HearFromYourMP

Comments

• Posted by terry reed, 17:46, Tue 23 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I'm not sure what advantages would come from earlier elections.If there were a tactical advantage, one way or other might best decide it, but I don't have the facts.

  I'd like to float the idea of a social tariff for Internet connection, as part of the government's plan to roll out Broadband to all parts of the county. I think we've reached the point where access for everyone is no longer a luxury and public computers at the local library too restrictive. Children at the library after school can't get enough of being online.They're only there because their parents can't afford a home connection.

• Posted by Dr. Bryan Johnston, 18:15, Tue 23 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I would prefer 2010 myself.

  Thanks very much.

  Bryan (Johnston) 27 Theresa Close HANFORD S-O-T ST4 8QW

• Posted by kenneth lyth, 18:23, Tue 23 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I think they should keep it to 2010 these local election, are better every year.It tell you a lot about the way people vote towards there party [labour off coarse]and also if they voted every two years they would lose more intrest going to the polling stations

• Posted by Alex Shaw, 19:07, Tue 23 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  2010. It's only those councillors who have acted against the interest of their constituents, and know there time is limited, that favour a 2011 local election.

• Posted by david Filcher, 19:22, Tue 23 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Good moce 2010 elections would give a disenfachied elelctrate a chance to elect a new council.

• Posted by Edna Mullen, 19:59, Tue 23 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  2011 definitely. The Council has just adopted a new structure and leadership; this needs to be given the opportunity to prove itself one way or another. Additionally, elections in 2010 could be extremely destabilising, as the current leadership - whether one supports them or not - could be voted out of office, to be replaced by new leadership, all of whom would be up for re-election on new boundaries in 2011, and we could then end up with three different leaderships in three years. This is no way for the City to progress forward.

• Posted by Ruth Victoria Rosenau, 20:19, Tue 23 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I think its time for local councillors to show their worth and make the effort to actually represent their wards. I would prefer 2010,

• Posted by Don Cross, 20:42, Tue 23 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Having lives in Stoke for thirty years, but not originating from the area,I don`t think it will matter when local elections are held. with the arrests of the mayor and chief exec,and the city looking like a post war bomb site,I was in the Hanley bus station to-day,and its hard to take in that it is 2009,I thought I was in a 1950`s film set,the place is a bloody discrace,all the council executives should be replaced.

• Posted by Mark Ellam, 10:00, Wed 24 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  i ditto Edna's response about allowing the new leadership to settle in, so 2011..

• Posted by Lyn Quigley, 13:48, Wed 24 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I would prefer 2010 - we need to get rid of some waste!

• Posted by Malcolm David Willis, 09:40, Fri 26 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I would much prefer 2011. Give the current leadership time to do something as Edna says. The city's problems are long term ones. The more instability there is, the longer it will take. I wish everyone had supported Mike Wolf when they had the chance; we might have been getting somewhere now.

• Posted by John Nightingale, 15:47, Fri 26 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  We have the situation that locally and nationally we have politicians holding positions that they have not been elected to. 2010 is not soon enough!

  John Nightingale

• Posted by david Filcher, 15:22, Sat 27 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  2010 is the only date. we will have some councillors who will serve a 6 year term. Given the city problems and the suggestion of corruption from elected members we need a fresh start.

• Posted by Edna Mullen, 12:08, Sun 28 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Could Mr Filcher explain how Councillors elected in 2010 would serve six year terms? There are undoubtedly going to be boundary changes in 2011, with a possible (maybe probable) reduction in the number of councillors (from 60 to 40), therefore, by law, Whole Council elections (i.e. every council seat) must be contested in 2011.

• Posted by Patricia Ailwood, 18:29, Mon 29 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I would prefer any elections to be held in 2010.

• Posted by Anita Cartlidge, 08:43, Tue 7 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  May as well leave it to 2011 now

• Posted by david Filcher, 07:18, Wed 8 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Edna Mullen thanks for your input. If someone was elected in 05 they would of had a 6 year term. Easy to understand.

  I would like a 2010 election given the suggestion of corruption, but i fully accept 2011 is best now because of the boundary changes. When when are we going to get some dynamic leadership in this city? This city is like a 1950's bomb site and loads of money has been wasted by past councils, we even failed to get EU funding because of gross incompetence by elected officials and our employed council officials. I challenge My elected MP sort this mess out for me as i trust him totally with my vote and i will vote for him next time if he promises to get stuck in in the council reshuffle and improve our lot in this run down godforsaken city. I have lived here for 48 years and i never known the city in such and poor or low sate.

Commenting on this message is now disabled.