HearFromYourMP

Comments

• Posted by Alex Shaw, 20:02, Thu 23 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  It depends upon what your priorities are. Logically the number of councillors should be determined by how many it takes to properly represent the wishes of the people of Stoke-on-Trent and not the number that the administrators find most convenient.

• Posted by Peter Hayward, 20:52, Thu 23 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Since when has logic had anything to do with the number of directorates? Directorates don't represent people Mp's do.What case will you be putting forward? Let us know .. and then we can participate in an intelliable debate.

  In the absence of any opportunity for a debate...how about 50? why? because that seems to be the average based on the size of the City

• Posted by Edna Mullen, 20:23, Fri 24 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  It seems to me that we are in danger of putting the cart before the horse here. I agree with the thrust of Alex Shaw that we should establish the population of the City and then look nationally at what size Council represents that number of people. It is important that because of some arbitrary reduction in the number of Councillors we do not develop too large Wards (e.g. Euro Regions) where people are not adequately represented, and do not know who their Councillor is. My personal preference would be for 50 or 60 councillors representing more geographically sensible single-member Wards (for example Newstead/Blurton Farm, Hollybush/Heron Cross/Mount Pleasant).

• Posted by d.bailey, 08:13, Sun 26 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  First of all "i do not know" how many counil represent's there are ? that's how much we the public know about how are money's been spent ? and secondly WHEN has a counciller or councillors ask the peaple what "WE WANT" iv "never" seen my counciler i dont even know who he or she is ? thay KNOW how to give themself's a pay rise just as our MP's do. I say we need as "FEW" as it take's [10] we dont get much for ower money as it is. Mr.D.Bailey

• Posted by Alex Shaw, 09:13, Wed 29 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  What Edna says sounds sensible. D.Bailey might also find it easier to know who his/her councilor is if we had smaller wards with a single Councilor.

• Posted by terry reed, 09:58, Wed 29 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I can't help thinking this is a piece of lazy communication with the electorate and agree with D.Bailey. It is impossible for me to give a serious comment to Rob Flello's question because I neither know the boundaries or the demographics covered by existing wards. Furthermore there is no help in his posting to let me know how to find out.

  Presumably this is a cynical exercise in tick box pseudo democracy, and the real decision will be made behind closed doors by a clique of Big Men, for their own political advantage. They will take lack of "serious" feedback as justification to procede because, their electorate are apathetic/ ignorant of government/ (add your own reason).

• Posted by d.bailey, 08:51, Thu 30 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Since i last wrote about boundaries! iv tryed to find out more about this matter [boundaries] i cannot find anything ? it's as i thought Robert Flello [MP] & councilors talk behind closed door's THEN say we let the public now ect. As a voter i must confess & admit im ignorant of goverment working's BUT im in no way daft, iv alway's been a Labour voter but never again since Blar and co. im glad we dont have a Labour council in S-on-T

• Posted by Edna Mullen, 11:49, Thu 30 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Perhaps it would help D Bailey and Terry Reid if the process was explained a little.

  It is not MPs or Councillors who will decide either the number of councillors or the Ward boundaries, it is the Local Government Commission for England, which is an independent body answerable to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

  It is they who have already decided that the way they are going to approach this review is by deciding on how many councillors will make-up Stoke-on-Trent City Council, and then drawing the Ward boundary map to fit that number of councillors.

  I stress again, particularly to D Bailey, that all the City's MPs, the City Council, and the general public, are having to follow the procedures set down by the Local Government Commission, and no decisions are being made behind closed doors.

  When this period of consultation is over, the Commission will publish draft proposals, on which anybody can comment, before they reach a final decision.

  I personally welcome the fact that Robert Flello has not made his mind up in advance, but has used this system to seek the views of his constituents, and I would hope that D Bailey and Terry Reid would also welcome the opportunity to have their thoughts heard.

• Posted by d.bailey, 15:07, Fri 31 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I would like to comment to Edna Mullen [in a nice way], first of all do you honestly think anything to do with Goverment's is independent ? as the saying go's :- you can fool some peaple some of the time BUT not all peaple all of the time. Iv never trusted Goverment,MP's and Counciler's, thay look after themself's "first" then the public second and time has proved that.

• Posted by Edna Mullen, 12:33, Sat 1 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I feel we're straying off-topic here, but yes, D. Bailey I do believe things are independent - if your argument is correct why would political scientists from across the spectrum agree that the Parliamentary Boundary Changes that come into effect at the next General Election will, on paper at least, cost Labour a minimum of 15 seats?

  You have a disappointingly cynical attitude towards politics and politicians that is fuelled by trash publications such as The Sentinel; my experience, which goes back to being ordered by my father to deliver leaflets in the 1945 General Election has proved otherwise to me.

  My family, and my disabled son in particular, have been greatly helped by Stoke South's last three MPs, Jack Ashley, George Stevenson and Robert Flello, and I can assure you that none of them put themselves, or their self-interest, ahead of helping myself and my family.

• Posted by Nicky Davis, 14:32, Sat 1 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  How many councillors should Stoke-on-Trent have?

  This is the question being asked. Although personally I don’t think it is a question that can be easily answered in isolation from the consideration of the election system as a whole. In terms of the workload that councillors deal with, they are in the best position to comment on that, but we ordinary people can still nevertheless think about the question.

  Whilst we are asked not to compare numbers of councillors with other cities, I would like to anyway. Wolverhampton and Dudley are good nearby comparitors with single tier councils and populations essentially equal to Stoke-on-Trent. Wolverhampton has 60 councillors and Dudley has 72. Coventry is another example which whilst a little bigger than Stoke-on-Trent is only served by 54 councillors. On this basis it would seem that 60 councillors for Stoke-on-Trent is at least roughly the right number. Certainly 20-40 councillors as mentioned on page 25 of the Governance Commission’s report (1) seems much too small and indeed in the conclusion on page 34 recommending “a smaller council” no specific number is suggested. They say “we are not proposing a particular council size. Indeed we do not consider it our place to do so.”

  Communities:

  I am a believer in grass roots democracy. On that basis I would start with the people of the city and the communities they live in, communities that exist within geographical boundaries, share areas of similar housing, use local facilities in common and have similar needs. Governance should be determined to work on behalf of the people. From that point I would determine council wards and their boundaries to encompass these communities or groups of them. This to me seems a sensible starting point to determine best governance regardless of which election system is preferred.

  Election system:

  Ward boundaries and size need to be considered in conjunction with choice of election system. It should be noted that councillors voted against a move to whole council elections with the cancellation of the 2010 election, have not since voted on a move to whole council elections with retention of the 2010 election and the government has not yet imposed the Local Government Act 2000 on us to force us to change to whole council elections. As a consequence we still as yet operate a system is election by thirds with wards of 3 councillors.

  I can see advantages and disadvantages in the different election systems, but my favoured system is the current one primarily because it allows the people to exercise their democratic right more frequently, have influence on and representation by more local councillors and allows early voting opportunities for the young. For these reasons I will refer my comments to wards of 3 councillors and leave it to those who prefer other systems to discuss these.

  Electorate:

  Whilst basing wards on natural communities, it seems reasonable if these serve roughly equal numbers of people. There are currently 20 wards (2) in Stoke-on-Trent. Examination of the electorate for 2008 (3) shows a total of 186186 and an average of 9309 per ward.

  In terms of electorate the particularly large wards with electorate greater than 9% above average are Longton North at 14% and Longton South at 10% and the particularly small wards with electorate greater than 9% below average are Berryhill & Hanley East at 16% and Hanley West & Shelton at 11%.

  (Fenton is an average ward. Meir Park & Sandon, East Valley, Tunstall, Trentham & Hanford, Stoke & Trent Vale and Blurton are a little larger than average and Burslem South, Norton & Bradeley, Abbey Green, Hartshill & Penkhull, Northwood & Birches Head, Bentilee & Townsend, Burslem North, Chell & Packmoor and Weston & Meir North are a little smaller.)

  Population:

  Given that the council needs to govern and service the entire population, including in particular the children of the city, it would seem reasonable to base ward sizes on population rather than electorate. However boundary reviews tend to focus on electorate. I suspect this may be because these numbers are easier to accurately source.

  Population figures are available from the 2001 census (4) and give a total population for the city of 240636. This wasn’t a local election year in Stoke-on-Trent. Electorate figures for 2000 and 2002 must exist but I can not find them. So I estimated electorate for 2001 by linear interpolation from electorate figures for 1999 (5) and 2008 (3) (although a linear change is not necessarily a good assumption). I then calculated population to electorate ratios for the different wards and found quite a wide variation from 1.17 for Hanley West & Shelton to 1.41 for Longton South. Assuming these ratios remain constant (not necessarily a good assumption either) I used them to estimate populations for 2008, giving a total of 238808 for the city.

  In terms of estimated population the particularly large wards with population greater than 15% above average are Longton South at 21% and Longton North at 19% and the particularly small wards with population greater than 15% below average are Hanley West & Shelton at 19% and Berryhill & Hanley East at 16%.

  (Fenton, Trentham & Hanford, Bentilee & Townsend and Chell & Packmoor are average wards. Meir Park & Sandon, Tunstall, East Valley and Stoke & Trent Vale are larger than average and Norton & Bradeley, Hartshill & Penkhull, Abbey Green, Weston & Meir North, Northwood & Birches Head, Burslem South, Burslem North and Blurton are smaller.)

  This analysis of population figures is less reliable than the electorate figures but reaches the same main conclusions regarding relative ward size.

  Wards:

  Based primarily on the communities and the geography within Stoke-on-Trent but also considering electorate and population numbers, there is one existing ward that seems both small and geographically diverse, Berryhill & Hanley East ward. Now no offence at all meant to the residents of that ward or their current councillors, but it would seem on the face of it that the Joiner’s Square area could be incorporated into Hanley West & Shelton, Berryhill and the SW side of Dividy Road into Bentilee & Townsend and the Dewsbury Road area into Fenton. As these other wards are not large, this should not cause problems of large numbers.

  I would not however recommend any changes without proper consultation with the residents involved as their views should be paramount. As a strong believer in residents’ associations I think that any boundary changes should retain existing thriving ones.

  As the large Longton wards seem to be contained within sensible geographical boundaries I would not suggest any major changes. In fact most wards make sense geographically, although there is perhaps some scope for boundary changes in the North East quarter of the city.

  In respect of my own ward, Trentham & Hanford, I would like to see the new estate at Trentham Lakes moved in from Blurton, if the residents were happy with this, on the basis that it is within the catchment for Ash Green primary school. I would also like to see the West side of Trentham moved in, but that is beyond the realms of the boundary review and perhaps the residents prefer being part of Stafford Borough.

  Committees:

  The number of councillors should be determined also by consideration of the work required for governance of the city. There are some major roles in terms of council committees (6) that form part of this. The Lord Mayor (1 post) and the leader and cabinet (up to 10 posts) are significant roles. Overview and scrutiny is also an important function. The Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee (15 posts) manages the overview and scrutiny function, allocates work areas to the six overview and scrutiny committees and gives guidance to the overall function. The other overview and scrutiny chairs (6 posts) then also have an important role. Thus 32 key posts are identified. Each of the 6 overview and scrutiny committees have 10 members other than the chair giving 60 posts but perhaps it could be expected for councillors to serve two such posts on average resulting in 30. There is therefore an argument that ~62 councillors are needed for these functions. Alternatively it could be argued that Overview and Scrutiny Management is much like any other overview and scrutiny committee, resulting in the argument that ~55 councillors are needed.

  In practice overview and scrutiny roles vary considerably amongst councillors. One particular councillor serves on 4 overview and scrutiny committees. There are currently 9 councillors who do not take on any of the roles of Lord Mayor, leader and cabinet or any overview and scrutiny committee posts. This is not meant in any way as criticism as there are other hugely important roles outwith these committees. Overview and scrutiny roles are allocated to political groups in a balanced way but I think it is largely left to groups to allocate the roles to individuals.

  There are very many other roles performed by councillors. There are 106 places to be filled on 12 regulatory bodies and 81 places on 38 outside and other bodies. These do not include school governing bodies. Local authority appointed school governors are not always councillors but often they are. I am unable to source a list of school governors to identify how many are councillors. Normally councillors attend open meetings of residents’ associations in their wards. I would be hugely interested to know what residents’ associations exist in the city, but the list on the council’s web site is woefully out of date and despite my requests I have not so far persuaded them to update it.

  Last but by no means least, there is the huge amount of ward work undertaken by councillors on behalf of individuals or groups trying to address important issues of concern in their areas.

  Conclusion:

  My consideration of both wards and council work, coupled with a preference for wards of 3 councillors, leads me to conclude at this stage a preference for a council size of either 57 or 60 councillors.

  Consultation:

  The Boundary Committee of the Electoral Commission will undertake an electoral review (7) of Stoke-on-Trent. The review will look at changes to electoral arrangements; the number of councillors, the number and boundaries of the wards, the number of councillors elected from each ward and the name of each ward.

  The time scale is as follows:

  4/8/09 - 14/09/09: Consultation on number of councillors.

  27/10/09 - 18/1/10: Consultation on electoral arrangements.

  After this, draft recommendations are published. A period of public consultation on the draft recommendations follows, then final recommendations are published by about October 2010.

  Submissions to the consultation on council size can be sent within the dates of the consultation to Tim Bowden: tbowden@electoralcommission.org.uk

  (1) http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=1745707

  (2) http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/document-summary?assetid=7134

  (3) http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=1730203

  (4) http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/council-and-democracy/wards/

  (5) http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/file/0012/7131/stoke-on-trent_6272-5876__E__.pdf

  (6) http://www.moderngov.stoke.gov.uk/mgCalendarMonthView.aspx?GL=1&bcr=1

  (7) http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/48500/Electoral-review-guidance-final-web_28075-20616__E__.pdf

  For further discussions please visit pitsnpots.co.uk

Commenting on this message is now disabled.