Comments are closed.
Unlikely.
July 23rd, 2010
Unlikely.
Eric Pickles continues to roll out his localism agenda in new and interesting ways. Reading Iain Dale’s blog today I picked up on an announcement that I hadn’t yet seen elsewhere, made during an interview Iain did with Eric Pickles. I hope Iain Dale wont mind if I repeat the text he quoted as I’d like to comment on it.
Iain Dale: The cabinet system in local authorities is very unpopular with a lot of people. If local authorities wanted to change that and go back to the committee system, what would your reaction be?
Eric Pickles: Fine. We will be putting something into the local government bill to let them do that. I don’t care how things are organised. They can have it on the basis of a committee system, on a cabinet basis, on the mayoral system. If they want to introduce it on a choral system with various members of the council singing sea shanties I don’t mind, providing it’s accountable, transparent and open. That’s all I need to know.
The cabinet system has strengths and weaknesses. We’ve discussed some of them on this blog before in response to the critical comments of some readers. But I don’t want to comment on whether I like the cabinet system or not – it’s like commenting on whether or not I like the sky. It’s there. It’s not going away.
I can imagine a lot of things if I put my mind to it. I can imagine a future where free energy is abundant. I can imagine a world with no war. I can imagine the colonisation of different planets as Mankind reaches for the stars. I can even imagine a Labour party which didn’t destroy the national economy (though that’s a tough one.) But I cannot imagine a cabinet voting itself out of existence in a move back to the committee system. I just can’t.
15 Responses to “Unlikely.”
C'llr 10 Achievement Awards
UK Councillor Blogs Top 30
UK Councillor Blogs Top 30
UK Politics Blogs Top 200
UK Right Blogs Top 100
UK Tory Blogs Top 100
Wikio
The cabinet system as currently operated at FDC is undemocratic, unrepresentative, unaccountable and overpaid and, worse of all, incestuous
They won’t vote themselves out of existence but the entire council would, particularly if they consulted their electors.
There was a time when to chair a committee was an honour and privilege for a Councillor and showed that he or she was respected by their peers as well as their electorate.
Nowadays it’s become a paid fiefdom of the leader!
It’s now become a fiefdom of the Leader
To be honest I’m not sure what the Committee system would mean in practice but it seems like an excuse for procrastination.
Based on that I think Cabinet governance is far superior in terms of efficient decision making to that of a committee system. That’s why democratically elected national governments have a cabinet system all across the world. I can’t think of a single government that doesn’t. There must be something to it.
That said, I find it strange that you don’t have a public view on Cabinet v. Committee. If it were a free vote amongst all elected representatives at County level for a new system of governance, how would you vote?
Moderator (Steve Tierney)’s Response:
I’d vote to keep the cabinet system – but with some significant changes to the way the system is organised and its delegates chosen.
Reg,
Clearly you want a Committee system but don’t show how it would improve governance other than to say it would better reflect the personal popularity of certain figures. You say the current system is, “undemocratic, unrepresentative, unaccountable and overpaid and, worse of all, incestuous”.
I don’t see how its undemocratic as it’s the elected reps at work, the cabinet reflects the party in power, unaccountable – presumeably councillors of all hues are allowed to ask questions, overpaid – that’s arguable and as for incestuous well clearly I missed that one.
The PM’s Cabinet is his personal fiefdom. Should we change that too?
It’s also important to bear in mind that the councillors are representatives not delegates.
I think that its the case that they are making decisions that you strongly disagree with and thus you believe them to be mad, bad, dangerous to know and not to my knowledge dictators. They are demoncratically elected, they have public meetings, held accountable by their own and other parties and use the cabinet system of government that is used (as far as I can tell) by every democracy around the world.
“demoncratically elected” – I like my typo better
Adam – Could i remind you that Fenland DC isn’t a government and wasn’t intended to be – local politics is totally different to national politics (or should be).
Your comment habout how the committee system would apply somewhat baffles me – have you not been around long? Because it’s a system that stood the test of time for generations until the national politician’s decided to mess about with it in fairly recent times.
I used the word incenstuous in it’s widest sense to mean that the cabinet members are all beholden to the leader for their jobs and substantial extra responsibility allowances.
As for unrepresentative yes, the ‘back benchers’ for want of a better name can ask questions but often they are ignored, and cabinet decisions are nodded through at full council without debate. (I bet there wasn’t much debate about spending £250k on a mobile gym)
I don’t want to vote for a particular councillor only to find he is not one of the elite and therefore can’t do his job properly of representing the views of his electorate.
John Clark is a good, dedicated, councillor who came second by democratic vote in the leadership election at FDC earlier this year. One would have thought that was enough for him to be given a seat on the Cabinet but no, he’s relegated to the back benches and why is that? Probably because the leader is punishing him for having the effrontery to stand against him and/or sees him as a threat. Is that the way to run a cabinet? The cabinet should be made up of the most able not those who are most likely to bend to the whim of the Leader rather than risk expulsion from the lofty and well paid heights
The current system stinks and the sooner it is done away with the better, in my view and that has nothing to do with whether I agree with their decisions or not.
Reg,
It is “a government”, a local one. It’s remit is different and on a smaller scale but it is a government nonetheless. Cabinet systems work around the world becasue they are good at making decisions. They are similar to boards of companies with CEOs, Chairmen and boards to make stregic decisions rather than take straw polls of every manager on every decision.
I haven’t been around long, but long enough to know that the output of doing something by committee is characterised by, “needless complexity, internal inconsistency, logical flaws, banality, and the lack of a unifying vision.”
Explain how a committee would be better at governing rather than just condemn the current system. I really can’t see it but please try and lift the scales from my eyes.
You say, “Because it’s a system that stood the test of time for generations until the national politician’s decided to mess about with it in fairly recent times.” – So you’ll be voting for First Past the Post next year then which, “stood the test of time for generations etc etc”
You say that, “‘back benchers’ for want of a better name can ask questions but often they are ignored” – by inference in a committee system would be taken into account and balanced so that everyone is happy – that’s an impossibility even within one party, let alone across the board. How many decisions need to be made, how long would they debate each decision, would councillors sit in almost constant session and become full time polticians?
You say, “I don’t want to vote for a particular councillor only to find he is not one of the elite and therefore can’t do his job properly of representing the views of his electorate” – so you don’t vote in national elections unless you know that the person you vote for is guaranteed to be in the Cabinet then?
“John Clark is a good, dedicated, councillor who came second by democratic vote in the leadership election at FDC earlier this year. One would have thought that was enough for him to be given a seat on the Cabinet but no, he’s relegated to the back benches and why is that?” – Never met the man or even read anything about him – we only have your word on his abilities. Maybe he is simply popular, but not that popular, maybe the winner of the popularity contest felt he was incompetent to hold higher office or would not be a team player or Clark himself maybe even have refused to be in the cabinet in a fit of pique. It may be that your comments are accurate. I have no way of knowing and to be honest, really don’t care. It’s a bit like saying that the person who came second in his ward deserves a say too. Clark lost because more of his peers in an election thought someone else was better.
Cabinet government is a great way to undertake decision making, it doesn’t always do what you want but governance by committee seems to be a desperately inefficient way to go and with no apparent democratic deficit. I still await any arguments as to why it would be better.
.
FPTP hasn’t stood the test of time Adam that’s why so many people want to change it.
Not all local councils operate the leader and cabinet system. East Cambs, next door to Fenland don’t for instance and they seem to manage quite well.
The committee system is better in my view because although the committee may well put forward a proposl the entire council, including my local councillor, has an opportunity for his or her say before it is voted on.
Expediency isn’t always the best way – the quickest way to get a decision is by having a dictatorship – why don’t we try that?
A lot of MPs, the media and members of the public have expressed concern about the way the parliamentary ‘cabinet’ system works in a democracy and I share those concerns.
Sorry Adam, you’re confusing efficiency with democratic processes. Democracy isn’t efficient but I’d much rather have it than Dictatorship any day.
Moderator (Steve Tierney)’s Response:
As ever, Reg, you show a startling naivete towards the actual workings of a council. In the cabinet system backbench councillors have plenty of opportunity (including your local councillor) to have their say and things are still ratified by full council. There are PDGs in some councils, there’s group meetings, and there’s full council meetings to name but a few options. Councillors can always make an appointment with the cabinet member and discuss a particular issue. These things aren’t “ignored” at all. Yes, something could go through that a councillor doesn’t approve of – but exactly the same is true of the committee system. The cabinet system itself isn’t the problem.
For instance, if a councillor wanted to challenge a particular issue in the cabinet system they’d contact the cabinet member, bring it up at the group meeting or ask a question stimulating an overall debate at a full council meeting. In the committee system they’d do that at the committee stage – but its just as likely that a “group” of others on that committee would overrule their objection.
While the committee system might (though much hard work and long haggling) reach a more complete consensus, in considering whether such a consensus is worth the effort you might consider what Margaret Thatcher had to say about it:
“For me, pragmatism is not enough. Nor is that fashionable word “consensus.”… To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects—the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner “I stand for consensus”?
- Margaret Thatcher 1981
I would refer you to the comments you posted by Ian Dale and Eric Pickles regarding my naivette as you call it. I make no apologies for putting the case as I see it as an ordinary member of the public but I do talk to FDC Councillors y’know and have my ear fairly close to the ground.
If there is the wide debate you mention, why is it that decisions like the Mat Taylor fiasco went through without hardly anyone on the council knowing? Why the Wisbech taxi rank embarrassment>? Why the horrifically expensive mobile Gym?
I was invited to a meeting at Fenland Hall with a couple of officers, the other day in my role as chair of the Neighbourhood Police Panel for March having been invited by the Sector Inspector to take on that role earlier this year (they wanted someone independent of the police and the council)
I was presented with a 14 page document putting forward proposals for a change in the way ‘community involvement’is conducted in future which means the police will be just one of many other agencies in public meetings and those meetings will be chaired by an FDC portfolio holder.
I was told that copies of the document have been sent to all interested parties and it was awaiting Cabinet approval. I happen to think the proposals are innapropriate in respect of the relationship between the public and the police. How much open debaste will there be about that at Council I wonder? It will go through ‘on the nod’I suspect and we, the members of the public, will be stuck with something else that we don’t need and probably won’t work!
Local government isn’t supposed to be a microcosm of national government and never has been, although many people sadly, vote as though it were.
Moderator (Steve Tierney)’s Response:
The proposals you are talking about relate to the Neighbourhood Management Boards – which are an effort to help the people and their services connect with one another, to allow debate and challenge and to make sure complaints are properly aired. They work very, very well indeed.
In fact Neighbourhood Management Boards have been supposed to include the police for some time, but structurally they could not properly do so because they covered (slightly) different boundaries to policing areas and because they met less frequently than the law requires police to do. This has meant the police must cover them and also hold their own panels as well.
The changes are essentially to bring the two together – which is the way it is supposed to be anyway. How much open debate will there be? As much as you want there to be. It’s a public meeting. I’ve vice-chaired, and then chaired, these meetings for the last year and of all the things I’m involved with they are the thing for which I am most enthused. There are so many good things about this new idea that I could go on for hours. But I wont bore you, I’ll just tell you to please go along to them and see for yourself. This is a positive change.
Present at the Neighbourhood Management Boards are all the services that the people might possibly have a gripe with (or, at least, most of them.) People will still be able to talk to the police, set their policing priorities etc. But if an issue strays into the council, or Roddens, or some other jurisdiction – it doesn’t just stop dead because the board is empowered to deal with those things too. Better still, your complaint is heard (and minuted) by everybody at the meeting. It gets things done, and promptly – because a report comes to the next meeting showing how the issue was resolved – a potent encouragement if ever there was one.
I do agree that its a shame they must be chaired by an FDC cabinet member, but FDC are putting a lot of the money and effort into them and so its not unreasonable that they want to chair them.
“Expediency isn’t always the best way – the quickest way to get a decision is by having a dictatorship – why don’t we try that?”
Nope, dictatorship isn’t necessarily faster, take the example of Hitler, there’s reams of evidence to show that he didn’t make decisions and passed the decision making to the competing groups and organizations with overlapping responsibilities and prompting much delay. It’s not clear cut and self evident about dictatorships. Not that I’d want a dictatorship BTW.
”A lot of MPs, the media and members of the public have expressed concern about the way the parliamentary ‘cabinet’ system works in a democracy and I share those concerns.”
You are confused, it’s not Cabinet government people go on about, please cite one recent example of an article, URL or anything that says “we must have a committee system at Westminster – lets end this Cabinet government madness.” It’s actually the Party system (which I like) that they go on about that prevents free votes -it’s not the same thing. Now and again the government guillotines debates prompting further complaints, governments like to get their agenda through whether it’s cabinet or committee government (not that it exists anywhere in the world at national level but never mind). Most of the time those that crow loudest about “abuse of power” don’t want something to go through and because it is going through, much against their strongly held views and beliefs it therefore becomes an abuse of power. When all said and done MPs vote it through, if they don’t it fails, it’s still democratic.
Neighbourhood Management Boards are part of the problem as I see it Steve. Where did they spring from? How were the members appointed? To whom are they accountable? What is their remit?
Apparently they’ve been in existence for a while now but until I went to the meeting at Fenland Hall last week I hadn’t got a clue who the members for March were and I take an interest in these things – God help the person who doesn’t!
Seems to me they’re almost like the much hated quango, meeting behind closed doors (as far as the public are concerned)and making decisions which the public are unaware of.
I don’t want a Management Board I want a council committee that I can attend if I want to and where scrutiny of the decisions are available to the public.
I think it’s called democratic procedure!
Moderator (Steve Tierney)’s Response:
>>Where did they spring from?< <
They sprung from laws passed by the previous government concerning community engagement which were then implemented a year ago in Cambridgeshire after full and open discussions with all councils, the police and all the other services.
>>How were the members appointed?< <
The "members" are representatives of each of the main bodies to whom constituents might want to address issues. So county appoints a member, district another, the police, Roddens housing, the Youth Council and every single Parish Council appoints a member. Thus making sure that every party is involved and engaged with the public.
>>To whom are they accountable?< <
They are accountable to the public, who bring issues to them that they would like resolved. The idea is exactly the same as the police panels which you are so keen on. Except that it became clear people often brought problems to police panels which were not police issues, so the Neighbourhood Board aims to make sure the whole range of issues can be responded to.
>> What is their remit?< <
Their remit is to take issues raised by the public at Neighbourhood Fairs, the Panel meetings and some other channels and solve them publicly - explaining how and when the issue was solved at each new meeting.
>>Apparently they’ve been in existence for a while now but until I went to the meeting at Fenland Hall last week I hadn’t got a clue who the members for March were and I take an interest in these things – God help the person who doesn’t!< <
It is very early days, Reg. There have only been four meetings. Advertising could have been done better - though the fairs (which are an integral part of the panels) have been very well attended. The idea is an excellent one. I fully support it and hope they go from strength to strength. Of course, if people like you who claim to be in favour of transparency, democracy and engagement then choose to take cheap shots at them they'll probably just fade away through lack of support. Which would be a massive shame, in my opinion. There are people who do not want to see them continue - you should not be one of them. This is one of the very good ideas that you should fully support.
>>Seems to me they’re almost like the much hated quango, meeting behind closed doors (as far as the public are concerned)and making decisions which the public are unaware of.< <
The meetings are public meetings and they are the ONLY committee which includes such a wide and diverse range of representatives. Parish council reps can raise issues with a Fenland cabinet member to their face. Questions can be asked of Roddens, the Police and council officers. It's all minuted and followed up. They are also the only meeting where a raised issue can be taken right from start to conclusion and tracked every step of the way. They are nothing like a Quango, because a Quango is a non-governmental organisation. These are all official reps making public decisions that are fully transparent. This is how business should be done. You really are shooting at the wrong target here Reg.
>>I don’t want a Management Board I want a council committee that I can attend if I want to and where scrutiny of the decisions are available to the public.I think it’s called democratic procedure!<<
The Neighbourhood Board is exactly what you describe. “A council committee that you can attend if you want to and where scrutiny of the decisions are available to the public.” Although it doesn’t make very many “decisions”. That’s not its purpose. Its purpose is to take issues raised by the public and solve them, using the wide variety of agents present in the same room to make this easy.
Don’t blame me if they fail Steve – there has been absolutely no publicity about them or public information. Yes, we all know about community fairs but how do I get to put a question directly to the management board for March for instance and can I attend their meetings?
You seem to have forgotten to mention that part of their remit is to decide on the allocation of FDC grant funding a crucial role as far as local ‘not for profit’ groups are concerned which used to be carried out by a group of elected FDC councillors and rightly so considering it’s public money. By what right does an organisation like Roddon’s housing a commercial organisation, have a say in how that public money should be disbursed?
On the principal of Community Engagement how come you’re suddenly supportive of something introduced by the Labour Government? I thought community engagement was the reason we had elected councillors!
Moderator (Steve Tierney)’s Response:
The ‘grant’ money that the committee got to allocate was donated by FDC and by Roddens in order to empower the committee to help fund local causes. So the FDC portion is public money but the Roddens portion is not. The Neighbourhood panel simply brought in more local representatives to help make decisions that would affect very local areas – primarily parish councillors from every parish council. But you are making the case for me – since you earlier criticised the meetings being chaired by FDC and then in the next message make the case for FDC to be making the decisions.
People and groups were invited to submit applications and then the committees (in a public meeting) discussed and allocated the funds. I certainly support Parish Councils having a say in how local causes are funded – that’s localism right there. This was money made available specifically for the purpose of the new Neighbourhood committees – and its hard to imagine a more transparent and sensible way to allocate such things (if we’re going to have them at all.) The fact that Roddens put such a lot of money into the pot would seem to be a fair reason for them having a single representative on the committee, don’t you think?
You ask how you can put questions to the committee. You miss the point Reg – this is not primarily a “decision-making” committee, its job is to oversee the work being done for constituents following the issues they have raised elsewhere; neighbourhood fairs, police panels, the new community website etc. All the questions raised are dealt with by the relevant body or officer directly. The job of the committee has been to receive reports and scrutise the work that is being done. However – this is about to change. The new system – which will bring police panels fully into partnership – becomes a “full on” public meeting with questions being taken and debated directly with the public. The committee – having had (in my opinion) a good first year, is choosing to change into a model which is more in keeping with what you seem to prefer. You should be pleased! But of course you will not be, because you have already decided to not be pleased without (seemingly) knowing anything about the issue you are challenging.
There was a LOT of publicity about these events, but It would be a fair criticism to say that it was not well-targetted advertising I think. These comments have been made by many of us and advertising should improve in the next round.
Finally – you ask “how come I am suddenly supportive of something the Labour government introduced?” Which seems an incredibly odd comment to me. If and when opposition parties have a good idea or a good policy, I’m not afraid to support it. I’ve *always* been supportive of the principle of Neighbourhood forums. They aren’t perfect, but they are a sound idea upon which to build. I don’t like Labour’s style of government or their underlying ethos but that doesn’t mean I automatically oppose everything they ever do. How mindless would that be?
Roddons are certainly not entitled to have a say in the FDC grant scheme annd it certainly shouldn’t be a condition of them putting money into the pot. What a preposturous idea. Does that mean that any local company that wants to put up money could do the same thing? Once you set a precedent like that where does it end? By all means Roddons put up £25k in grants but it shouldn’t be tied in to the FDC scheme in any way and however apparently innnocently
If these Neighbourhood Management Boards are not decision making what the hell are they supposed to be doing and why are they called Management Boards? Don’t councillors have enough to do without getting themselves involved with eternal review bodies and the like?
I actually manned a stall on behalf of Churches Together at thde community fair at Neale Wade – there were more stallholders there than members of the public. Oh, and by the way, I visited the Cambs County Council stall with a query – filled in a form and received a letter a couple of weeks later saying my query would be attended to and I would receive a written response shortly. That was last October I think and I’m still waiting!
These things are a load of window dressing to keep officers busy with their little empires who then distract councillors from what they should be doing.
Labour’s multi agency approach will get kicked out by the coalition I hope. If the public want to meet with the police that’s what they should be allowed to do not have it all watered down at some multi agency community fair.
You’ve never had a good word to say for Labour as far as I can recall. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Moderator (Steve Tierney)’s Response:
I’ve rarely had much good to say about Gordon Brown and his ilk, for sure. But while I dislike their party’s ethos, I’ve (very occasionally) liked the odd policy – I think that’s to be expected.
In regards to the rest, I give up. You have clearly decided to “not like” the boards, despite most of your comments being either wrong or pure supposition. I’ve tried to explain to you why I think they’re good but you clearly have your mind made up so I’ll waste no more time on it.
Oh, alright then, be like that!
Roll on elected police commissioners and the like!
Lets get rid of all the paraphenalia surrounding councillors and get them back to do the job they were elected for which is representing the views of their electorate and making sure that’s what the officers occupy themselves with, rather than making a big production out of everything.
A good committee system can also stop very bad policies from reaching the full council meetings. It forces the council leadership to argue through policies from an early stage rather than foisting them from the centre (often at the bidding of the officers) at a cabinet meeting.
Crucially, local councillors get a greater say under the committee system and I can give you one example – Ramsey St Mary’s – where the plan to close the school and send the pupils to Ramsey was turned around into one to refurbish the school instead.
Moderator (Steve Tierney)’s Response:
Thanks for popping by, Richard. It’s an honour to have you comment here.
Well said Richard. I’m glad someone is on my side.
I visited the FDC website the other day and was amazed to see how many decisions were awaiting cabinet approval as the decision makers. No mention of discussion at full council or anything like that.
Your point about these things being officer led is very well made.