| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:MPs expenses | |
| Posted by: | Malcolm Grimston | |
| Date/Time: | 21/05/09 15:53:00 |
| Every serving politician faces a potential conflict between their role as a local (constituency or Ward) member of whatever body we are talking about, and their role as a strategic member of the authority itself, serving a wider area (say the UK or Wandsworth Borough). Sometimes, of course, the two jobs coincide, but sometimes they do not - for example, if there are large numbers of vacant places in schools one school may need to be closed, which would be in the interests of children in the Borough as a whole but against the interests of parents using the school in question. At a national level, perhaps, closure of post offices because of changed patterns of use may release resources for new national priorities, say fighting climate change, but would be unpopular in the areas where the closure occur. There may be a national case for windfarms but they tend to be very unpopular in the areas where people have to look at and listen to them. Political parties are necessary in my view because they bring together people of a like philosophy to take decisions at the national/area level. As a Wandsworth Conservative councillor I am responsible not just to the people of West Hill Ward, who directly elected me, but also to people in Battersea, Tooting and so on. This was especially the case when I was a member of the Cabinet but remains the case from the back benches. I spend a considerable amount of time acting as a critical friend to a range of councils, including some with large numbers of Independent councillors (Stoke, Cornwall, many District Councils in rural areas). In each case (and with some honorable individual exceptions), independent councillors are heavily focused on their Wards (or occasionally on a single issue, e.g. Dr Richard Taylor MP in Wyre Forest with regard to Kidderminster Hospital) and less interested, if at all, in issues affecting other areas of their local authority. The quality of governance suffers dreadfully as a consequence, as anyone following the politics of Cornwall or Stoke will see. I simply do not believe that a political system shorn of parties could deliver on those policies which are necessary for the country (or council) to adapt to a rapidly changing world. I've certainly not seen many examples. In my opinion people, by and large (and certainly in London), vote for the Party not the individual because they expect that Party to deliver on a coherent philosophical manifesto covering a wide range of issues. That's why the trend in local authorities has been very much away from Independents and towards political parties. A cautionary tale. In Boston, Lincs, the Boston Bypass Independent Party was elected in a landslide in 2007, winning 25 of the 32 seats. They were united round a single manifesto item (guess what - actually a matter not for Boston Borough Council at all but for Lincs County council) but were otherwise independents with a huge range of views on the matters that a District Council does control. (The other 7 were 5 Conservatives and two independents.) The last two years have seen a series of rows, resulting in five BBIP resigning to set up another independent group, Better Boston - the last to go, in December, stating he could no longer "align my personal responsibilities to my ward with the policies of the party." There have also been two byelection defeats. The BNP now has a foothold, with one councillor elected last November when a BBIP councillor resigned because of a drink driving conviction. Difficult to read too much into a single case but it is hard to believe that this kind of situation leads to better governance than a single Party (or parties in coalition) implementing a coherent set of policies on which residents can pass judgment in due course. |