York City Liberal Democrats (PDF)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Submission to Boundary Commission by York Central Liberal Democrats January 2013 City of York Council ward boundary review York Central Liberal Democrats 6 Stirrup Close, Foxwood, YORK YO24 3LU Tel. 01904 794111 Email: [email protected] Web: www.libdemyork.co.uk 1 City of York Council – Proposed boundary changes The following paper presents the views of York Central Liberal Democrats on how ward boundaries should be amended to provide a boost for the democratic process in the City of York. Summary We would like to see the introduction of: Single member wards:- This will improve accountability as one member will be closely identified with a ward which would contain about 3500 electors (2000 homes). Currently some wards have over 6000 homes and are represented by 3 Councillors who – in some cases – have little contract with the area that they are supposed to represent. Annual Elections with 25% of the Council retiring each year: It is argued that this will improve accountability and that electors will be able to giving a rolling verdict on the performance of their representatives. It is likely to counter the tendency for Councils to be insensitive to resident’s views in the early part of a 4 year “all out” term of office. A system involving annual elections was used in York in the period up to 1995. Background Currently the York Council has a mixture of single, two and three member wards. It has “all out” elections every 4 years. About half the authority area is “parished”. It has two parliamentary constituencies which map onto the Authority boundaries. The Boundary Commission has already stated that it sees the new Council, which will be elected in 2015, having (as now) 47 members The need for change. Some change to ward boundaries is inevitable as the electoral numbers in existing wards vary considerably. We see this as an opportunity to address some of the structural failings evident in York’s democratic system. Although turn out at the last local elections in 2011– in common with the rest of the country - was higher then previously (45% up from 42%), this conflicted with what has been a general downward trend over the last 20 years and more. The higher turnout owed something to the increasing numbers voting by post and a lot to the national political picture with electors seeking some way of commenting on the austerity measures introduced by central government. There were radical variances in turn out between different communities. The percentage of electors voting ranged from 35% in the Clifton Ward to 60% in the Derwent Ward. Significantly the highest turnouts were all recorded in single member wards (Derwent 60%, Heworth Without 59%, Fulford 56%, Bishopthorpe 56%, Wheldrake 54% Osbaldwick 51%) The lowest turnouts were all in multi member constituencies. There must be a strong case for change if scarcely 1/3 of the electors in some wards think that it is worth recording a vote in a Council election. 2 Why smaller wards? The responsibilities of a Councillor have changed radically over the last decade. The principal role of a backbench Councillor these days is to act as a spokesperson for their local communities. They are expected to provide leadership and to stimulate community action. To do so successfully they will need to be well known to the people that they represent. They need to consult, take action and report back to constituents. This is made difficult, in the present system, by the sheer size and configuration of many of the 3 member wards. One urban ward in York (Heworth) - border to border - is a journey of 2.4 miles. It can take 15 minutes just to drive from one side to the other. There is no direct bus service. While is some wards this might be countered if local representatives informally agree to concentrate their efforts in a particular geographical area or polling district, such an arrangement is rarely transparent to residents and is unlikely in areas where the Councillor’s political affiliations vary (as is the case in several York three member wards at present). Thus there is a lack of clarity about responsibilities while an emerging trend – where Councillors don’t live in, or particularly near, the ward that they represent - further reduces their profile and effectiveness. Our view, therefore, is that is any new wards should be based on an assumption that around 2000 homes (usually around 3500 electors) is the optimum population to be manageable. Any representative worth their salt should be able to visit each household, in such an area, on a regular basis. Two way communications would be encouraged and interest in the democratic system stimulated. Independent candidates would be in a better position to successful put their case across while lazy Councillors would not be able to hide under the anonymity offered by unclear lines of accountability. Principles behind new ward boundaries. In suggesting new boundaries for the urban Wards, we have adopted the principle that a representative should be able to walk from one side of their ward to the other in less than 15 minutes. This measure, of course, excludes the uninhabited parts of some wards such as the Knavesmire where there are large areas of open space. Where a Councillor lives in the ward that they represent, they should be able to comfortably tour the ward each week. They will then be able to identify and remedy any obvious problems with public services (footpaths, roads, litter, faulty street lights etc). With one exception (the Guildhall ward), the new boundaries respect natural barriers to communication such as the river Ouse. The Guildhall exception – in the centre of the City where there are several bridges – allows the commercial heart of York to have the same representative. In some wards such as “Railway” the existence of a natural barrier – in this case the east cost main railway line – is seen as an advantage as the issues faced by residents, in what will over the next decade be the largest development site in the City, can be coordinated through one Councillor. 3 Ward names We hold no strong views about the names of the proposed wards. In the main we have selected titles traditionally associated with particular York neighbourhoods. Frequency of elections We believe that there is a major democratic deficit emerging in York. The present Council has cut the number of decision meetings that it holds in public. The amount of consultation with residents has been reduced and little information is circulated. Ward committee meetings – at which residents could raise issues – have been truncated. Resident ballots on spending priorities in local neighbourhoods have been scrapped. As with all Councils, an administration elected with a large majority - and not having to face the electorate for 4 years – effectively can do as they wish, at least during the early period of their tenure. The result is frustration for residents both with the nature of the representative system and the apparent insensitivity of their Councillors. We believe that a return to annual elections (as happened in York in the period up to 1995 and which is common in neighbouring areas such as Harrogate) should be considered. We believe that having to face the electorates verdict on a more regular basis will focus the minds of executive Councillors who might be less willing to ride roughshod over the views of residents. Ideally we would like to see ¼ of the Council elected each year. The first to retire, after the 2015 all out elections, would be those with the lowest share of the poll. Elections by quarters has the advantage of preventing a radical shift in the membership of the Council. It allows new members to gradually build up experience before they take on more demanding roles. This facilitates long term planning and supports consensus decision making. We recognise that the Boundary Commission prefers a system where all electors can give a verdict at the same time. An alternative, therefore, would be to introduce a system of 2 member wards with bi-ennial elections. We believe that such a system would be an improvement on the present arrangements and have also indicated how this might be achieved in York on page 31. Conclusion While it would be possible to tinker with the existing 1/2/3 member ward system in York, with the objective only of equalising the number of electors per Councillor, we believe such an approach would represent a missed opportunity. In the event that the Boundary Commission adopt such an approach, then we would support the boundary proposals submitted by the York City Council Liberal Democrat Group. Residents need an identified Councillor whom they can hold to account regularly. Any proposals from the Boundary Commission should be aimed at addressing that objective. Steve Galloway Chair 4 Single member ward boundaries. York Central constituency Central York ward boundaries. member Single 5 Boroughbridge Road Ward PD* Road AA Farfield York AA Boroughbridge Road York AA Princess Drive York AA Almsford Road York AA Rosetta Way, York AA Langholme Drive York AA Millgates York AA Monarch Way York AA Sitwell Grove York AA The Paddock York AA Regent Mews York AA Garbutt Grove York AA Carr Lane York AA Paddock Way York AA Duchess Mews York AA Cranbrook Avenue York AA Plantation Drive York AA Dukes Court York AA Cranbrook Road York AA Plantation Grove York Ward 1 (Boroughbridge Road) has an estimated electorate— AA Marquis Court York including growth of 627—of 3599 at 2018. AB Grayshon Drive York AB Ouseburn Avenue York The ward boundary to the north east is the East Coast main railway AB Beckfield Lane York line.