Council gerrymandering: Oh no we won't! Oh yes they have.

Two months after saying that they would not submit any proposals in the boundary change consultation, our beloved leaders have, er, done just that.

A quick reminder: the Local Government Boundaries Commission for England (LGBCE) has been invited by our Council to review our local government arrangements. The LGBCE is looking at the number of wards, the boundaries and names of the wards, the number of councillors per ward, and therefore the overall number of councillors we have to represent us.

Back in October, Cllr Gilbey said:

"It is essential the setting of new boundaries doesn't lead to accusations of gerrymandering or voter manipulation by the council. After discussions with colleagues, I have taken the view the council itself should step back and let the Boundary Commission decide the new wards based on its own studies and after giving detailed consideration to the opinions of any individual, group and parish council."

Lo and behold, tonight (10th December) the Council will be presenting their proposals for boundary changes. They said one thing, and did another. Surprised?

---

Of course, some of the more cynically minded residents (and councillors) suggested at the time that the decision not to put forward a proposal was simply a ruse to avoid having to debate that proposal in public, in Council.

The more deviously minded suggested that the Council's (i.e. the Conservative group's) preferred option would be submitted to the LGBCE by a proxy, such as a local Conservative Association, presumably to be accompanied by some nodding and winking.

My guess is that the Blue Team have been a little rattled by the sensible-looking proposals from the local Red Team (38 councillors, one councillor per ward) and have decided that public debate is a price worth paying in order to have an Official Preference published.

Tories step back over new boundaries

Conservative members of Canterbury City Council have stepped back from making a formal proposal to the Boundary Commission about planned new ward boundaries across the district.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is asking for people's views on the subject. Following a six-week public consultation, the commission announced it may recommend the council has 38 councillors in the future, 12 fewer than the current arrangements.

The organisation now needs information from people and groups across the district to help it to produce a new pattern of wards to accommodate the 38 councillors. In drawing up new boundaries, the commission aims for each councillor to represent roughly the same number of voters.

Canterbury council leader John Gilbey said:

"It is essential the setting of new boundaries doesn't lead to accusations of gerrymandering or voter manipulation by the council. After discussions with colleagues, I have taken the view the council itself should step back and let the Boundary Commission decide the new wards based on its own studies and after giving detailed consideration to the opinions of any individual, group and parish council."

On the decision the cut 12 council members, Cllr Gilbey said:

"I am thankful to the Boundary Commission for their considered approach in considering whether the number of councillors should be reduced to 38. This was not a request we made without giving a lot of thought. but we felt it was unfair on local taxpayers to make them pay their hard-earned cash on sustaining 50 councillors at the possible expense of crucial services many cherish."

People have until December 10th to submit their views. Further information on the review and interactive maps of the existing wards can be found at consultation.lgbce.org.uk and www.lgbce.org.uk Residents will have a further chance to have their say after the commission publishes its draft recommendations in March next year.

HB Times 10th October 2013

Electoral Review - your chance to have a say. At last.

With the Electoral Review now underway for Canterbury I would urge local people to ask themselves if they're happy with the way Canterbury City Council currently conducts matters on their behalf.

The Council have asked the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to cut the number of councillors down to 38 from 50.

They say that the 'Strong Leader and Executive' system of governance serves this city well and base their submission to the LGBCE mainly on this.

Given the absence of debate in decision making with the current Council this move will make it much harder for councillors to represent their constituents as they will not have enough time to liaise with the many groups, parishes and associations.

Our councillors already have a far higher quota of electors than other districts and will be even higher with the intended housing development in the Local Plan… an extra 780 houses per year.

The LGBCE want to hear the opinions of local people in regard to this matter and can be contacted thus by 6th August 2013:

Email: reviews@lgbce.org.uk

Write to: The Review Officer (Canterbury), LGBCE, Layden House, 76-78 Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG

Yours sincerely

Lynette Coleman, Canterbury

Proposed cut in councillors could make a bad situation worse

The Shape and Health of our Local Democracy

Canterbury City Council is proposing to cut the number of local councillors in the district from 50 to 38.  The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) has just initiated a public consultation on whether to approve this proposal.  As residents, we need to consider the implications of such a drastic cut as they could be significant for the shape and health of our local democracy.  

The first question is:

what impact will a 25% decrease in Council size have on the way in which decisions are made?

The Council's submission to the Boundary Commission claims that the current 'Strong Leader and Executive system' is well embedded in our local democracy and that the number of councillors should be reduced accordingly.   However, many residents would disagree with both this assertion and this conclusion.  Far from being embedded in our local democracy, the Executive System is becoming the source of increasing political disquiet.

The Executive system was introduced in 2002 as a result of a change in national legislation.   It was supposed to speed up decision-making and improve accountability, but its unintended consequences have included the creation of a small political elite; a lack of in-depth debate before decisions are made; and the effective exclusion of many councillors from the decision-making process.

Under the Localism Act 2011, we are no longer obliged to keep the Executive system, but a sharp reduction in in the number of local councillors could make it more difficult for us to introduce an alternative model as these generally require a greater number of councillors.  We, therefore, need to ask the Boundary Commission to assess the requirements  of other decision-making models, such as the Cabinet Committee system operated by Kent County Council, as this may be something which we would want to introduce in the future.

The second question is:

what impact will a 25% decrease in Council size have on the ability of local councillors to represent the residents in their wards?

At present, each councillor represents on average 3,023 residents.  This is considerably higher than many other district councils.  If the number of councillors was reduced from the current 50 to 38, the average ward size would be 4,200.  If a further 780 new houses are built each year, in line with the objectives of the draft Local Plan, the ratio of residents to councillors will be considerably higher.  

Reducing the number of councillors to 38 is likely to reduce the ability of each councillor get to know their communities, listen to their concerns and represent their needs and interests.  Admittedly, some councillors currently do this much better than others, but it is the hallmark of any vibrant, healthy democracy.  A sharp reduction in the number of councillors is likely to decrease the capacity of existing councillors to fulfil this vital representational role.

The Electoral Review process provides us with the opportunity to have an active public debate on the shape and health of our local democracy.  We are unlikely to get a similar opportunity for at least another decade.  Let's not waste it! 

For more information, see: consultation.lgbce.org.uk  The deadline for the receipt of comments is: 6 August.

Comments should be sent to:

Email: reviews@lgbce.org.uk

Post: The Review Officer (Canterbury), LGBCE, Layden House, 76-78 Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG

Sian Pettman, Canterbury

Councillors to be cut by a quarter

That's a quarter OF them, not OFF them.

Here's an attack on local democracy that will damage not just Herne Bay, but the whole district.

Reducing the number of councillors from 50 to 38 is not something that the public have been clamouring for - it was initiated by, and is being driven by, CCC's Conservative administration. More accurately, the Executive. Which means Cllr John Gilbey.

The publicly stated reason for this is to save money. Cllr Peter Lee has said that the current 50 councillors cost about £450k a year, so this would potentially save about £112k.

Fewer representatives and less representation to save £112k. And this from the people who frittered £60k on the disastrous Westgate Towers traffic scheme, and peed away over £50k fighting the village green application for the Downs, and regularly give £20k to the Sandwich Open golf beano, and so on, and so on.

We already have one of the highest ratios of residents to councillors, and this reduction in the number of councillors would push it even higher. And that's without taking into account the extra 40,000 or so new residents that would move in to the district to fill all the new homes proposed in the draft Local Plan, which would push the ratio higher still.

When this was discussed in Council, one of the councillors argued that the reduction in numbers would result in an improvement in quality of councillors. I can't believe these people are so naive! This will not be a careful culling exercise where the sub-prime and lacklustre are shown the door, leaving only the shining stars. Come election time, the public will still choose a mixed bag of useful and useless, daft and deft, lions and donkeys. But there will fewer of them.

Each councillor - and this is a part-time job, remember - would have significantly more people to represent. This will inevitably damage our local democracy.

I'm sorry to say this is another example of Cllr Gilbey's anti-democratic - and in my view morally repugnant - instincts. He operates what is amusingly referred to in his job description as the "strong leader" management style, and is much happier with the Executive/cabinet model rather than the more democratic Committee structure we used to have.

Reducing the number of councillors would suit him down to the ground, as it would concentrate power in even fewer hands. 

The consultation runs from 25th June to 6th August. Please  take the time to contact the Boundary Commission and let them know what you think - it would be years, possibly decades, before we would have a chance to undo this.

I don't want fewer councillors, I want better councillors.

---

The independent Local Government Boundary Commission for England is asking local people how many councillors they think should represent Canterbury City Council in the future after proposing chopping 12 from the current structure.

The six-week public consultation is the first part of an electoral review which will also consider changes to the number, names and boundaries of the council’s wards. It follows hot on the heels of a proposed shake-up at Shepway District Council which is suggesting a reduction of 16 councillors.

The commission has considered evidence submitted to it by the council and is now consulting residents on a proposal that would see the authority represented by 38 councillors in future, 12 fewer than the current arrangements.

Max Caller, chair of the commission, said:

“This is your chance to shape your council for the future. We are asking people across Canterbury whether they agree that 38 councillors is the right number to represent their area in the future. We want to know if you think 38 is the right number of councillors to be able to take decisions effectively and whether it’s the right number to represent the interests of all Canterbury’s communities.

If you don’t agree that Canterbury should be represented by 38 councillors, we want you to tell us your alternative and why you think there should be more, or fewer, members of the council in the future. Once we have taken a view on the number of councillors, we will re-draw ward boundaries to accommodate those elected members and we will ask local people to have their say during that process as well.”

Residents can have their say directly at consultation.lgbce.org.uk

kentnews.co.uk 25th Jun 2013