Three Parties Combine to Fight Against the Elected Mayor Campaign

Published on: 28 Aug, 2016
Updated on: 28 Aug, 2016

Three of the four political parties at Guildford Borough Council (GBC) are combining to fight against the proposal for Guildford to have an elected mayor – a decision which will be the subject of a referendum in October.

Originally an alliance between all four GBC political parties was sought but such were the differences between the Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour parties, on one hand, and the Guildford Greenbelt Group (GGG), about how the campaign should be organised and run, that agreement proved impossible.

The Greenbelt Group will campaign for rejection of the elected mayor proposal separately, despite rumours that there is some dissent within their party on the issue. A number of their more vocal members are reported to feel that there could be advantages to the change.

But Cllr Susan Parker, GGG leader, said: “The group and its committee are unanimously opposed to the elected mayor system and have agreed to campaign against it. That position is broadly supported by all our members with whom this issue has been discussed.”

There is also cross-party concern that an EU referendum fatigued electorate will not turn out in large numbers for another referendum, on a local issue, on October 13. Their fear is that a low turnout will favour those dedicated to forcing a change to the system.

Cllr Matt Furniss.

Cllr Matt Furniss (Con, Christchurch) said: “A cross-party group has been set up from the three main political parties Conservative, Liberal Democrats and Labour who have come together to campaign against having a directly elected mayor.”

Guildford Says No is the joint, cross-party campaign.

The joint campaign is being funded by the three political parties on a proportional basis in line with the number of sitting councillors each party has at Millmead i.e. Conservatives 34, Lib Dems 9, Labour 2.

According to guidance issued by GBC on how the referendum is to be run, expenses incurred, “…by or on behalf of an individual or body conducting a campaign … must not exceed… £8,632.40.”

Cllr Caroline Reeves.

Speaking on behalf of the Lib Dem group at Millmead, its leader Cllr Caroline Reeves (Friary & St Nicolas) said: “Guildford residents are being forced to have a referendum on whether we should concentrate power into one person – a political mayor. The current leader system saves taxpayers money, is more democratic and more accountable.

“The Lib Dems are against changing to a system of an elected political mayor. Not only would it cost the council more (which could cause a reduction in services or an increase in council tax) but we feel the negative impact on residents is just as important. The voice of residents would be weaker as all councillors would have less input to the decision making process.

“An elected mayor could make decisions behind closed doors without taking the views of councillors and their residents into account, so there would be less accountability and transparency.

“Many complain that the current system lacks transparency, a change to an elected political mayor would make this worse, not better. Currently the leader is accountable to councilors and residents and can be removed, an elected mayor would be accountable to no one.

“The change of title for the civic mayor to ‘chairman’ will also concern a number of residents. It would diminish the heritage values of the civic mayor.

“It is surprising that GGG chose not to be part of the joint campaign given that we will be delivering leaflets and campaigning across the whole borough, a much wider distribution than any political group can achieve on their own.

“We strongly believe that we should keep the current leader system.”

Cllr Susan Parker.

Cllr Susan Parker (Send) said: “The Guildford Greenbelt Group is very strongly opposed to the prospect of an elected mayor. We recognise that the current system is not perfect. At present, the main political parties do tend to work together and seek to suppress or disregard independent voices.

“However, the constitution currently offers the prospect of change: it could evolve. As things stand, there is, legally, scope to implement the hybrid committee system – for which the council has already voted.

“If the referendum results rejects the elected mayor system, we will continue to press for wider consultation, more openness and better representative democracy. There will be another council election in two and a half years’ time, and the whole council composition could change.

“On the other hand, voting for an elected mayor model would lock us into a particular legal system for at least 12 years. Each elected mayor would be voted in for a period of four years and it would be impossible to remove that person, who would have enormous local power and could make decisions unilaterally.

“There would effectively be local dictatorship, with no possibility of challenge. This could be a disaster. Note that the proponent of the elected mayor system, Monika Juneja, was the originator of the much-hated Local Plan when she was lead councillor for planning and deputy Tory group leader.

“As a result, GGG will be urging its supporters to reject the elected mayor proposal. We say, ‘No to an Elected Mayor'”.

Stephen Mansbridge, one of those campaigning for Guildford to adopt an elected mayor system, declined to comment.

Responses to Three Parties Combine to Fight Against the Elected Mayor Campaign

Jim Allen Reply

August 28, 2016 at 3:55 pm

Well the utter failure of openness and transparency of purpose of the current Executive hardly is hardly encouraging and it is tempting to think nothing could be much worse.

I would guess a dictatorship of an elected mayor could work if forced upon us and if the elected mayor was benign and reverted to a committee format under his chairmanship.

If on the other hand the incumbent was of the opinion that the residents don’t really know what they want or need, as I believe has been implied by the supporters of this proposal then, oh dear.
Bernard Parke Reply

August 28, 2016 at 4:00 pm

October evenings are often dark and wet. It is difficult to rouse voters after their day’s work, even during lighter evenings, for May elections.

This referendum could well result in a low poll, and with a low poll anything could happen.
Jan Messinger Reply

August 28, 2016 at 6:08 pm

I am delighted to read all parties are united saying “No” to an elected mayor of Guildford. As a resident of Guildford I am also saying no.

I am sure the residents are not fully aware of the cost of the referendum in October. The financial implications and power of an elected mayor would be awful.

I hope the residents of Guildford will be well informed of the implications of the referendum on October 13th but, sadly, I fear most won’t understand what they are voting for.
Stuart Barnes Reply

August 29, 2016 at 9:00 am

This will be another waste of time and money. I would suggest that if any of us ask our friends and acquaintances what are the most important political imperatives relating to Guildford the possibility of an elected mayor would come just about the bottom of their priorities.

Anyway, I suppose we will have to rouse ourselves from our lethargy and vote against the idea.
K White Reply

August 29, 2016 at 10:13 am

I object very much to being forced to take part in a referendum I don’t want. Forced? Yes, because I will vote as all votes are important.

The proposers of the referendum should pay all the costs, not the residents of Guildford. Guildford should not be ruled by a quasi-dictatorial, political party aligned mayor.
Jenny Procter Reply

August 30, 2016 at 7:49 am

I totally agree with K White. I too object very much to having this referendum forced upon us at taxpayers’ expense.

Every vote will be important. The current “strong leader” system leaves much to be desired and is barely democratic but the decision taking power in the hands of an elected mayor would be far worse.
Sue Fox Reply

September 1, 2016 at 1:50 pm

I agree with all your correspondents. I’ve asked my councillor to try and find out the costs, including lost school days, overtime etc. Unfortunately this is likely only be available post the referendum.

I’ve also asked if any of the parties have a lawyer who would be able to advise on whether a class action on behalf of the rate payers to recover the costs is a viable option.