Reduce number of councillors not size of wards

First published in Letters by

WHILE I agree with Steve Galloway’s belief that we should have council elections each year (Letters, December 18), his suggestion that the wards should be reduced in size is unacceptable.

In these difficult financial times a reduction in the number of councillors would be more acceptable.

I would suggest that the the city should be divided into 21 wards of numerically equal electors, then each year seven would have to stand for re-election.

This would result in a considerable financial saving and be of real benefit to the electorate.

Wilf Arnott, York.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:54am Mon 24 Dec 12

ak7274 says...

While I am extremely disappointed with the set of Councillors we have, One year gives them very little time to do anything in local government. The above suggestion of staggered elections sounds a fairly good argument in that if we the electorate aren't happy with the current crop of never having had a job, but runs a multi million pound City budget. Or I hear what the people are saying, but not listening, can in effect vote out the encumbent party.Unfortunately Mr Galloway's dictatorship would have gone too if that were the case then. And let's be honest, the Tories wouldn't fare much better. Maybe staggering elections would keep them on their toes.
While I am extremely disappointed with the set of Councillors we have, One year gives them very little time to do anything in local government. The above suggestion of staggered elections sounds a fairly good argument in that if we the electorate aren't happy with the current crop of never having had a job, but runs a multi million pound City budget. Or I hear what the people are saying, but not listening, can in effect vote out the encumbent party.Unfortunately Mr Galloway's dictatorship would have gone too if that were the case then. And let's be honest, the Tories wouldn't fare much better. Maybe staggering elections would keep them on their toes. ak7274
  • Score: 0

10:34am Mon 24 Dec 12

cityforthepremier says...

Reduce the number of councillors in the areas where people pay the lowest rate of Council Tax or in areas with high rates of tax exemptions. Therefore you get the amount of representation proportionate to how much you contribute. That would be the fairest way.
Reduce the number of councillors in the areas where people pay the lowest rate of Council Tax or in areas with high rates of tax exemptions. Therefore you get the amount of representation proportionate to how much you contribute. That would be the fairest way. cityforthepremier
  • Score: 0

10:55am Mon 24 Dec 12

ak7274 says...

So because you have a low income, you have less rights to representation?
Sorry for asking a question of you my Lord, but I am doffing my cap as I write this.
Why bother having a council when someone as rich as yourself can dictate policy to the masses?
So because you have a low income, you have less rights to representation? Sorry for asking a question of you my Lord, but I am doffing my cap as I write this. Why bother having a council when someone as rich as yourself can dictate policy to the masses? ak7274
  • Score: 0

11:19am Mon 24 Dec 12

LibDem says...

The Boundary Commission announced a couple of months ago that York would continue to have 47 Councillors.

The existing Councillors will all retire (as planned) in May 2015 and replacements will be elected on new ward boundaries. New boundaries are inevitable because of population shifts over the last 10 years.

What is now being consulted on is whether to introduce more single or two member wards and whether a proportion of the Council should be re-elected each year (rather than the “all out” every 4 years system that we currently have).

It is possible that 25% of Councillors could be up for re-election each year. The ones with the lowest share of the popular vote would retire first until a regular cycle was established. This would have the advantage of preventing dramatic changes in the profile of the Council while ensuring that the electorate was able to give a regular verdict on performance.

It is the system that was in use in York when it was a District Council (until 1995).

Separately there is the option of introducing single member wards.

These would mean that an individual representative was more clearly was identified with a local community. It would mean wards having about 2000 homes (3500 electors).

Generally voter turn out in single member wards at elections is higher than for the 3 member wards which predominate in York at the present time.

Residents have until 10th January to contact the Boundary Commission with their views. Details can be found at http://tinyurl.com/D
emocracy-York
The Boundary Commission announced a couple of months ago that York would continue to have 47 Councillors. The existing Councillors will all retire (as planned) in May 2015 and replacements will be elected on new ward boundaries. New boundaries are inevitable because of population shifts over the last 10 years. What is now being consulted on is whether to introduce more single or two member wards and whether a proportion of the Council should be re-elected each year (rather than the “all out” every 4 years system that we currently have). It is possible that 25% of Councillors could be up for re-election each year. The ones with the lowest share of the popular vote would retire first until a regular cycle was established. This would have the advantage of preventing dramatic changes in the profile of the Council while ensuring that the electorate was able to give a regular verdict on performance. It is the system that was in use in York when it was a District Council (until 1995). Separately there is the option of introducing single member wards. These would mean that an individual representative was more clearly was identified with a local community. It would mean wards having about 2000 homes (3500 electors). Generally voter turn out in single member wards at elections is higher than for the 3 member wards which predominate in York at the present time. Residents have until 10th January to contact the Boundary Commission with their views. Details can be found at http://tinyurl.com/D emocracy-York LibDem
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Mon 24 Dec 12

capt spaulding says...

cityforthepremier wrote:
Reduce the number of councillors in the areas where people pay the lowest rate of Council Tax or in areas with high rates of tax exemptions. Therefore you get the amount of representation proportionate to how much you contribute. That would be the fairest way.
Now that is an interesting point of view. Its got me thinking. Well done.
[quote][p][bold]cityforthepremier[/bold] wrote: Reduce the number of councillors in the areas where people pay the lowest rate of Council Tax or in areas with high rates of tax exemptions. Therefore you get the amount of representation proportionate to how much you contribute. That would be the fairest way.[/p][/quote]Now that is an interesting point of view. Its got me thinking. Well done. capt spaulding
  • Score: 0

9:56pm Mon 24 Dec 12

ak7274 says...

Interesting, but hardly democratic. Just think what would happen if big business tried to influence politics nationally and internationally over the majority. Ooops it already does and look what's happened.

Wonder what Cromwell would have to say about elitism in the 21st century.
Interesting, but hardly democratic. Just think what would happen if big business tried to influence politics nationally and internationally over the majority. Ooops it already does and look what's happened. Wonder what Cromwell would have to say about elitism in the 21st century. ak7274
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Tue 25 Dec 12

Matt_S says...

cityforthepremier wrote:
Reduce the number of councillors in the areas where people pay the lowest rate of Council Tax or in areas with high rates of tax exemptions. Therefore you get the amount of representation proportionate to how much you contribute. That would be the fairest way.
How about representation based on Council Tax as a proportion of one's income?

That way the poorest will get the most representation, as council tax is disproportionately high for low earners.
[quote][p][bold]cityforthepremier[/bold] wrote: Reduce the number of councillors in the areas where people pay the lowest rate of Council Tax or in areas with high rates of tax exemptions. Therefore you get the amount of representation proportionate to how much you contribute. That would be the fairest way.[/p][/quote]How about representation based on Council Tax as a proportion of one's income? That way the poorest will get the most representation, as council tax is disproportionately high for low earners. Matt_S
  • Score: 0

8:58pm Tue 25 Dec 12

Malcolm says...

If there was a switch to annual elections, I'd be worried that the LibDems would never ever get back in again.
If there was a switch to annual elections, I'd be worried that the LibDems would never ever get back in again. Malcolm
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Wed 26 Dec 12

Buzz Light-year says...

cityforthepremier wrote:
Reduce the number of councillors in the areas where people pay the lowest rate of Council Tax or in areas with high rates of tax exemptions. Therefore you get the amount of representation proportionate to how much you contribute. That would be the fairest way.
Unbelievable.
Do people really think like this?
[quote][p][bold]cityforthepremier[/bold] wrote: Reduce the number of councillors in the areas where people pay the lowest rate of Council Tax or in areas with high rates of tax exemptions. Therefore you get the amount of representation proportionate to how much you contribute. That would be the fairest way.[/p][/quote]Unbelievable. Do people really think like this? Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

7:39pm Wed 26 Dec 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
cityforthepremier wrote:
Reduce the number of councillors in the areas where people pay the lowest rate of Council Tax or in areas with high rates of tax exemptions. Therefore you get the amount of representation proportionate to how much you contribute. That would be the fairest way.
Unbelievable.
Do people really think like this?
Yes, but, it is irrelevant, because it will never happen. We have a one person, one vote system,and that is how it will stay.
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cityforthepremier[/bold] wrote: Reduce the number of councillors in the areas where people pay the lowest rate of Council Tax or in areas with high rates of tax exemptions. Therefore you get the amount of representation proportionate to how much you contribute. That would be the fairest way.[/p][/quote]Unbelievable. Do people really think like this?[/p][/quote]Yes, but, it is irrelevant, because it will never happen. We have a one person, one vote system,and that is how it will stay. Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree