Voter turnout in local elections is derisory. Polls shows that voters have little or no idea who their local councillors are - let alone which party controls their Town Hall. After piloting fraud-riven postal voting (and mooting having polling stations in supermarkets and allowing voting online or by SMS text) now the government has decided that the best thing to do is hike councillors' pay and perks.The Labour-dominated Councillors Commission has come forward with a range of proposals. They want councillors freed from the requirement of turning up for meetings and to benefit from a communications allowance (similar to the ones abused by Labour MPs at Westminster). They also say that by-elections should be replaced by a party list system so that reserve councillors can fill vacated slots.
They even suggest that councillors who are voted out of office should get "golden goodbyes" that "should be equivalent to statutory redundancy pay and linked to time in office".
There are a number of reasons why so few people vote in local elections and the calibre of too many councillors stinks. Making hard-pressed and over-taxed taxpayers foot the bill for higher pay and perks is not the way to address the problem.
If you want better local government, how about giving local councillors real power to make decisions that affect the lives of those who lives in local communities?
The localism agenda proposed by the likes of Direct Democracy points the way to re-engaging voters with their elected representatives. If people know that their vote matters, they are more likely to vote. At the moment, however, voters know their vote makes little difference as a combination of hand-tying Westminster diktat, EU-imposed legislation and Town Hall bureaucratic inertia prevents real change in all but the most well-led of local authorities.
The suggestion that councillors should get more perks, benefit from golden goodbyes, fritter away communications allowances and not even have to turn up to council meetings sums up the conceited attitude of the Labour government towards our democratic system.
The worry is that there are a number of "Conservative" councillors who will fail to oppose these odious plans out of their own selfish self-interest.
If the Tories are to win the next election, the Party needs an all-encompassing theme. The Party needs to stands for freedom - for trusting people. By decentralising power and embracing the localist agenda, the Tories will show that the Party trusts the people.
These proposals should be opposed and denounced with vigour by every Conservative who holds elective office.
10 comments:
Agreed. As an electedConservative councillor I oppose these measures completely. If they were implemented we would lose the independence of local politicians who would become completely dependent on the state
Derek, I fear you are a rarity in that you are actually a Conservative Tory councillor! Too many councillors I served with were barely any better than the leftists that we were opposing!
Donal, the problem is that we don't get a huge choice of those wanting to do the job. It is true that some are barely distinguishable from lib dems or labour.
It was the poor calibre and philosophical unsoundness of so many councillors (and, indeed, MPs!) that led me to create the Young Britons' Foundation in 2003 (www.ybf.org.uk).
YBF identifies, recruits, trains and places philosophically sound activists in politics, academia and the media. In time many YBF graduates will go on - as some have already - to hold elective office and to do truly conservative things when in positions of power and influence. It is sorely necessary...!
Irrespective of political affiliation, Councillors should never lose sight of the fact that representing a ward should be about service, not securing financial reward.
As Councillors we should be working to reduce the tax burden on residents, not adding to it in order to achieve a more convenient lifestyle.
The problem is that in ye olden days, councillors were volunteers and there were few local authority employees.
Then it was felt desirable to have experts and full-time employees on the payroll - they would enact decisions taken by voluntary councillors.
In the last few years, however, it has become desirable for councillors to be paid TOO. I have no problem with councillors being paid IF (and it is a massive and perhaps unrealistic "if") the number of local authority staff fall massively and councillors work full-time. At least they are more responsive to voters' needs than insulated, overpaid and over-protected council employees are.
Donal is there a long queue of people in solid Conservative wards willing to be a councillor?
Answer No.
Yes giving more responsibility through localism/subsidiarity is part of the answer but payment will encourage more people to come forward and with more choice we will end up with better councillors. It is called capitalism!
HF: I will assume your comment was ironic. Paying people with taxpayers' money is not capitalism!
Donal, I agree wth you. I hope Conservative councillors will unite on this and most I speak to are agreed. The Commissions report moves entirely in the worng direction. What is needed is real local democracy and less central bureaucracy. That is what everyone should be pressing for, not more "perks". It is not suoprising a Labour-led Commission has come up with these barmy ideas as they risk losing more and more seats they are desperate for funds.
Fantastic post, Donal. I agree with every word.
On Runnymede Council, we receive a yearly allowance of £2250 a year which is more than enough to cover our basic expenses. I would oppose any increase in this allowance beyond the basic rate of inflation.
I am extremely worried by the vast allowances paid to councillors on many London authorities. To pay a councillor - a volunteer, community servant - £30,000 a year, is shameful.
Post a Comment