Labour’s proposal to ask local people whether to scrap Bedford Borough’s directly elected mayor has been defeated at an extraordinary full council meeting.
Members voted against the motion by 25 votes to 16 last night (16 September), keeping the borough’s current governance structure in place.
Conservative split
Read: Bedford Borough councillors reject motion to hold mayoral referendum
The vote exposed a key division within the ruling administration, as four Conservative councillors abstained.
The abstainers included two senior figures.
Cllr Mark Frost (Conservative/Wixams & Wilstead), portfolio holder for financial services and financial sustainability, and Cllr Graeme Coombes (Conservative/Wixams & Wilstead), leader of Bedford Borough Council’s Conservative group.
Cllr Jon Gambold (Conservative/Biddenham) and cllr Gallagher (Conservative/Shortstown) joined them in abstaining.
In a statement, the Bedford Borough Conservative Group said: “The vote on whether Bedford Borough should have an Elected Mayor was not a reflection on any individual Mayor – past, present or future.
“It was simply a vote on how Bedford Borough should be governed.
“The Conservative Group has long held views on this matter. Over time, as new members have joined us, these views can and do change.
“Therefore, unlike the other parties that have whipped votes, where their members are forced to vote en bloc, either for or against Council motions, the Conservative Group is a democratic party.
“Our Councillors were free to vote as they chose, according to what they thought would be the best choice for Bedford Borough.”
Financial burden
Council officers revealed during the debate that holding a borough-wide referendum across 28 wards could cost local taxpayers between £350,000 and £375,000, in addition to officer time.
The potential cost was highlighted using the 2023 Wootton by-election as a benchmark, which cost £12,366.74.
Cllr Doug McMurdo (Independent/Sharnbrook) warned against adding to the financial pressure on the authority, saying: “Putting any burden of this magnitude on the Bedford Borough taxpayer is very ill-thought-out. It’s just such bad timing. We cannot afford it.”
Mayor Tom Wootton questioned whether local people wanted a governance change, pointing to a public petition that had gathered only 171 verified signatures compared to the 6,940 required to trigger a statutory ballot.
Mayor Tom Wootton said: “There’s a petition calling on this council to hold a referendum on the mayoral system, which had 171 verified signatures earlier today.
“The statutory threshold for residents to trigger such a ballot through a petition is 6,940 electors, five per cent of the electorate.
“That’s not evidence of overwhelming public demand for a referendum. We’re being asked to use the votes in this chamber to settle what the public campaign has come nowhere close to achieving.
“Neither is distracting this council for months with an argument for which the public has shown so little appetite. So let’s not manufacture a constitutional crisis where residents haven’t asked for one.”
Governance debated
The defeated motion was proposed by Cllr Abu Sultan (Labour/Cauldwell), who argued that constitutional arrangements should be reviewed periodically to serve the community effectively.
Cllr Abu Sultan said: “This isn’t about the current or previous mayor or who might be mayor tomorrow, next year or at the next election.
“It’s certainly not about settling a political score with any particular person. This is about the system of governance itself.
“Mayors, councillors and political parties change, but the governance structure of the council can remain in place for decades.
“We’re saying the people of Bedford Borough should have that opportunity again to say how they want their council governed.
“The borough council adopted the directly elected executive mayor model after a referendum held in 2002. Good governance should be accountable, transparent, collaborative and responsive to the communities it serves.
“Effective local government depends on robust scrutiny, sound decision-making, strong democratic accountability and meaningful involvement from councillors.
“It’s good democratic practice to review constitutional and governance arrangements periodically.
“The purpose of any such model is to deliver the best possible outcomes for residents through effective leadership, openness, responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources and public confidence in local democracy.”
Supporting the proposal, Cllr Ben Foley (Green/Greyfriars) argued that the current mayoral model lacks flexibility when leadership fails.
In a statement to the Bedford Independent, Cllr Ben Foley said: “It’s frustrating: we believe it’s the right thing to do to ask residents what they want, in a referendum.
“The public can understand the other option well enough – moving to having our council leader elected from among the councillors would match the way the prime minister is chosen by the House of Commons.
“That way, when you get failing prime ministers, like Keir Starmer, they can be replaced. With this mayoral system, no matter how badly they are failing, and even if they’ve lost support of their own party, we’re stuck with them.
“The council has got into a terrible mess over the last few years, with stand-offs between the mayor and the council chamber. The public needs a chance to say it’s time to change the system.
“The qualities required to win an election are very different to those needed to lead an administration of an efficient council.
“If any mayor isn’t up to the job, we’re stuck with them until the next election. There’s nothing anyone can do to force them out, even if they’ve lost the support of their own party.”
Secret Ballot
Tensions flared during the meeting when Labour moved a procedural motion to request a secret ballot before the main vote, a move strongly criticised by opposition groups.
Cllr Henry Vann (Liberal Democrats/De Parys) criticised both the proposed cost and the secret ballot attempt.
During the debate he said: ““This debate is distracting us and officers from the issues in hand.
“What makes this even more absurd, amid the calls of apparent democracy from the Labour Group, it doesn’t stack up when you first move a procedural motion for a secret ballot.
“The fundamental reality of being accountable for the decisions you make is so important. We’re bound to be transparent. I was shocked and appalled by that attempt at a procedural game.
“It’s not something we’ve time to look at currently. It would be a rushed job, while on a wet, windy, horrible November evening, goodness knows what the turnout would be in a referendum.
“Imagine what that £375,000 could be spent on. Labour voted for two of the budgets which drove us to bankruptcy and abstained on the third.
“This is the wrong time. We can least afford it. Devolution will inevitably mean we revisit the subject in the future.”
After the vote, speaking to the Bedford Independent, he said: “Labour have had 24 years to bring forward a motion.
“They brought precious little evidence of any public demand for this political distraction, which would cost £375,000 and hours of officer time.
“The motion was clearly defeated, and I urge all councillors to get on with the job of protecting services, dealing with the financial crisis and building a brighter future for Bedford.”
Decision defended
In a statement issued after the meeting, the Bedford Borough Labour Group defended their decision to bring the motion and call for a secret vote.
Defending their position after the meeting, the Bedford Borough Labour Group insisted they brought the motion because local people deserve a say after nearly a quarter of a century.
Dismissing criticism over the secret vote, Labour described accusations about their motives as “frankly laughable”.
The group stated that a secret ballot “simply removes the possibility of pressure being brought to bear on an individual councillor for taking a position on a constitutional question”.
Labour added: “The real question is why councillors who privately said they wanted change ultimately didn’t feel able to vote for it in public.”
Adding, “The Labour Group was always going to vote for this motion. We had our heads above the parapet from the start, and nobody was under any illusion about where we stood.
“We brought a motion because we believe a fundamental constitutional question should ultimately be put in the hands of the people of Bedford Borough.”
They added that, “This motion was not a reflection upon any individual mayor, any previous mayor or any political administration.”
Two of the Borough’s independent councillors also gave their views to the Bedford Independent after the vote.
Cllr Nicky Gribble (Renhold), who sits on Mayor Wootton’s cabinet, told us, “I felt it was a measured, good-humoured debate with many thoughtful and insightful opinions.
As a Borough Councillor and Portfolio Holder, my priority remains unchanged: ensuring residents are heard, decisions are transparent, and the Council delivers effectively for our communities.
“I look forward to working constructively with all colleagues to ensure the Borough moves forward positively following the decision last night.”
Meanwhile, Sharnbrook councillor Doug McMurdo added to his comments during the meeting, “If Labour really have concerns about the system, this should have been dealt with months ago. It is a political stunt in my view.
“They should have been concentrating their efforts on selecting a suitable candidate for the Mayoral Election in May 2027.
“The Council cannot afford this distraction from all the problems we have.
“It isn’t personal, but the incumbent has failed, been re-selected, and May 2027 will determine who the next Mayor will be – very unlikely to be a Labour one”.
Additional reporting by
Euan Duncan, Local Democracy Reporter
