Outrage at 2010 election cancellation

Posted on by

By Nicky Davis

I am outraged at the wholly unreasonable cancellation of our 2010 local elections in Stoke-on-Trent, by Local Government Minister John Healey.  This was reported in the Sentinel recently.

Some people prefer the system of election by thirds and some people prefer a move to whole council elections.

If the system of thirds were retained, 2010 would be an election year and we would get to elect a third of councillors.

If we moved to a system of whole council elections following the recommendations and time line in appendix 2 of the governance commission’s report we would elect a third of our councillors in 2010 prior to whole council elections in 2011 as specified in section 34(5)(b) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (c. 28)

It does not matter whether your preference is for elections by thirds or whole council elections.  In either system we should have elections for a third of councillors in 2010. There is no justifiable reason whatever for these elections to be cancelled.

On Sunday 10th May I submitted a petition to the 10 Downing Street web site, demanding the reinstatement of our 2010 local elections.  The petition read:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to reinstate the local elections in Stoke-on-Trent in 2010, which were cancelled by the Local Government Minister.

Under the current system of election by thirds, there should be elections for a third of councillors in Stoke-on-Trent in the year 2010.

Central government have decided to impose a system of whole council elections on Stoke-on-Trent, supposedly following recommendations laid down in the Stoke-on-Trent Governance Commission report.  This report clearly states that there should be elections for a third of councillors in 2010 prior to whole council elections in 2011.

This petition makes no statement with regard to which system should be favoured, but both include 2010 elections.

However the Local Government Minister has cancelled the 2010 elections.  There is no justifiable reason for this action which denies citizens the fundamental right to vote and represents an assault on the cherished principle of democracy.

The Prime Minister should rectify this mistake and reinstate the 2010 elections.

This was today, 14th May, rejected by the ePetitions team on the grounds that an e-petition is not the appropriate channel.  I was referred to the electoral commission.  I have telephoned them asking to register an official complaint.  The person I spoke to did not appear to know how I should do this!  She said she would find out and get back to me.

As I say, I believe the action of the minister John Healey represents an assault on the cherished principle of democracy.  I believe we should fight forcefully to regain our democratic right to these elections.

For those who agree with me, I suggest the following:

1. Â  Write to your MP and ask them to take action:

FLELLOR@parliament.uk
FisherM@parliament.uk
WALLEYJ@parliament.uk

2. Â  Write to John Healey:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/profiles/corporate/johnhealey

His office tell me they have to reply within 15 working days, so if you do not receive a reply, contact them to instigate a complaints procedure, telephone 020 7944 4400.

3. Â  Join me in contacting the electoral commission to complain:

info@electoralcommission.org.uk
Tel: 020 7271 0500

GIVE  US  OUR  2010  ELECTION!

Have Your Say

  • Warren

    Nicky, I’ll do the lot, no problems at all, nd hope on or two others do the same for christ sake. It a surpention of democracey that what it is, most round hear fell the same no matter there politcal stance on other subjects. If wel all pull toether on this one, a get others to do the same, we could make bloody mayhem.

  • Warren

    Sory about the keyborard errrors, its well past my bed time.

  • ian norris

    as post on another thread this was my reply from GOWM, I’ve replied and will post any future info, has anyone else had a reply from anyone ( they are normally the same reply after circulated around all departments )

    Dear Mr Norris

    Thank you for your e-mail of 8th May in which you raised a number of issues relating to the governance of Stoke-on-Trent and in particular the powers that the Secretary of State for CLG has used. I am replying as the lead officer in the Government Office for Stoke-on-Trent.

    “We have read today in local press and websites about your proposal of
    stepping in and forcing all out elections on the residents of the City, I
    would like to bring your attention to the FACT that the Full council Voted
    to keep the Policy Framework of the City Council as votes by one third.”

    The Secretary of State is aware of the results of the Council meeting on 22 January.

    “What special powers will your intervention be under? As it would be in
    breach of the City Constitution in that their request is not within the
    Policy Frame work and as far as I’m aware Councillors Vote on Local policy
    NOT civil servants who are only employed by local councillors to carry out
    their policies.”
    As I stated in the e-mail of 17 February, the Secretary of State used her powers under Part IV, Sections 84-88 of the Local Government Act 2000 to introduce “all out” elections. The Secretary of State can use her powers without reference to any request from a local authority and indeed will often need to do so. If you believe that officers or members of the Council have acted inappropriately there are mechanisms within the Council and local government family to address those concerns.

    “I would appreciate your views on your future intentions if any intervention
    on you behalf would breach the City Councils Constitution.”

    The Constitution of the City explicitly states “Under the Local Government Act 2000″ and therefore admits the primacy of National legislation. The Secretary of State will not do anything which would be outside her powers underwritten by the act. The Secretary of State has no wish to for additional intervention in the City beyond that already announced but reserves her options to do so if service delivery and improvement are at risk.

    The Secretary of State has worked entirely within her powers under the Act. If you believe that she has not acted reasonably then it may be possible to ask for a judicial review of the decision. If you are to go along this route, you may wish to ask for a legal opinion on the likelihood of success.

    Yours Sincerely

    Mike Ramsey
    Stoke Locality Manager
    Government Office for the West Midlands
    0121 352 5348
    mike.ramsey@gowm.gsi.gov.uk

  • k p

    Nicky
    Thanks for the e mail contact, I have registered my formal complaint.

  • Shaun Bennett

    Excellent piece, Nicky. I am writing my E Mails now!!!

  • Nicky

    Wow Ian, this act

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/pdf/ukpga_20000022_en.pdf

    is very sinister indeed. There’s some pretty fascist stuff in there, such as this bit that John Healey/Hazel Blears are using against us. There’s other stuff in there that looks to me like it’s legalising things that an old fashioned sort such as myself might consider as bordering on corruption.

    I had thought I’d worded my email to John Healey rather on the strong side, but actually I was more accurate than I even realised at the time.

    It’s not good to have so much of this legalised. No wonder labour are desperate to cling to power. It might look fine if you’re the one in government but from the other side it looks much worse.

    And from the side of the people of course its much worse. Our democracy is being stolen away from us.

    Brian Ward in his audio on the other blog is quite right. Government are using these powers for political means, not for the benefit of the people.

  • Nicky

    Thanks everyone, I think we need to get a lot of people to protest about this.

    I’ve popped a letter in to the Sentinel which I hope they will print too.

    The government are hypocrites on the subject of following governance commission’s report when they are only following bits they want and ignoring other bits. Also it’s highly political, they are imposing on us but leaving places like Birmingham alone with their thirds system. Why? Well although it’s conservative majority, of 120 councillors (1 vacant) only 3 (respect) are not labour/tory/libdem. It’s because we might go independent led they are messing with us. What an affront to democracy that they can’t accept the councillors we vote in.

    I’ll let you know if I get any sense out of the electoral commission with regard to the complaints procedure.

    The other thing we can do if we get no success with MPs and minister is complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman:

    http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/

    but we must complain to MPs first.

  • Shaun Bennett

    “they are imposing on us but leaving places like Birmingham alone with their thirds system. Why? Well although it’s conservative majority”

    I agree that its entirely political. Let no one say otherwise.

    However, I would point out that whilst Birmingham has the Tories as the largest party it is not a Tory majority but a hung council governed by a Tory-Lib Dem coalition.

  • Nicky

    Shaun,
    Yes fair enough I stand corrected, I was not using ‘majority’ in the correct political sense, just in the largest number sense. I was pretty sure it was a conservative/libdem coalition but could not conclude that for sure from a quick look at the web.

  • Nicky

    The electoral commission have sent my complaint on to the region, so maybe you want to complain there directly:

    midlands@electoralcommission.org.uk

    tel 02476 820086

  • terry turbo

    Excellent post Nicky, right on the head, the people of this area are being forced by a frightened political party to bow to their orders.
    As much as they deny it this is about their losing their stranglehold on the council.
    If their had been an election there would have been a wipeout of Labour councillors.

  • terry turbo

    Will be e-mailing as much as I can.

  • Warren

    Got e-mails off to the 3 local MPs, wll have a think about wording and e-mail the other 2 addresses over the weekend.

  • ian norris

    Good Luck with Electorla Commission (not their Job to get involved see previous reply

    “I am assuming that your contention is that the City Council should hold elections in advance of introducing the new governance model and that is what the wording of the new section 33G requires. That view is clearly not shared by either the City Council or the DCLG and it is not , as I have made clear above, the role of the Commission to express a view in such circumstances. I can only suggest that if you believe that the City Council are acting incorrectly that you take the matter up with the relevant officers at the City Council and or officials at the DCLG.
    Chris Hinde
    Regional Liaison Officer (Midlands)
    The Electoral Commission
    Midlands Office
    No 2 The Oaks
    Westwood Way
    Westwood Business Park
    Coventry CV4 8JB
    Tel: 024 7682 0092
    Fax: 024 7682 0001
    Email: chinde@electoralcommission.org.uk:
    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk
    http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk

  • ian norris

    Dear Mr. Norris,

    Thank you for your email to the Electoral Commission and apologies for the delay in responding.

    The Electoral Commission cannot comment on matters under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 as we are not the relevant body to offer guidance on this act. Please contact the Department for Communities and Local Government who are responsible for this piece of legislation.

    Kind Regards

    Iredia Oboh
    Public Information Officer
    The Electoral Commission
    Trevelyan House
    Great Peter Street
    London SW1P 2HW
    Tel: 020 7271 0592
    Fax: 020 7271 0505
    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk
    http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk

  • ian norris

    This reply from Communities was more encouraging but seems to have been ignored

    Mr Norris

    Section 64 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 inserts new sections into the Local Government Act 2000 to enable local authorities to change their governance arrangements.

    As I am sure you are aware the Mayor and Council Manager form of governance was abolished by the above mentioned Act. Transitional provision has therefore been made for councils operating that model to move off of that form of governance. This is set out in part 2 of schedule 4 – the link you have is to the correct act, scroll down the contents page of the Act towards the bottom, and you will see the link to schedule 4. The Act requires them to pass a resolution to move to a new form of governance by 31 December 2009, and subsequently cease operating the mayor and council manager executive, and start operating the new leader and cabinet executive (England) (which the people of Stoke voted for in the recent referendum) on the day which is expected to be the last day of the relevant mayoral term (this term ceases in 2009).

    33G assumes that a local authority is operating a relevant form of executive. Stoke are of course still operating the abolished Mayor and Council Manager. It is for this reason that transitional provision must be made through schedule 4 to enable Stoke to move. You’ll notice for example that paragraph 5(a) to which you were referring in your previous email relates to a council moving from a mayor and cabinet executive (not mayor and council manager executive) to a leader and cabinet executive (England). 33G can not therefore be sensibly applied. 33G applies to councils making a change under 33A or 33C – again I think this assumes the council is operating a relevant current form of executive.

    As things currently stand Stoke would have an election by thirds in 2010.

    As always this is an informal view rather than any legal statement or advice.

    Johanna Knottley

  • Chris

    Nicky. Where are the EU Election papers counted? Maybe we could do a protest outside the count.

    Great post by the way but i wouldn’t expect anything else from you.

  • Chris

    Tony. Could we please have the petition link put up on the side of pitsnpots home page with the other two.

  • Nicky

    I’m not even sure they are denying it. Rob Flello once said, support labour else you’ll get BNP. Well give us a reason to support labour I thought. And to be fair he gave some of us, in Trentham at least, reason to improve our view of labour and that nice Mr Knight helped. So that on the one hand but on the other hand that not so nice Hazel Blears sending her tanks in – in the form of John Healey to p*ss off the voters of the entire city. I think you’re terribly polite to refer to it as “bow to their orders”. It’s bl**dy fascism that’s what it is! And you get these labourites on tv calling the BNP fascists. Well what they’re doing to our right to vote is way more fascist than anything I’ve ever experienced from any BNP member I’ve ever met. As you know I’m not a BNP voter and really dislike some of their national policies, but labour should really look at how they are behaving to the ‘electorate’ before they criticise others. In any case, we won’t get BNP if we don’t get labour, independents like that decent chap Brian Ward and his group are next in line. In fact this tactic could really backfire on labour. You say if there was an election there would be a wipeout of labour councillors – yes probably but in 2010 only 5 of them at most – Bell, Garner, Knapper, Pervez, Tolley. If we end up not able to vote until 2011 because of labour, that’s the time we can vote in a whole council of non-labour and they could lose all d*amned 16 of them. I should think even some sensible labour supporters would agree we should have the 2010 elections for third for that reason alone. … just felt like a rant.

  • Nicky

    I’m choosing the electoral commission amongst those to contact just because that’s where Downing Street referred me to when they refused to publish me e-petition. But no worries, I’m well versed in this sort of thing now. I’ll just keep documenting the runaround I get and build it up with more and more evidence and they look more and more stupid, so by the time it gets to the ombudsman it’s a strong case running to many pages and many attachments. And hope meantime they see sense and restore democracy for 2010. If not there will be a case to answer.

    Regarding the various acts, I can see their argument re the 33G. I don’t agree with it and think it’s a feeble excuse to deny us one off whole council election on change of system this year. I don’t know why this Iredia Oboh can’t comment on LGPIH Act2007. It’s fairly obvious from that, IF moving to whole council elections (which council most certainly voted NOT to do) we would have these in 2011, with thirds election in 2010 as stated in governance report. What really does it is that 2000 Act. That’ll be I imagine one of those cases where it would’ve been going through parliament and it would have been said the Secretary of State will only use such powers in extreme and rare cases blah blah and then in actual fact she uses it just because she doesn’t like the political colours of the councillors chosen democratically by the good citizens of this city. … still outraged.

  • Nicky

    Chris yes some sort of protest needs to be done somewhere! I’m a bit tired now but I’ll try to think how best to coordinate all those who are thinking of this when I get my brain a bit more in gear.

    I think you maybe missed reading this bit of my blog:

    “This was today, 14th May, rejected by the ePetitions team on the grounds that an e-petition is not the appropriate channel.” !!!

  • Nicky

    My letter to the Sentinel has been published:

    http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/letters/Assault-principle-democracy/article-997834-detail/article.html

    Please add some comments.

    Unfortunately the Sentinel cut it down and left out details on what people can do.

    (My original letter read:

    I am outraged by the cancellation of the 2010 local elections in
    Stoke-on-Trent by Local Government Minister John Healey.

    Whether we retain the system of election by thirds or move to whole
    council elections following the procedure laid down in the Governance
    Commission’s report, BOTH systems include an election for a third of
    councillors in the year 2010. This is clearly stated in the time line in
    appendix 2 of the report which the Government claims to be following.

    There is no justification whatever for the cancellation of the 2010
    election. This action removes our fundamental right to vote and thus
    constitutes an assault on the cherished principle of democracy.

    I urge like minded citizens of Stoke-on-Trent to demand that our 2010
    election is reinstated:
    1. Write to your MP.
    2. Write to John Healey, Minister for Local Government.
    3. Write to the Electoral Commission.
    4. If unsuccessful, take the case to the Parliamentary and
    Health Service Ombudsman.

    I believe it is vital for us to take this stand, for the sake of democracy.)

  • LastHero

    I’m following this issue with interest but feel that there is some confusion as to who ‘Labour’ really is.

    It seems quite clear that the Labour Government and the ‘party machine’ are not the same as the ordinary local Labour Party members in Stoke.

    For instance, I’m told that the Party locally voted against the introduction of academies and also the coalition with the Tories and LibDems – but were overruled.

    Didn’t we have a similar situation with Terry Follows – a previously loyal Tory ?

    And hasn’t LibDem Paul Billington gone quiet lately ?

    My simple question is: how can a democratic party overrule democracy ?
    (Pratchett fans know it could only work in Ankh Morpork.)

    LastHero.

  • Nicky

    That’s an incredibly good question LastHero!

  • Lotto

    I’ve written to local MP’s etc as suggested.
    Not much help there I fear. Has anyone any knowledge of “Unlock Democracy”? their web-site is http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/

    Might be able to provide some support

  • Mark Sherratt

    ian norris: the electoral commision have not made any decision to scrap our 2010 vote, they have recieved the ministers request which will be debated at next meeting. the officer leading the review is sam hartley, get writing

    That would be:

    Ms Sam Hartley Review Manager
    The Electoral Commission
    Trevelyan House
    Great Peter Street
    LONDON SW1P 2HW

    Tel: 0207 271 0691
    Email: shartley@electoralcommission.org.uk

  • ian norris

    thanks for that e-mail address