Agenda item

Joint report of the Town Clerk & Chief Executive and Comptroller and City Solicitor.

The Committee considered a joint report of the Town Clerk and Comptroller and City Solicitor outlining the outcomes of this summer’s Wardmote Livestream pilot and seeking views as to whether there was an appetite to pursue broader implementation.

The Deputy Town Clerk introduced the report highlighting that the pilot had been undertaken in response to a request from this Committee. Statistically, the pilot had not appeared to provide value for money in terms of viewing figures for the live event or subsequent voter turnout. The Committee were now therefore asked to consider whether and how to now proceed with this concept. The Town Clerk went on to highlight that, were the pilot to be rolled out for all, there were some logistical difficulties within certain Wardmote venues to note.

An Alderwoman stated that she did not think it financially or democratically prudent to roll out livestreaming for all Wardmotes and was therefore in favour of the recommended option of reflecting on alternative methods of engagement which might be more cost and resource effective instead. She went on to question the validity of the pilot itself stating that this conclusion could have reasonably been reached without this expenditure. She highlighted that, under statute, Wardmotes had to take place the day before polling day when the majority of postal voters would have already cast their votes. Also, in a business Ward such as Castle Baynard, many businesses still unfortunately failed to register or failed to take part in the election post registration and so would have little interest in a livestream.

The Alderwoman went on to refer to the data contained within the report stating that it was a false comparison to examine the turnout for Aldermanic elections in Castle Baynard with the other Wards listed. High turnouts were more commonplace in small Wards as opposed to in large, predominantly business Wards such as Castle Baynard. She added that other Wards had far lower turnouts in the March 2022 all-out elections but these were not reflected here and therefore stated that emphasis had been disproportionately placed on the July 2023 Castle Baynard Aldermanic election.

Another Alderman broadly agreed with these observations. They went on to question whether there was an access control as to who could view the Wardmote livestream whereas, admittance for those attending in person, was at the discretion of the Presiding Officer and these should generally be registered electors. Overall, they were of the view that this expenditure would be better targeted at more effectively engaging with the electorate and improving turnout going forward. The Deputy Town Clerk confirmed that there had been no access control in terms of online viewings.

An Alderman stated that they had been in favour of the pilot and exploring a potential means by which voter turnout might be increased. However, this had clearly not proved fruitful and so they too were now in favour of exploring other methods of increasing voter participation.

An Alderman who had served as the Lord Mayor’s Aldermanic Representative at the livestreamed Wardmote. They queried the total expenditure for the pilot. They also went on to question how much notice of the livestream had been provided by the Corporation and to whom.

Another Alderman stated that the postal vote numbers in their Ward was significantly larger than those who chose to vote in person on the day and that these voters submitted votes way in advance of any Wardmote. Because of this, Resident Associations in their Ward had arranged to hold hustings in the run up to postal votes being sent out. They went on to query whether there might be a helpful equivalent within predominantly business Wards that would be prepared to help arrange similar or whether the Corporation might fund these going forwards as a more effective means of engagement.

Another Alderman queried what was meant by the recommendation around reflecting upon alternative methods of engagement and what this might look like practically.

The Deputy Town Clerk clarified that whilst £3,000 had been allocated for the pilot, the total expenditure had amounted to £1,928. In terms of communication, the Wardmote livestream had been promoted via the notice of election letter, poll cards and via three separate emails during the statutory election period. He went on to comment that he appreciated the point made around the difficulties in comparing turnouts across different Wards given their varying sizes and components but added that he felt that the Committee were right to support the pilot as a means of testing whether this might positively impact upon voter turnout at relatively low cost. In terms of now reflecting on more effective means of voter engagement, he commented that this would involve further conversations with the Engagement Team but may involve how the City Corporation might encourage hustings or early conversations with candidates around voter engagement for example.

The Chairman requested that a future report setting out potential, alternative methods of engagement be brought back to a future meeting of this Committee.

RESOLVED - That Members:-

1. Note the content of the report and the findings of the pilot scheme

2. Decide against rolling out the programme and reflect on alternative methods of engagement which might be more cost and resource effective instead.