Pugh's View (25th Feb)

Friday, 25 February 2011

John Pugh on the need for face-to-face communication between electors and the elected

IT IS now a decade since I stepped down as the leader of Sefton Council to become an MP but I can still recall the stress and strain of the annual budget round.

The scene was always set by the government of the day deciding what their contribution to Sefton's finances was going to be.

Many a year they publicly told the population how generous they had been and privately told the council treasurer that the council was going to have manage on less.

The choice was often between cutting some services and annoying residents affected – or increasing the council tax and annoying all the residents.

This year the Government aren't even pretending they have been generous so things must be very grim, and indeed are. How easy though is it for us, the council tax payers, to understand what is really going on?

After all, local authority finance is about as interesting as a goalless draw in the first leg of a European football fixture.

How do the elected communicate the truth about their dilemma to the electors?

While ruminating about this my mind travelled back to the Sefton council meetings of the last century and to one out of the ordinary individual, Charlie Agate.

In the 1980s and 90s there were council committee meetings most weekday nights, except Friday. They ran from 6.30-10pm.

Charlie, as a member of the public, attended them all!

One day it would be the education committee, next day planning, next day social services or leisure or licensing or tourism or libraries and Arts. The agenda of each committee was packed.

As the fifteen strong committee moved from agenda item to agenda item, they quizzed the chief officers in each department about developments.

Officers, in turn, sought the permission of the committee for permission to proceed with or change policies and took the opportunity to inform members of progress.

Nowadays the same decisions are made by a solitary elected councillor ringed and outnumbered by council officers.

Others came and went as issues affected them personally but Charlie, then, was our one ever-present fan.

Councillors would give him a lift home as he sat to the end of each session – quiet but attentive-dressed smartly, always arriving in good time in raincoat and hat.

Occasionally, he would write to the Visiter unburdening himself of his view of proceedings but his interest in the affairs of Sefton seemed inexhaustible. During occasional bouts of illness elected members would ask after his health.

Few have such a passion but really for the good of us all there has to be a 'connect' between decision makers and those impacted by the decisions.

Would it help to bring back the dreary theatre of the old committees – more public decision making and debate? Isn't it better, some would say, that you can e-mail your councillors or consult a website and not have to travel to Bootle or Southport Town Hall to find out what's afoot.

Time moves on but I venture one thought: Despite the increasing speed and sophistication of modern communication there is still a need for what I call 'raw' politics – the face to face communication between elected and electors.

There is something about that interaction that we don't get much of now, yet is needed in tough times like these. It is needed if local democracy is to thrive.

Your suggestions, please.