A debate is due to be held later this month that could lead to councillors voting to change the current political system.
At the moment residents vote for a third of the council every year for three years, with one year off.
Critics say this leads to instability and means councillors are constantly in "election mode" and point scoring against one another.
The situation will be further complicated if Bristol says yes to having an elected mayor on May 3.
That position – which would replace the current council leader – would only be up for election every four years.
So if the current councillor election arrangements continue, you could have an elected mayor of one party in charge of a councillor that is Lib Dem one year, Labour the next and Tory after that.
It would be similar to the American political system, where a president of one party can have a Congress of another party constantly working against his or her agenda.
The Tories have chosen a debate on elections once every four years as their "golden" motion for the next full council meetin, which i on March 27. That means it will definitely be discussed, though the motion is only to hold an extraordinary meeting at a later date where an actual decision would be made.
The problem is for this change to take place any vote needs a two thirds majority.
The Lib Dems do not have overall control of the council but they still have a majority – and they have made it clear they are opposed to the change.
Tory leader Councillor Peter Abraham said: "The Conservative 'golden' motion tabled for March full council is particularly well timed and likely to attract cross-party support.
"At this stage, we are simply seeking approval for consultation to start on change to our current discredited local election cycle.
"While Barbara Janke has made it quite clear that she remains totally opposed to any move towards all-out elections, on the basis that she can detect no appetite for it amongst Bristolians, I believe the best way of finding out what people really think on this subject is to ask them. Interestingly, I am finding that in almost every discussion on the elected mayor, most individuals are very keen to have an alternative to partial elections-by-thirds.
"They invariably want to switch to 'whole' council elections, a system which is easier to understand, more democratically accountable and stable enough to provide long-term strategic decision-making."
Labour are also backing the idea of a switch to elections every four years. Group leader Councillor Peter Hammond said: "Decision-making should not be dictated solely by next year's election campaign which is what happens now. The simple answer which everybody understands is an election for the entire council every four years. Yet the Liberal Democrats say they are against it. What are they afraid of?
"Four yearly elections are simple, easily understood and give no party an electoral advantage over another.
"Perhaps the Liberal Democrat leader Barbara Janke likes the current system as it keeps her in office despite growing unpopularity."
The Green Party does not necessarily support the switch but believes that the matter should be considered.
Leader of the Greens, Councillor Tess Green said: "The Green Party is in favour of consultation on all aspects of the local election process.
"We would not necessarily favour once every four years and we would definitely like to see a consultation on introducing proportional representation for council elections at the same time."
It is only the Lib Dems – who currently have the most to lose from a change and from an elected mayor – who are against it.
Speaking at a debate on elected mayors, Mrs Janke addressed the issue.
She said: "My experience of four yearly elections is that all the unpopular things are done at the beginning in the hope they will be forgotten.
"There are pros and cons of both."
self storage miami storage auctions texas the storage center
0 comments:
Post a Comment