Salford Labour Party Website

VOTE NO ON THURSDAY!

Voters in Salford may end up abolishing their traditional Mayor by mistake if they vote ‘Yes’ in tomorrow’s referendum, campaigners have warned.

No Campaign chairman Roger Lightup said many people wanted to save the existing impartial Mayor but did not realise a ‘Yes’ vote would abolish the role.

He said: “Many people have said they plan to vote Yes because they want to keep the existing traditional Mayor.

“This is because the wording on the referendum simply asks if they want a Mayor and Cabinet to run the council. They believe voting yes keeps the system as it is.

“The reality is that a Yes vote will abolish the traditional, impartial Mayor and replace the role with a full-time, salaried new political post in addition to the 60 councillors.”

‘No’ campaigners argue that a ‘yes’ vote would

mean paying for yet another political official to run the city
abolish the traditional, impartial mayor and replace the position with a party political post
put all the decisions in one person’s hands
be a distraction from the real tasks of tackling unemployment and making tough budget decisions
increase the costs to the taxpayer
end the ability of voters to change control of the Council in elections for councillors (whom the mayor can ignore)
be dangerous because elected mayors have been a disaster elsewhere in places like Doncaster and Stoke
 

The No campaign is backed by the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, the Co-operative Party and moderate Conservatives. 

The Yes campaign is backed by the BNP, English Democrats, Community Action Party and right-wing Conservatives.

Comments(0)

Cllr Bill Hinds

Salford’s finance chief Cllr Bill Hinds has described a promise that Council Tax will be halved if people vote ‘Yes’ in Thursday’s referendum for a directly-elected Mayor as “a complete lie”.

He said: “The referendum is about how Salford should be run. The level of Council Tax has nothing to do with the constitution of the Council which is the only thing affected by the referendum.

“The promise that a Yes vote will mean Council Tax being halved is a completely bogus claim which most people will take with a pinch of salt.

“This referendum is about whether we vote ‘Yes’ so the city is run by a £100,000 a year dictator or we vote ‘No’ to that and save our traditional impartial Mayor.”

Cllr Hinds said that people did not believe the tax could be halved because many of the cuts promised by the ‘Yes’ campaign were impossible or unacceptable.

The Yes campaign had promised to illegally cut

• Care for children at risk irrespective of need
• Statutory planning duties
• Even minimum highways repairs to keep roads safe

They had also promised to

• Cut care for 6,000 vulnerable elderly people
• Remove all school crossing patrols
• End road safety schemes

Cllr Hinds added: “These proposals from a Bury businessman go against the grain of the values of our city.”

Comments(0)

NO TO MAYOR

Salford’s campaign to stop our traditional, impartial Mayor becoming a party political American-style city boss

Salford Reds’ boss calls for ‘No’ vote in mayoral referendum

Salford Reds’ boss John Wilkinson – on of the city’s top businessmen – has called for people to vote ‘No’ in next week’s referendum on whether to have directly-elected Mayor for the city.

The case for a directly-elected Mayor is that there would be more effective and powerful voice for the city.

But Mr Wilkinson argued that the existing system already delivered that. In a statement he said:
“We have at Salford a very proud City which has always been democratically run by a forward thinking Council, a Council that has had vision and commitment.

“Magnificent new schools are being built, our hospital is one of the finest in the Country, Media City and the ongoing development at the Quays are bringing not only respectability but many new job opportunities, the New City of Salford Stadium not only for the Reds but excellent community facilities for all to share, and this all arrived at by a Council as a team making it happen.
“I for one cannot understand why we need to consider an elected Mayor, our Mayor in Salford has been purposefully elected after many years of commitment, serving on many important committees and earning his or her right to become our first citizen.

“I urge every Salfordian to vote NO to a directly-elected Mayor and keep our trust in a Council that has served our City with pride over many decades.”

The referendum will be held next Thursday, January 26th, when voters will be asked to decide whether to vote ‘yes’ and install a directly-elected Mayor who will make all the decisions.
‘No’ campaigners argue that a ‘yes’ vote would
mean paying for yet another political official to run the city
abolish the traditional, impartial mayor and replace the position with a party political post
put all the decisions in one person’s hands
be a distraction from the real tasks of tackling unemployment and making tough budget decisions
increase the costs to the taxpayer
end the ability of voters to change control of the Council in elections for councillors (whom the mayor can ignore)
be dangerous because elected mayors have been a disaster elsewhere in places like Doncaster and Stoke
The No campaign is backed by the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, the Co-operative Party and moderate Conservatives.

The Yes campaign is backed by the BNP, English Democrats, Community Action Party and right-wing Conservatives.

Comments(1)

Barbara Keeley MP

Salford MPs claimed to be backing the ‘Yes’ campaign for a directly-elected Mayor have come down on the side of ‘No’ campaigners.

The ‘Yes’ campaign put out leaflets saying that Labour’s Hazel Blears and Barbara Keeley were supporting their bid .

But in a joint statement the MPs said: “We have never endorsed the ‘Yes’ campaign. We urge citizens of Salford to vote ‘No’ in the referendum on January 26^th.  Statements appearing in the ‘Yes’ campaign leaflets are out of context.

“We are proud to have belonged to a Government that gave people the right to decide on a directly-elected mayor. Believing that people should have a choice does not mean that it should be in favour no matter when or where.”

Ms Blears  added: “I remain in favour of elected mayors but believe they are most effective when they cover large areas such as Greater London, encompassing a number of local authorities.  In single Council areas there is a danger that the costs are disproportionate to the benefits.

“At this time when the Government is inflicting severe cuts on Salford Council, now is not the time to be incurring extra costs which would be better spent on frontline services.”

Ms Keeley said: ““I do not support the idea of a directly-elected Mayor in Salford as I believe we do not need an American-style City Boss here.

“Salford Council has to deal with deep budget cuts from the Government.  The referendum is a costly distraction from the council’s important work of keeping services going and developing the local economy.”

No Campaign chair Roger Lightup welcomed the clarification. He said: “The Yes campaigners cannot be trusted. This is the second time they have been caught out.

“In the public debate before Christmas they admitted that their main claim that the Council Tax would be halved was not true. They admitted a directly-elected Mayor could increase Council Tax.

“All moderate, sensible political parties think this is the wrong time for a costly referendum which will bring no benefits.”

Hazel Blears MP

Comments(0)

John Merry

You may have received a leaflet claiming that a council tax cut of 50% would be achieved if you voted for a mayor. This leaflet was published by the Alliance formed by Mr Berg a property owner from Prestwich. Is it too good to be true? I am afraid it is which is why there has been such furore about their refusal to give details.

The current projections for council tax yield in 2013/14 is £98 million, cutting that by half is £49 million worth of cuts plus the £15 million demanded by government leads us to a total of £64 million of cuts required.

Mr Moulding, a member of this alliance has posted elsewhere how he thought it could be done. “A mayor would instruct the officers to devise a budget that entails no cuts in essential front line services.” Whilst he was at it he would no doubt instruct them to turn water into wine and make it stop raining! Officers would be failing in their duty if they did not inform the mayor that such levels of cuts could not be made without damaging front line services

The reality is that £64 million cannot be cut from the council’s budget without damaging front line services. They have helpfully given us a clue as to how it might be achieved when they talk about the “traffordisation” of services; in other words to provide them at the same level as Trafford.

Let us take our support for the elderly as an example. Trafford operates a much stricter criteria for the elderly. If we were to adopt their criteria as argued by the Mayoral Alliance it would mean approximately 6,000 elderly people would lose their support. All this in the interests of bringing the council tax down, chiefly for the benefit of the wealthiest of the city.

The only figure mentioned by them is the £34 million allegedly spent on regeneration last year. Not true; as far as I can tell they have taken the “sustainable regeneration directorate” budget and assumed it is spent entirely on regeneration. This budget however includes housing, looking after the homeless, highways maintenance, planning and lighting renewal to name but a few.

In fact, there is very little in the way of actual revenue contribution to “regeneration”. There is a £10 million contribution to capital repayment but even Mr Moulding would not be able to escape legal responsibilities. Of course if it was possible the Tories or LibDems would have argued for it. The fact that they are as dismissive of the Mayoral Alliance proposals as I am, indicates that they are completely fictitious, which brings me onto why they were put forward in the first place. It could be possible that they don’t understand local government finance but Mr Berg and Mr Moulding are both ex councillors. If they do understand what they are doing, then why has such a fantasy been created? Is it complete naivety or a shameful confidence trick to cover up the weakness of their arguments?

Comments Off