Let the people speak for themselves
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Following last week's white paper on community empowerment, there have been one or two rumbles of disquiet. Luke Akehurst has voiced some of those concerns over at Progress.
As a former councillor, I share some of Luke's concerns and experiences. Heartened as we are by the White Paper taking a stand in favour of the proper place for local politicians and political parties, there is often that feeling that double devolution might leave councillors without power, and local political debate and decisions sterile, without public scrutiny. But I think Luke's comparison with foundation trusts, still at an early stage of their development, is misguided. Overall they point to a good model of how communities can exercise control over their services, in partnership with the local authority.
Luke points out that the electorate of foundation hospitals is self-selecting and limited. The model Luke criticises is a basic tenet of co-operative structures: voluntary and open membership. But that's neither here nor there - basic tenets can and should be challenged and renewed. What's more important is the experience of those trusts who have actively sought and engaged members.
Trusts can sign up members en masse, such as staff or outpatients. Others have chosen to build membership even among staff one by one by presenting a positive case for joining. Those that have taken the latter course have been shown to have a more active membership. As important is that the membership teams who have to go and recruit are also champions for members and for their views. For the others, who have often outsourced their member governance, speaking to members is an occasional act necessitated by the legislation. It hasn't changed their culture, challenged the cosy relationships which always existed. But those brave trusts like South Essex or SLaM that have taken the membership team out on the road to engage have then been those keenest to continue the relationship, learn from their members and be driven by their wishes and by the governors they elect.
It is the case that elections for these bodies are often on the basis of a very small number of words about someone's professional background rather than a statement of their future actions and pledges. There are no manifestos to make clear what choices members have between one direction or another. Perhaps that will come. Perhaps it will work out best without those, to complement, not replace, party politics in the town hall.
Councillors are needed more than ever to make the connections between services like policing, health and transport. Licensing, regeneration and business support are just three of the areas where councillors have been given a far greater role in determining the future of their communities even in the two years since I stopped being a councillor. Councillors can and must be forceful community leaders, dedicated advocates and key drivers of policy.
But increasing the number of stakeholders, whether school governors and tenant reps or youth centre board members and hospital trust governors, should not come at the expense of strengthening local government. It's a proper recognition of the importance of local decision making. And the focus should always be not on those being elected, but on the work between elections - just like councils.
As a former councillor, I share some of Luke's concerns and experiences. Heartened as we are by the White Paper taking a stand in favour of the proper place for local politicians and political parties, there is often that feeling that double devolution might leave councillors without power, and local political debate and decisions sterile, without public scrutiny. But I think Luke's comparison with foundation trusts, still at an early stage of their development, is misguided. Overall they point to a good model of how communities can exercise control over their services, in partnership with the local authority.
Luke points out that the electorate of foundation hospitals is self-selecting and limited. The model Luke criticises is a basic tenet of co-operative structures: voluntary and open membership. But that's neither here nor there - basic tenets can and should be challenged and renewed. What's more important is the experience of those trusts who have actively sought and engaged members.
Trusts can sign up members en masse, such as staff or outpatients. Others have chosen to build membership even among staff one by one by presenting a positive case for joining. Those that have taken the latter course have been shown to have a more active membership. As important is that the membership teams who have to go and recruit are also champions for members and for their views. For the others, who have often outsourced their member governance, speaking to members is an occasional act necessitated by the legislation. It hasn't changed their culture, challenged the cosy relationships which always existed. But those brave trusts like South Essex or SLaM that have taken the membership team out on the road to engage have then been those keenest to continue the relationship, learn from their members and be driven by their wishes and by the governors they elect.
It is the case that elections for these bodies are often on the basis of a very small number of words about someone's professional background rather than a statement of their future actions and pledges. There are no manifestos to make clear what choices members have between one direction or another. Perhaps that will come. Perhaps it will work out best without those, to complement, not replace, party politics in the town hall.
Councillors are needed more than ever to make the connections between services like policing, health and transport. Licensing, regeneration and business support are just three of the areas where councillors have been given a far greater role in determining the future of their communities even in the two years since I stopped being a councillor. Councillors can and must be forceful community leaders, dedicated advocates and key drivers of policy.
But increasing the number of stakeholders, whether school governors and tenant reps or youth centre board members and hospital trust governors, should not come at the expense of strengthening local government. It's a proper recognition of the importance of local decision making. And the focus should always be not on those being elected, but on the work between elections - just like councils.
Labels: bloggers, local government, Luke Akehurst, Progress, public engagement
