimated that it could save £50,000 every year. Whilst I complete accept the concept that you can not put a price on democracy, we elect MP’s and MEP’s once every five years and I do not get a sense from the residents that I speak to that this is undemocratic.”
His estimate of the savings is a little conservative (pun not intended) next to Nigel’s. He also then goes on to (like Nigel) call for a reduction in the number of councillors, making a somewhat spurious comparison with the US Senate (ignoring, seemingly, the US House of Representatives).
James Courtenay, on the other hand, comes out swinging a bit more heavily. His post on the subject reads like a direct attack on opposition councillors. Probably because it is. He does trip over his own feet a little:
“If MPs can be elected for a five-year period, the Mayor of London and the President of the United States for a four-year period, I’m not quite sure why Southend-on-Sea Borough Councillors can’t be elected for a four-year period as well.”
A good point, James, but rather forgetting that councillors are already elected for four-year terms, and this change wouldn’t alter that.
But the unifying theme of all three blogs is that the changes are doomed, and opposition councillors will definitely vote them down. Which seems like news to the only one who I can see has broached the matter; Julian Ware-Lane:
“I can reveal that Labour is still debating its view and so his headline is untrue. It may come to pass that we also reject the change, but this has yet to be agreed”
Now, far be it from this blogger to cast aspersions, but this seems to be a deliberately political manoeuvre. The administration is already trying to portray the multi-party opposition on the wrong side of a vote which hasn’t even happened yet. Expect to see this feature in election campaigns come May.
I haven’t made up my mind on whether or not I support all-up elections, but as things stand I’m sceptical that it would be the per se improvement which Conservative councillors claim. The next council meeting is on 17th October, so there’s still plenty of time for back and forth debate. Who knows, maybe someone will present a convincing argument which will convert me wholesale to one side or the other.
Whilst I am prepared to believe that the Tories are trying to find acceptable savings one cannot get away from the rather convenient timetable for them. This issue has been spoken about privately for more than a year; it could have come to the table far earlier and they could have pressed for a 2014 all-up election. In fact, one or two councillors in private conversations assured me that 2014 would be the chosen date. I think they thought me cynical when I responded with the view that the Tories would opt for 2015. Lo and behold, I have been shown as right.
Arguably all-up elections would not harm Labour – we are one of the beneficiaries of the current voting system. However, Labour is a campaigning party, and four years between elections would see contact with the voters wither.
In truth, the local Tories are an ageing party with a dwindling activist base. They are struggling to compete at the moment and the retreat is accelerating. 2014 will likely see them lose control of the chamber, and it is my view that they see 2015 as a way back in.
The campaigning point is a good one Julian; the thirds system requires active and continuous contact with voters, and I agree that an all-up election may lead that to wither. But surely if it does, those parties who allow it to wither — due to lack of resources, or lack of motivation — will suffer the cost when the four years are up and elections come around?
That said, it would emphasise the casting of votes along party lines, rather than on the basis of how good a councillor a candidate is or will be. I’m not sure that’s a good thing; local politics is ruled by national political trends too much as things stand.
Pingback: The Emperor of Southend | A Mad Man With A Blog