Pathetic turnout for a momentous poll

MORE than four-fifths of city people didn't vote in Thursday's referendum. Mick Temple, pictured, professor of politics and journalism at Staffordshire University, analyses why there was so much apathy.

The people have spoken. Or to be more accurate, the 19.23 per cent who could be bothered to go to the polls. The result – Stoke-on-Trent's short-lived mayoral system is dead.

Mark Meredith's failure to organise supporters of the mayoral system seems to sum up his time in office.

More than one person has told me the result would have been different if Mike Wolfe had been fighting for his political life.

The anti-mayor campaign was better organised and their arguments presented more convincingly.

Anyone who watched Mike Barnes demolish Paul Breeze in last Sunday's Politics Show on BBC1 will recognise that simple truth.

This campaign has established Mr Barnes as a serious political figure – perhaps one of the few who appears capable of leading Stoke-on-Trent – but the council is so fragmented, it is impossible to pick a likely leader.

Those hoping political in-fighting will now be over are fooling themselves.

I was at yesterday's count, and poison was poured into my unimportant ear by a number of councillors who made it plain that "so-and-so" would get the leadership over their dying bodies.

Let me be clear. I favoured the mayor and cabinet system for our city, but now the decision to allow councillors to appoint their own leader has been made I really hope (if only for the sake of my family and I) that they try to work together.

Stoke-on-Trent deserves better than a continuation of the shoddy internecine warfare that has contributed to public disenchantment with mainstream parties and the rise of the BNP.

The low turnout illustrates a number of uncomfortable truths for Stoke-on-Trent's elected representatives.

For residents, it seems to make very little difference which system is in place.

They were badly governed before the mayoral system and they've been badly governed since. Also, many feel they lacked the knowledge to make an informed choice.

However, that doesn't excuse the pathetic turnout.

The Sentinel called this the most important decision for Stoke-on-Trent's voters since 1974.

Our national reputation is pretty low – unfairly, I have always argued.

But it's going to be a little more difficult to counter that view following the apathy at the polls.

The region's desperately needed regeneration must not be threatened by grubby self-interest and narrow partisanship. We need a leader that the council and community can get behind. Let's hope we get one.