"Greg Stone" <cllrgregstone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b705c23c.0311070846.67f1f697@posting.google.com...
> I can't say I'm particularly enamoured by this. ..........
>
Nor me.  If we genuinely believe in local government, elections need to be
divorced from the influence of national politics.  What is achieved when
good councillors and good councils are swept away because of mid-term
government unpopularity, or local affairs drowned out when local elections
are held on the same day as a general election ?

Local elections by thirds help to even out the rises and falls in government
popularity, although it means councillors are campaigning for votes at least
two months each year if their ward has annual elections.  On the other hand,
it avoids a mass turnover of councillors in years of government unpopularity
eg 1977 or 1995.  It's hard enough to find quality candidates without them
being liable to lose the seats due to factors completely outside their
control, and even worse that a whole batch of new people get elected, many
of whom were pressurised into standing without an expectation of winning.
No wonder many councils seem to be run by officers rather than members.

One way to mitigate the worst effects of local elections being unduly
influenced by national politics would be to use a PR system.  At least this
would avoid an outcome where nearly every existing councillor, good or bad,
from one party could be replaced by new people from another party.  The
drawback to STV being used in local elections would be the demise of
independents, and because of the much larger wards that would be needed in
rural areas, the loss of a councillor who is truly local.  The offsetting
benefit would be a reduction in nimbyism as a councillor could not be so
easily persuaded to back narrow-mindedness by a small proportion of voters
in a much larger total electorate.

David Larkman