M ANY people will ask if there really is any need for a year-long review of the council ward boundaries in Stoke-on-Trent, with a view to reducing the number of 60 serving councillors. Cities, such as Derby, with 51 councillors, and Nottingham, with 55, are not dissimilar, so why the fuss? The reason of course is that Stoke-on-Trent's councillors have shot themselves in the foot with years of bickering, in-fighting and incompetence. The resultant mess so shocked the Governance Commission, which was charged with sorting out the city's political system, that it felt it must recommend action.

O f course, for different reasons, we expect just about every councillor will argue that a reduction in the number of elected members undermines local democracy. And that can case can certainly be made. But so can the argument that the obstructive and divisive behaviour of councillors in the last decade, and that includes the mayoral years despite the bleats of 'it was nothing to do with us', has also been an affront to local democracy. It's worth remembering, when councillors come to protest about possible cuts, that the Governance Commission recommended having fewer councillors in Stoke-on-Trent in the same report that it lamented the calibre of the present crop. Clearly, while the Commission's recommendations for the future included educating councillors to give them a better grasp of their role, the prospect of finding 60 bright sparks is considered too much of a challenge. When some councillors find in due course that their role no longer exists, they need only look in the mirror to learn the reason why.