Confusion over mayor vote 'could end in High Court challenge'
CONFUSION over the mayoral referendum could lead to the result being challenged in the courts according to campaigners.
Stoke-on-Trent residents were due to find out today whether they will be governed by an elected mayor or council leader, following a referendum held yesterday.
-
Confusion over mayor vote 'could end in High Court challenge'
Electors were asked to vote 'Yes' for a council leader and cabinet, or 'No' to stick with the city's existing system of an elected mayor. If the city votes 'Yes' today, councillors will choose their own leader from within their ranks next May. If the 'No' vote is successful, people will choose a new elected mayor in May or June.
But councillor Mike Barnes, who is co-ordinating the 'Yes' campaign, says if the result is close his team will appeal to High Court judges to get the vote quashed.
Campaigners say too many people were still unsure what they were voting for yesterday.
Mr Barnes said: "I had two elderly people phone me after speaking to the elections office to ask for the vote to be done again.
"They have voted 'No' at the polling stations, then got home, read the paper and realised they have voted the wrong way.
"If the vote is close we will go for a judicial review and would imagine the other side will too."
Voter Jackie Barnes is calling for the referendum to be declared invalid and re-run. The 51-year-old, of Greyswood Road, Trent Vale, said: "I went off to vote, thinking I was simply voting as to whether I wanted an elected mayor or not and I was going to say 'No', because I don't want one.
"When I got to Oak Hill School I was just about to tick the 'No' box when I happened to read a poster saying the vote was actually for whether we wanted a council leader or not. As I was walking out I stopped an elderly lady and asked her which way she was voting.
"She said she was voting 'No' because she because she didn't want an elected mayor and I explained to her it was the other way round."
Pro-mayoral 'No' campaigner Paul Breeze said: "I have spoken to a few people who have got the question the wrong way round, but the biggest problem I faced is explaining the issues behind the referendum to people who don't seem bothered or haven't had enough information."
A spokesman for Stoke-on-Trent City Council said: "We have answered a number of factual enquiries about all aspects of the referendum today."
17 Comments
View all
by 1 of 10, Stoke and proud
Friday, October 24 2008, 6:28PM
“3 Down 2 to go.
If you only have to go to court to get the votes over turned then the people of Trentham should seek legal advise over their voting of Conservative because they got Conservative Alliance instead.
Lets get rid of all the dead baggage in the council.”
by Nicky, pitsnpots.blogspot.com
Friday, October 24 2008, 12:13PM
“Adrian, You ask:
"Where were the leaflets that plain and simply explained the pros and cons of both systems that would have given all 186000 voters a chance to understand what was being put before them." Well those leaflets, written by an independent body, that did exactly that, were delivered to all of us during the council's consultation on this issue.”
by Adrian, Stoke on Trent
Friday, October 24 2008, 12:05PM
“Thanks to the above who obviously are loyal readers to the Sentinel and spend much time digesting its pages daily. I did not vote yesterday,which I am sure will send waves of horror through the corridors of power after all their "hard work" in the run up to yesterday's vote and squeals of idiot to some readers too. Why?
It's simple in my view any individual or organisation that wants my support has to give me the facts to make an informed decision.Advertising works.Just like previous elections the amount of information given to the people is limited leaving you with little option to either use guesswork or simply vote for the one that has bothered to put in a little effort,even if that choice is never going to prove effective.Where were the leaflets that plain and simply explained the pros and cons of both systems that would have given all 186000 voters a chance to understand what was being put before them.I am not "pritty thick" as one comment might suggest but then I don't buy The Sentinal or is that The Sentinel every night and nor should I be obliged to in order to get the information I need. A half hearted tannoy van driving past at speed yesterday never gave me the chance to hear what was said so it was a pointless exercise. The few articles I have viewed were written with such depth that sifting out the true benefits of both systems was almost impossible. All the work up to the vote yesterday was a battle to prove to the people who was best suited to the job.Without having been presented with sufficient information my only thoughts were of previous poor decision making.It is obvious now that both sides failed miserably.
They say that past performance is not always a reflection on what will happen the future. Could this now mean more uncertainty for the people of Stoke on Trent.While writing this the news is just in that the elected mayor is to be scrapped after less than 20% of the people voted which raises further questions over the decision making abilities of those who allegedly look after the interests of the around them.”
by David, Stoke
Friday, October 24 2008, 11:11AM
“I doubt the High Court will sanction another referendum because of the costs and the fact that the turnout would be non-existent. In any case, the referendum question was determined by an Act of Parliament so even if there were to be another referendum it would require an amendment to the Act to make the question clearer.
We can therefore assume that the result will be the result.
Who is funding the High Court legal costs then?”
by James, Penkhull
Friday, October 24 2008, 11:10AM
“It's almost like a kid taking his ball home because he was losing the game.
Don't get the desired result, challenge it in the high court. That's belief in democracy for you.
It's also the Yes campaign insulting the people of Stoke on Trent by insinuating we're all thick. It's all been explained properly so where's the confusion.”
by Nicky, pitsnpots.blogspot.com
Friday, October 24 2008, 11:10AM
“We don't need another referendum, it wouldn't help. I was all for this referendum because I thought we should have a say (although only 19% of us wanted to). There has been enough publicity and explanation. If we had another referendum, we couldn't change the question as that's defined by legislation and we couldn't change the extent to which people bother to read and think about what they are voting for. So we should stick with what we get. I voted for leader, but even if it ends up being a mayor, it will have been democratically decided so we should just embrace it.”
by Jonathan, Etruria
Friday, October 24 2008, 11:09AM
“19% turnout sounds pathetic but still thats about 35,000 people turning up and it wasn't an election. It's not all that bad.”
by David Knowles, Stoke
Friday, October 24 2008, 11:08AM
“I doubt the High Court will sanction another referendum because of the costs and the fact that the turnout would be non-existent. In any case, the referendum question was determined by an Act of Parliament so even if there were to be another referendum it would require an amendment to the Act to make the question clearer.
We can therefore assume that the result will be the result.
Who is funding the High Court legal costs then?”
by Bert, Keele
Friday, October 24 2008, 11:07AM
“Why couldn't the vote counters stay up until the middle of the night and then be at their desks at 8 in the morning like people in the private sector (apparently) do?
Absolutely shocking that we all have to wait!! I can't enjoy my Special K.”
by Ian, Burslem
Friday, October 24 2008, 11:06AM
“It's not a matter of people's intelligence - it's a matter of their willingness to engage in local politics.
Moaning about the council is the number one preoccupation for many people yet only 19% bother to vote and some of those refused to take more than a passing interest so as to understand the question they are voting on.”