Conservatives field more candidates than Labour and Lib Dems in local elections

The party will be fielding candidates in 95 percent of seats across England in the forthcoming local elections - more than both Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

We have already noted that for the first time the party will be fielding a full a set of candidates in Yorkshire and Humberside and a full slate in Liverpool for a second time, and Iain Dale has noted that the Welsh Conservatives are fielding 41% more candidates than they did four years ago.

Congratulations to everyone who has worked hard to make this happen: such as the Regional Directors, Agents, the Northern and Welsh Boards... and centrally people like Alan Mabbutt, Bob Neill and Eric Pickles.

Eric Pickles said:

"These groundbreaking figures confirm that the Conservative Party is back in the north, and is gaining more and more traction across all parts of the country. Our organisation is stronger and more cohesive in places like the North West and Yorkshire, and this has paid dividends in the number of men and women wanting to stand for the Conservatives. These elections are being fought in traditional Labour heartlands, but they are finding it ever more difficult to twist arms and find people willing to be named as Labour candidates.

As a result of hard work and commitment of everyone in the Conservative Party, we have outperformed Labour in all but one region in England, with brilliant performances in the North West, South West and Yorkshire. We are particularly pleased to have such a huge improvement in the number of candidates standing in seats across Wales and the North East, providing more people with the chance to vote Conservative on May 1st."

Comments

[East Riding of Yorkshire]

Thats Yorkshire and the Humber!!! Not Humberside -

It's bad enough that Humber is used but Humberside was abolished in 1995 and given that the Tory MPs in East Yorkshire are trying to stop the use of the name Humberside altogeter, it would be good if Con Home didn't use it either

[Paul Dymond]

Yorkshire & North Lincolnshire would be a preferrable description for the region

[East Yorkshire]

Ah yes Paul, but then we have the division of North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolsnhire Councils so perhaps Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire would be more appropriate.

[Hadrian]

"More Conservatives than Socialists or Liberals".
How on earth can you tell the difference between them? They all look the same, sound the same, and even smell the same. They are all members of the ruling political class, and have no loyalties except to their party for job prospects, personal opportunities, and a place in the line for handouts. Well, I'll tell you. They can be recognised by the different rosettes they wear. There is no other way to be sure! Watch out for those who pinch the rosettes of other candidates!

[StevenAdams]

There are clear differences between the major parties - but Britain is not a speedboat, it's a tanker, and no major party advocates radical change. A Conservative govt over 10 years would compare enormously favourably next to this sham govt with regard to tax burden, bureaucracy, size of the public sector, legislative burden, red tape burden etc etc etc.

[Michael Rutherford]

Hadrian, that is simply wrong. I don't think it would be an accurate description of PPCs but even less so council candidates. These people are often local activists or local campaigners who do work no one cares about but that needs to be done. This is not a political class, anyone can stand. Many are semi-retired and few have higher political ambitions.

And they are more careful with money and services.

[StevenAdams]

Amen, Michael Rutherford.

If you want glory, fame, money, appreciation or power, my best advice would be to stay away from council.

If you want to be paid less than the minimum wage for 3-4 days a week, take responsibility for £600m - £1.5b budgets, work hard for your community in committees voting funds to/from, creating policy for and scrutinising areas such as care for the elderly, schools, highways, economic development, youth, culture, childrens social services and on and on... then stand for your local county council.

Mind you, I love it, so don't take that as a whinge...

[NigelC]

Representing the future: The report of the Councillors Commission states:
"In recommendation 3, we state that the role of a councillor must be compatible
with full or part-time employment. Councillors have to be confident that they are in touch with shifting community priorities, and be enabled and supported to ensure strategic decisions take these into account. Bear in mind too that the councillor is in a governance role and not elected directly to manage."
It continues:
"There are two objections to full-time councillors. One flows from the argument we
have advanced that, if we are to make a reality of making more coherent the links
between representative and participatory democracy, councillors must remain in
touch with those who they represent. The full-time, career politician can easily
become, or at the very least become regarded, as part of a separate political class.
We know that this is already to some extent the case and would only be aggravated with full-time councillors. This relates to two of our underlying principles, that councillors are most effective when they have similar life experiences to those of their constituents and that it should be less daunting to become a councillor.
Our other objection, paying heed to our terms of reference, is that people
considering becoming councillors need to see the role as service to the community rather than as an enforced life change. A widely representative range of candidates is unlikely to come forward if people fear they may finish up having to choose between career, family and council."

I therefore take issue with Steven Adams portraying the role of a councillor as requiring 3-4 days a week.
If we want even more candidates we need to ensure the local government structures support those in full time employment playing an active role.

I am a district councillor in full time employment.

[StevenAdams]

I, also, can cut and paste. But as I said earlier, it's all very well saying the words "being a cllr should be compatible with full time employment" but that doesn't make it true!

The fact of the matter is that there is a burden of work required to do the job effectively, and no amount of honeyed words from any commission changes that. Interestingly, the rest of this site condemns the commission as some Machiavellian Labour tool to enrich northern socialist councillors.... and yet here you seem to be quoting it as the bible and therefore evidenced truth.

I would GUESS that as a district councillor you a) have evening meetings, and b) have a budget of approx £80million - around 10% the size of an average county. Given tho lower burden of work and different time commitments, then I can understand why that may be compatible with FT work... but districts are only part of the equation.

[NigelC]

My point was that if we want to attract more representative candidates we should change the system to allow those in full time employment to participate as councillors and play a more active role.

Why can't county coucils meet in the evenings? This would allow working residents to particpate and observe as well.

"Bear in mind too that the councillor is in a governance role and not elected directly to manage"

[StevenAdams]

It wouldn't be practical for counties to meet in the evenings for precisely the reasons I'm making... 3 days per week of work couldn't be realistically fitted into evening work.

And anyway, when we talk about work/life balance, to me working all day and then going to council all night, every night would be the first way of making the role unattractive to all types of candidates. I imagine that parents would be the first group that would then find it impossible to stand for council.

I agree, councillors are not there to manage - but there is still a lot of work to do.

[Deborah]

"It wouldn't be practical for counties to meet in the evenings for precisely the reasons I'm making... 3 days per week of work couldn't be realistically fitted into evening work."

Councillors are meant to be laymen giving political direction. Why does this take 3 days per week?

In my experience, when councillors spend 3 days a week in the office they go native. Spending too much time with officers, they end up behaving like officers. They stop representing the public and start representing the Council management, defending the behaviour of officers rather than constructively questioning it.
Unfortunately, many councillors do not understand what strategic direction involves.

[StevenAdams]

Deborah,

"Why does [giving political direction] take three days per week" is like asking 'how long is a piece of string'! It takes that long because that's how much work there is...!

For me, I sit on one Scrutiny committee, I am Chairman of a Scrutiny Task & Finish Group and the Fire Authority Audit Committee, I am Lead Spokesman for Community Svcs, Lead Spokesman for ICT, property, procurement and transport for the Fire Authority, a member of the Board monitoring and steering the implementation of the Pathfinder model as a result of the White Paper, and a member of two Policy Advisory Groups within the County Council.

Aside from this, I am on a number of working groups looking into member priorities for the medium term planning process, school admissions and the CDRP for my patch.

Combine with these meetings such as Chairmen's briefings, Cabinet Member Questions, Scrutiny breakout groups, resident's casework, Member briefings (such as Code of Conduct amendments etc)... oh my Lords, I could go on and on and on and on.

I think, perhaps, it may be more accurate to say that unfortunately some councillors do not understand what hard work is... rather than 'strategic direction'.

[Jim Tague]

The vast majority of our constituency candidates for May work full-time, so the debate surrounding a change of emphasis for meetings is an interesting one.

Perhaps long term local authorities should look at the possibility of meetings being held once a month and on a Satruday/Sunday morning, booking different committees for different rooms and slightly different times.

I'm positive this could save a fortune in overtime alone.

[David Belchamber]

Something that might usefully be aired again in the run up to elections are the (possibly linked) issues of the newly appointed General Secretary to the Labour Party and the David Abrahams donations to the party.

There is a mystery as to why the new secretary is taking so long to start work and a suggestion has been made that he is concerned about taking over any liability arising from the possibly dodgy donations.

The latter seems to have gone very quiet. Why? I thought that the police hoped to deal with the matter very promptly.

Could any pressure have been applied to delay any report on the matter until after 1 May?

[Deborah]

StevenAdams

The "how long is a piece of string" is an excellent analogy. It is as long as you want it to be.
..and as Parkinson's Law states, "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion"

Jim Tague's suggestion of weekend monthly meetings is interesting.

[StevenAdams]

Deborah,

Agreed on both counts; I want a long piece of string, as it reflects hard work on behalf of residents... also agreed, work does expand to fill the available time. The important element here, is that I believe there is value in doing this work.

I realise that the above para. sounds EXTRAORDINARILY pious and self-satisfied, but the points stand ;)

[Observer]

Years ago, I was a Councillor in London. Initially, all our meetings were held in the evenings (7pm start if I recall correctly) so working people could reasonably get to the Town Hall in good time. Over the years, the unemployed (and unemployable) Labour Councillors, aided by those 'working' for Trades Unions, neighbouring Councils, as teachers etc arranged meetings with 4.30pm starts - not surprisingly many younger Tories found that their attendance records suffered and were routinely pilloried at election time for not being very dilligent. Some lost their seats partly on the backlash. Trying to explain the truth was never very successful - electors took the view that once you were elected you became, effectively, a full-time 'employee' of the Council.

Fast forwad a few years and in Birmingham I notice that meetings are virtually all held during the day. Those who are employed in the private sector can stand but how many employers nowadays 'value' having a local Councillor on their payroll? Do readers believe that promotion prospects are enhanced if you are regularly absent even for just one half-day per week on Council business? There are many very good retired/semi-retired or self-employed Councillors serving on such 'day-time' Councils but what chance is there of bringing younger members forward if they have to choose between their career and the Council?

The problem is, I believe, compounded by the way Councillors are now paid and the dreadful 'Cabinet' system. Too many older Councillors see their seat on the Council as a supplement to their pension and won't stand down at any price. Thus, having found a keen, younger, person, got them involved, enthused them to stand for the Council we're thwarted by a never-ending game of dead-man's-shoes. If, by chance, a new enthusiast is elected - they get no nearer the levers of power than the periodic meeting of the full Council.

Personally - I'd allow every Council to revert to the old-fashioned Committee system and scrap the salaries (sorry, allowances).

Discuss?

[Deputy Editor]

Labour have added figures for Wales to claim that they have more council candidates.

[StevenAdams]

p.s. just checked with Head of Finance - 80/20 split is correct.

[Deborah]

"Too many older Councillors see their seat on the Council as a supplement to their pension and won't stand down at any price." - Observer

Absolutely right. It is a real problem.

[Deborah]

"80/20 split is correct"- StevenAdams

80/20 of what?

[StevenAdams]

The County Council budget is funded 79% from Council Tax and 21% from Formula Grant from govt. I'd said this previously but it was contested, so I wanted to check myself.

It's an amazing reversal of the split in other areas of the country. Take Durham (which covers Sedgefield), their split if 20/80 in the Durham Council Tax payer's favour...

[Deborah]

The ratio depends on how much the council chooses to spend as well as how much gov grant they get.
Not sure how it fits into this stream anyway??

[StevenAdams]

I posted onto the wrong stream whilst having a debate on two fronts! Oops. Nevertheless, I would dispute that the split is entirely within council discretion as they 'choose' how much they spend. When you only get 1% increases from govt in real terms and you're CT is capped at 5% (or as this year "well under" 5%), there is very little room for manoeuvre.

[Joe James Broughton]

The Tories have a chance of gaining overall control of North Tyneside for the first time in it's history. Although there is directly elected Labour Mayor who is there until next year.