Monday, January 07, 2008
MK News last week ran this article:
Lone Labour voice argues against dumping elected mayor option in review of how the city is governed
Milton Keynes Council has thrown out proposals for a publicly elected mayor in favour of a more powerful leader.
Former Labour MP Brian White, now a councillor for StantonburyAt its meeting on Tuesday, December 11, Milton Keynes Council set up a working party to consider possible changes to democratic arrangements in the city.
This follows a Government Bill passed on October 30, which requires all councils to choose to have either an elected mayor and cabinet or enhanced leader and cabinet model.
The council chose to support plans to have an enhanced leader, who is elected by the council and would have the power to appoint his/her cabinet and determine the powers allocated to each councillor.
The cabinet is currently elected by the whole council.
The working party will look into the issue in more detail, as well as considering plans to review ward boundaries, to hold elections every four years instead of every three years out of four and, to review the number of members of the council.
The working party will also ensure that the public can give their views on any proposed changes.
However, Cllr Brian White believes these decisions should be made by the people of Milton Keynes in a referendum, rather than by the council.
"I just don't think it is right that councillors should be making this decision and not the people," he said.
"Councillors won't vote for an elected mayor as they will look after their own, the turkey wouldn't vote for Christmas.
"The people of Milton Keynes should choose who leads them.
"Why are they afraid of democracy?" He added that an elected mayor would provide the strong voice that Milton Keynes needs and, would allow the public and media to more easily hold the council to account if things go wrong.
Council leader, Cllr Isobel McCall said: "Except for one individual nobody supports having an elected mayor as it concentrates far too much power in the hands of one individual." She explained that even though an elected mayor may not be a member of the party with a majority in council, their power is such that they can force all kinds of decisions through.
"We have had several debates in the past but there has never been an appetite for an elected mayor," she said.
She added that the council will be reviewing all electoral arrangements in an attempt to make the system more simple for voters.
Cllr Kevin Wilson added: "The difficulty of having an elected mayor is that they would be super powerful and the potential for division with the elected councillors would be significant, as well as the potential for power being wielded in a heavy handed fashion.
"It would not be possible to replace an elected mayor for four years. There are no recall powers that would be available."
I have to say, I agree with the Council's decision in this regard. No surprise that it was a former Labour MP who will have voted on legislation to create that bohemoth of a beaurocracy and waste of time and effort known as the "London Assembly" that is in favour of a directly elected Mayor.
It does not, in spite of Cllr White's assertion, bring democracy closer to the people, in fact quite the opposite.
Look at the Regional Assemblies. I cannot think of a single purpose that is served by this administration other than to impose Gordon Brown's houses on us. Local planning decisions are taken away from local councils. How is this democractic? Would a mayor be any different? Of course not.
One example of democracy in action is the Wind Farm application. Using the democratic system of checks and balances the decision has been recalled to full council to debate the appointment of an [b]independant[/b] advisor and to set aside the flawed and biased report commissioned from White Young Green. Would this have been achieved if we had a "democractically" elected Mayor with quasi-presidential powers? I doubt it.
So thanks for the opinion Cllr White, but I'd prefer to see a system of Leader and Cabinat, however flawed, as it is a better system than the one being proposed.
The article also talks about boundary changes and all-out elections. I do support this notion. I have said before it is confusing to have 2 councillors or more representing the same Ward, especially when they can (and often are) in different political parties. Take Olney as an example, with 2 councillors, one Conservative and one Lib Dem, but BOTH representing the same town. Surely it would make more sense to have Olney North/South or Olney East/West with only one councillor representing a smaller geographic Ward with an equal population split. If the ratio is 1 councillor to 3000 residents, rtather than have 2 councillors for the same 6000 residents of Olney, splt the Wards so that they have 3000 residents each as a sole charge. It makes more sense than the current system. Equallly the "election in 3rds" or a 3rd of the council's seats being elected each year for 3 years out of 4 and then no elections in the 4th year is confusing. People want to have a system whereby they know who represents them and when they are due for re-election. It is a system that favours the Lib Dems because of the confusion it causes, and they want to keep it!
As I said last year, it is time for a change!
Lone Labour voice argues against dumping elected mayor option in review of how the city is governed
Milton Keynes Council has thrown out proposals for a publicly elected mayor in favour of a more powerful leader.
Former Labour MP Brian White, now a councillor for StantonburyAt its meeting on Tuesday, December 11, Milton Keynes Council set up a working party to consider possible changes to democratic arrangements in the city.
This follows a Government Bill passed on October 30, which requires all councils to choose to have either an elected mayor and cabinet or enhanced leader and cabinet model.
The council chose to support plans to have an enhanced leader, who is elected by the council and would have the power to appoint his/her cabinet and determine the powers allocated to each councillor.
The cabinet is currently elected by the whole council.
The working party will look into the issue in more detail, as well as considering plans to review ward boundaries, to hold elections every four years instead of every three years out of four and, to review the number of members of the council.
The working party will also ensure that the public can give their views on any proposed changes.
However, Cllr Brian White believes these decisions should be made by the people of Milton Keynes in a referendum, rather than by the council.
"I just don't think it is right that councillors should be making this decision and not the people," he said.
"Councillors won't vote for an elected mayor as they will look after their own, the turkey wouldn't vote for Christmas.
"The people of Milton Keynes should choose who leads them.
"Why are they afraid of democracy?" He added that an elected mayor would provide the strong voice that Milton Keynes needs and, would allow the public and media to more easily hold the council to account if things go wrong.
Council leader, Cllr Isobel McCall said: "Except for one individual nobody supports having an elected mayor as it concentrates far too much power in the hands of one individual." She explained that even though an elected mayor may not be a member of the party with a majority in council, their power is such that they can force all kinds of decisions through.
"We have had several debates in the past but there has never been an appetite for an elected mayor," she said.
She added that the council will be reviewing all electoral arrangements in an attempt to make the system more simple for voters.
Cllr Kevin Wilson added: "The difficulty of having an elected mayor is that they would be super powerful and the potential for division with the elected councillors would be significant, as well as the potential for power being wielded in a heavy handed fashion.
"It would not be possible to replace an elected mayor for four years. There are no recall powers that would be available."
I have to say, I agree with the Council's decision in this regard. No surprise that it was a former Labour MP who will have voted on legislation to create that bohemoth of a beaurocracy and waste of time and effort known as the "London Assembly" that is in favour of a directly elected Mayor.
It does not, in spite of Cllr White's assertion, bring democracy closer to the people, in fact quite the opposite.
Look at the Regional Assemblies. I cannot think of a single purpose that is served by this administration other than to impose Gordon Brown's houses on us. Local planning decisions are taken away from local councils. How is this democractic? Would a mayor be any different? Of course not.
One example of democracy in action is the Wind Farm application. Using the democratic system of checks and balances the decision has been recalled to full council to debate the appointment of an [b]independant[/b] advisor and to set aside the flawed and biased report commissioned from White Young Green. Would this have been achieved if we had a "democractically" elected Mayor with quasi-presidential powers? I doubt it.
So thanks for the opinion Cllr White, but I'd prefer to see a system of Leader and Cabinat, however flawed, as it is a better system than the one being proposed.
The article also talks about boundary changes and all-out elections. I do support this notion. I have said before it is confusing to have 2 councillors or more representing the same Ward, especially when they can (and often are) in different political parties. Take Olney as an example, with 2 councillors, one Conservative and one Lib Dem, but BOTH representing the same town. Surely it would make more sense to have Olney North/South or Olney East/West with only one councillor representing a smaller geographic Ward with an equal population split. If the ratio is 1 councillor to 3000 residents, rtather than have 2 councillors for the same 6000 residents of Olney, splt the Wards so that they have 3000 residents each as a sole charge. It makes more sense than the current system. Equallly the "election in 3rds" or a 3rd of the council's seats being elected each year for 3 years out of 4 and then no elections in the 4th year is confusing. People want to have a system whereby they know who represents them and when they are due for re-election. It is a system that favours the Lib Dems because of the confusion it causes, and they want to keep it!
As I said last year, it is time for a change!
# posted by Sherington Tory @ 4:39 PM 
