IN THIS
SECTION

Stay informed with ERS email updates.

Sign up for..

Why Reform?

Local Government

There isn't a mainstream political party that doesn't talk of "modernising" or "revitalising" local democracy, about making sure that communities have "control" over decisions that affect them, and about ensuring that councils are "effective", "efficient" and "accountable".

Yet the main way in which people can influence the policies in their local communities is by choosing the councillors they want to represent them at elections. And the present voting system ensures all the rhetoric we hear on local government remains just that.

Too often people feel there is little point in voting because their vote has no impact or effect. The result is often a low turnout – in Britain turnouts in local elections are the lowest in Europe.That is bad for democracy. The Government has considering various measures to revitalise local democracy.These include weekend elections, voting at supermarkets and directly elected mayors. Changes which involve people in decisions that affect their communities are to be welcomed.

But the Government has not yet tackled the central problem – our voting system. Unless we have a system which offers meaningful choices to voters and which allows all significant viewpoints in the community to have representation, we will not succeed in making councils more accountable.

First-Past-the-Post in local elections in England and Wales, has seen whole regions robbed communities of the voices, the scrutiny and dynamism they need in their town halls. The Society believes that this has to change.

Many of the problems in local government are exagerated versions of the Westminster's own:

UNPOPULAR WINNERS

Sometimes a candidate can come ‘first past the post’ without much support from the electorate, because the votes are evenly divided between several parties and candidates. The eventual
winner can be a candidate who is strongly opposed by the vast majority of the local voters. This has included dozens of extremist councillors across England.

WRONG WINNERS

Under FPTP there can be cases in which a party can have the most votes but end up winning fewer seats than one or more of its rivals. The system has chosen the ‘winner’ despite how people have voted.

UNCONTESTED SEATS

Uncontested seats rank among the most disturbing phenomena in British politics. Some local contests are now so uncompetitive - so ‘safe’ - that opponents have long ceased fielding candidates.

While safe seats at Westminster have had a similar effect, formalities dictate that the three main parties continue to field candidates. At local level the reality of First-Past-the-Post bites.

EXCESSIVE MAJORITIES

Local elections under FPTP can produce distorted results in which the winning party wins an landslide based on a minority vote as at Westminster. This may not reflect the balance of opinion in the area, and the majority who do not support the winning party can see their wishes disregarded. Even if there is majority support, the effective working of the council should require some representation for opposition parties, in sufficient numbers to exercise their proper functions of scrutiny of the way the council’s executive governs the local authority.

ONE PARTY STATES

No, we aren't quite Back in the USSR. But in parts of England and Wales today there are local councils with what amount to one party control.

Many have legitimately questioned the range of powers successive governments have gifted our local authorities, but nonetheless these bodies have the reach to shape our daily lives. But to select them via such arbitrary means is extraordinary.

In 2007 Scotland’s town halls turned their backs on the politics of First-Past-the-Post and adopted the Single Transferrable Vote (STV). The Society is currently looking into how this one small step has led to a giant leap in democracy in local government.