Peterborough councillors shun Government advice to shake up city's election cycle

Councillors have rejected Government advice to scrap Peterborough City Council’s current election cycle in a move that was claimed could save more than £800,000 and improve decision-making.

They voted against dropping the existing system of local elections that are held every three years in four at which 20 – one third – of the councillors’ seats are put to the public vote.

These elections cost about £600,000 to hold, so in any given four-year period, three such elections cost the taxpayers of Peterborough £1.8 million.

The council had been urged by the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) to hold just one election every four years - called an all out election - in which all 60 councillors’ seats would be contested.

It is estimated that having an ‘all out’ election, while more expensive to organise, hold and run, could potentially save £825,000 of taxpayers’ money.

Councillor Andy Coles told members of the full council (October 12) that the proposed change was a ‘key recommendation of the external assurance governance review’ currently being undertaken at the council for the DLUHC.

He said: “The government's current policy is to encourage all councils still not holding ‘all out’ elections to consider using the powers parliament has given to switch to four yearly elections to help incentivise long term planning and strengthen strategic decision making.

“Holding elections every four years can facilitate stable strategic place leadership, with the ability to deliver a clear program for the electorate, and also gives time to tackle some of the longer term issues that communities might face.

“This is particularly important for two key areas in Peterborough: Adult Social Care, and the growth agenda, which would benefit mostly from a three to five year perspective.”

Cllr Chris Harper said: “We're all aware that the biggest obstacles we have to long term planning is us councillors.

“We’re driven by party politics, ending up in campaign mode towards the end of every year, up until the elections the following May.

“This continues to lead to difficult decisions being put off for fear of losing support of the electorate during the elections. Election pledges are made that are unsustainable such as free bulky waste collection we had last time, that was never going to last.

“We can make an expected £650,000 over a 10 year period and that's from a council that's struggling to maintain its services with massive debts.

“If we're serious about controlling our own destiny we must move to ‘all out’ elections.”

But Cllr Nick Sandford said: “Elections under the first past the post can significantly magnify small changes in party support into massive changes in the numbers of councillors.

“Losing a massive number of experienced councillors all in one go is not likely to deliver stability, it's more likely to bring in chaos.

“Having elections by thirds allows people every 12 months to give a view on the performance of the council, and that is a democratic thing.

“And ‘all out’ elections discriminate heavily against the smaller parties.”

Thirty five councillors voted against changing the election cycle,19 were in favour and four abstained.