Reduce number of councillors not size of wards

8:55am Monday 24th December 2012 in Letters By Reader's letter

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)

ak7274 says...
9:54am Mon 24 Dec 12

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.

Report this post »

cityforthepremier says...
10:34am Mon 24 Dec 12

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.

Report this post »

ak7274 says...
10:55am Mon 24 Dec 12

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?

Report this post »

LibDem says...
11:19am Mon 24 Dec 12

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

Report this post »

capt spaulding says...
6:25pm Mon 24 Dec 12

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.

Report this post »

ak7274 says...
9:56pm Mon 24 Dec 12

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.

Report this post »

Matt_S says...
12:10pm Tue 25 Dec 12

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.

Report this post »

Malcolm says...
8:58pm Tue 25 Dec 12

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

Report this post »

Buzz Light-year says...
5:13pm Wed 26 Dec 12

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?

Report this post »

Scarlet Pimpernel says...
7:39pm Wed 26 Dec 12

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.

Report this post »

click2find

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