Annual local elections in Derby are here to stay... at least for now
THERE will be no change in how often Derby people go to the polls in local elections after a motion to move to a four-year cycle was defeated by 30 votes to 19.
The vote followed a robust debate which saw the Conservative group attempt to add an amendment to the motion to defer a decision, which was defeated, but resulted in the group voting against the motion.
At present, Derby follows what is called a thirds system, meaning that a third of the city’s 51 seats come up for election every year and in the fourth year there is no election at all.
The coronavirus pandemic has resulted in the postponement of local elections scheduled for May 2020 by twelve months, with the next fallow year not due until 2025.
But last November, Derby City Council resolved to undertake a public consultation with regards to changing the current system and replacing it with a whole council election every four years.
The consultation took place between January 27 and March 23 and 501 people responded.
Almost 83% of those who responded thought they would prefer whole council elections, with just 15.6% preferring to maintain the existing situation.
The move to change to all-out elections every four years has also been supported by the Derby business community, who have cited stability in decision-making and financial savings as a reason for change.
Before debate on the motion could take place during Wednesday night’s extraordinary meeting of the full council, leader Councillor Chris Poulter proposed deferring a decision because of proposed local government reorganisation, which could lead to four-yearly elections anyway.
A White Paper on reorganisation had been due to be published imminently, although it is likely to be postponed, according to Whitehall sources.
Mr Poulter said: “If the council decides to move to all-out elections, these could take place in 2022. But any local government reorganisation could take place in 2023, leading to another election – the second in two consecutive years.”
Independent councillor Phil Ingall supported Mr Poulter’s proposal and said “people would not thank the council” for potentially holding two elections in quick succession.
Labour group leader Councillor
MOVE TO A FOUR-YEAR CYCLE IS DEFEATED DESPITE SUPPORT OF PUBLIC
Baggy Shanker responded by saying he had consistently struggled to bring the debate to the council chamber and added: “Straight away the Conservative group has tried to defer it again.
“Reorganisation was brought up in 2010 and it still hasn’t happened and it is clear that the Tory cabinet is not comfortable having all-out elections despite the views of residents and residents.”
Independent councillor Sean Marshall also opposed the amendment, together with Councillor Hardyal Dhindsa, who said that for financial reasons the change should happen and should not be deferred.
The amendment was lost by 29 votes to 19 with one abstention.
Councillors were then given chance to comment on the proposal to change to a four-year cycle.
Support for the motion was led by Mr Shanker, who said councillors would be “failing in their duty” if they did not vote in favour of change.
He said: “Why should we deny Derby the chance of stability and a chance to save money on the whims of elected members.”
Reform Derby leader Councillor Alan Graves senior said that councillors should not abstain when voting.
He said: “This issue is about value for money in terms of democracy, financially and efficiency. As a group we are divided as we do not have a whip and our members will vote as they wish.”
Liberal democrat group leader Councillor Ruth Skelton said that a thirds system provides a checks and balance approach to democracy.
She said: “Four years is long time if someone is in charge who is unsuitable. Annual elections keeps leadership on its toes and an annual election is an important check.”
Councillor Nadine Peatfield said not changing the system was making a “mockery of public opinion” which was in favour of change and Mr Dhindsa added: “Derby has waited for change for years.”
The council’s deputy leader, Councillor Matthew Holmes, said that the public consultation and opinion was respected, but because the amendment was not accepted the Conservative group would be voting against the proposal.
Several other councillors indicated they wanted to speak on the motion, but the Mayor Councillor Frank Harwood closed them down and moved to the vote.
No-one abstained and the Lib Dems voted against, alongside the Conservatives, while Labour supported the proposal. The Mayor voted against the proposal.
It needed a two-thirds majority of the members in attendance at the extraordinary meeting to vote in favour of the proposal for it to change.
In a similar consultation exercise carried out in 2016, 68.1% of 281 respondents were in favour of a move to whole council elections.
Soon afterwards, a change in the electoral cycle was rejected following opposition from the then opposition Conservative group.