| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Proposed closure of Wandsworth Museum | |
| Posted by: | Malcolm Grimston | |
| Date/Time: | 11/01/07 23:02:00 |
| There's not much further we can go with this strand until the Committee papers are ready - they will have the details (on costings, etc) as requested. At that time public views will be welcome, as indeed I have welcomed the views of the ten or twelve people who have contributed to this strand. I would say though that our democracy is representative, not delegative. Governments are not elected simply to carry out a series of binding referenda on each individual issue - after all, there'd be no place for political parties, no alternative visions for people to choose from at election time, it could all be done by computer. And we would end up with an incoherent mess without a binding ambition or 'big picture'. Of course this does not mean that we cut ourselves off between elections - as demonstrated by our willingness to get involved in debate such as this strand, local meetings, deputations to Committees and so on - but ultimately we are elected to use our best judgment on each issue, not to try to avoid accountability by ducking difficult decisions each time. Referendum (as opposed to consultation) is anathema to the British way of government and has rightly tended to be restricted to constitutional changes such as entering (or staying in) the EEC. Even if it were more common, why would we choose this one issue, raised by a handful of people in one part of the Borough, as opposed to the other difficult decisions that have to be taken or potential spending that could be increased? Perhaps the single statement I find most odd in this posting is "why [does] the council consider new initiatives when it can't afford to support existing ones". If I read it right, it is saying that we should never seek to respond to changing needs in the population, the financial or other operating environment, the opportunities offered by new techologies etc. I cannot agree. For example, I believe climate change is a real and growing threat and I want the council to be in a position to reduce its carbon footprint even if we have to invest e.g. in energy efficient equipment in order to do so. Those resources must come from somewhere, and they're not coming from the government. I don't believe the outcome of elections can be dismissed in such a cavalier fashion. If people in this strand are right, that we have massively misjudged the public mood towards the museum and should indeed be cutting street cleaning, refuse collection or recycling, or closing parks or town centre libraries instead (they are the main items within my portfolio), then we will not be reelected. That is as it should be - I stood for election because I have political principles, not for my own sake, and if people don't like those principles they should and will elect someone else. But in the meantime I don't think any of my colleagues will apologise for using our best judgement on behalf of those who elect us about how to respond to the changing environment in which we operate. That best judgment will be formed by taking into account fully the range of alternative proposals that come forwards, with the probable exception of major increases in council tax (which is one of our core values and in any case is severely limited by capping legislation). After all, at the last election Labour was in effect suggesting a council tax of over £1,000 before the Mayor's slice (when its spending promises were totted up) and the LibDems a local income tax of around £2,200 for a working couple, so there were plenty of alternatives for those who don't like low taxes. |