Decisions...

The Quaker Meeting House at Sedburgh

Quakers - as far as I recall - have this idea of 'waiting on god'. There is no service, people say more-or-less what they want. I'm probably wrong in this but it always seemed an interesting idea. It is a fine thought that a whole 'service' can pass without a word being said and for those present to see this as good and valuable.

The first that enters into the place of your meeting. . . turn in thy mind to the light, and wait upon God singly, as if none were present but the Lord; and here thou art strong. Then the next that comes in, let them in simplicity of heart sit down and turn in to the same light, and wait in the spirit; and so all the rest coming in, in the fear of the Lord, sit down in pure stillness and silence of all flesh, and wait in the light . . . . Those who are brought to a pure still waiting upon God in the spirit, are come nearer to the Lord than words are; for God is a spirit, and in the spirit is he worshiped. . . . In such a meeting there will be an unwillingness to part asunder, being ready to say in yourselves, it is good to be here; and this is the end of all words and writings—to bring people to the eternal living Word.

It's OK, dear readers, I am not rushing off to sign up for the Religious Society of Friends, but the idea of waiting for 'the light' - however we may want to define that 'light' - is a very appealing idea. We are too ready to shout over others, to engage in a babble of debate, bandying words, opinions, numbers and statistics around as if by their sheer quantity we will demonstrate the truth or proof we seek.

I like also the idea that we listen - I'm not very good at this but I like the thought. Not just to the opinions of others as if we were some sort of knowledge sponge but to the deeper sounds - what I guess the Quakers would call 'god'. We are enjoined to be logical as if that state is the antithesis of spiritual. We are told to seek truth yet do so without either the tools or a map for such a search.

Politics exists for one reason - we have to make decisions. There is no other purpose to the profession - the good folk of Bingley Rural elect me to do that for them. My problem is that, when the work informing us is done well, those decisions are not easy. We get little chance to contemplate, to wait for that 'light' - so often we end up uncomfortable with the compromise, questioning of the evidence and unsure of the options. Yet a decision must be made. So we make one.

For me the result of this is to doubt. I've said before that no-one without doubt can be a conservative and this remains my view. And I believe that the central importance of doubt should lead us to political inaction rather than political action. Since we cannot be sure that the changes proposed will make things better, the current arrangement should be preferred unless it is broken beyond redemption.

Perhaps, before making those decisions - before changing something, ahead of curtailing someone's rights or ending someone's business - we should sit in silent contemplation of the decisions we will take. We should maybe listen to the deeper sound of society, think closely about what it might mean for our neighbour and then decide whether we make the change. Perhaps, instead of filling rooms with statistics, analysis and documentation that no one person has read let alone understood, we should instead think whether, when we think of what we've chosen, our heads will go up and a smile will come on our face.

....

Well done those Councillors...

****

The planning fraternity have in recent times taken to using all sorts of threats and such to prevent Councillors from voting differently from the recommendation of those planning officers. However, it appears that, despite the system being stacked against local determination under our Blairite planning rules, almost a third of "large" housing developments refused by members against officer advice have that refusal upheld by government inspectors*.

So cue the planning fraternity turning the screw a notch further:

"However, the down side is that councils have to pick up the tab for the fees of advocates and, increasingly, external witnesses, employed to defend refusal reasons.

"The volume of these cases must also be a concern to the inspectorate, particularly given the predicted increase in appeals and government plans to speed up the system including the proposed 12-month planning guarantee."

 Keep up the good work councillors, keep challenging officers and keep refusing permissions where you think it right to do so. And never forget that you're elected to think for yourself not simply to implement the recommendations of supposed "experts".

*This "research" wasn't very scientific and involves just 28 applications - treat it with caution

....

Undertanding how local government works. A lesson in making secret decisions

****

Let me introduce you to the Association of West Yorkshire Authorities (can link to their website but it was down just now):

The AWYA is an association of the five West Yorkshire metropolitan local authorities – Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield. It was established in 1993 to provide a forum for the discussion and co-ordination of matters of mutual concern and interest.

The AWYA acts as the local government voice of West Yorkshire, promoting and lobbying for its interests and identity. It provides a means for the five Councils to reach joint views on proposed legislation and other matters of concern to West Yorkshire, and to express these views to organisations such as the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly (YHA), Local Government Yorkshire and the Humber (LGYH), central government and other appropriate bodies.

The AWYA also works to secure greater accountability and effective working relationships with bodies which impact upon the sub-region, such as the Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber (GOYH), Yorkshire Forward, Yorkshire and Humber Assembly (YHA), the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), and the Strategic Health Authority (SHA).

This is a decision-making body, funded from the public purse. Just minutes ago I got an e-mail from a colleague saying this:

I have contacted the association they do not publish minutes or agendas

So I rang them and was told that the AWYA:

Does not meet in public so doesn't publish its agendas and minutes.

If we ask for them we can be sent them but they can't publish these papers because there is a "resourcing issue". However, when pressed, they told me that they have never published agendas or minutes.

So this organisation - chaired by Bradford's Labour leader - can make decisions, for example about £850 million of possible transport spending, in secret and without the decision being published.

Transparency?
 
....

We have to risk the mob's fury to earn the right to govern the mob

Fear of the mob was a constant feature of politics in past times and that mob was not always either informed or edifying. But it mattered because it's wrath could and did challenge the decisions of governments - especially when those decisions seemed unjustified:

Wilkes was expelled from Parliament in February 1769, on the grounds that he was an outlaw when he was returned. He was re-elected by his Middlesex constituents in the same month, only to be expelled and re-elected in March. In April, after his expulsion and another re-election, Parliament declared his opponent, Henry Luttrell, to be the winner. In defiance Wilkes was elected an alderman of London in 1769, using his supporters' group, the Society for the Supporters of the Bill of Rights, for his campaign. Wilkes eventually succeeded in convincing Parliament to expunge the resolution barring him from sitting.

I don’t agree with much of the deficit-denying, there-must-be-no-cuts-of-any-sort rhetoric that dominates much of the on-line dialogue around local government decisions about budgets during this cycle. However, as I’ve made clear before, I really don’t agree with the officious control of who can or cannot report, take pictures, tweet, blog or generally pass comment on what we get up to as councillors. After all – as I point out frequently to colleagues – if parliament can broadcast all its proceedings, surely a local council can let someone take a few photos?

We could cite example after example of local councils getting all heavy-handed over reporting rights – in Bradford we even threw out the local paper’s photographer! But some of the focus has been on the strange way in which Barnet Council acted. Presumably this was a response to some of the problems experienced at Lewisham and Lambeth – I’m not sure but the whole thing seemed rather over-the-top and largely unnecessary. And the justification seems frankly ridiculous:

“The current advice according to the constitution does not allow filming in the council chamber.  I’ve not had a chance to have discussions about it with any of our group.  Can you imagine how chaotic it would be if the whole public gallery was trying to film it?”

Now, for the benefit of the uninitiated, the “constitution” to which Barnet’s leader refers is that of the Council. This is the rather grandiose title now appended to what used to be standing orders, regulations on financial conduct and advisory matters such as conduct of meetings. Now it seems to me that, even if Barnet Council’s standing orders do restrict the use of cameras, the Council Meeting can if it chooses suspend any or all elements of its standing orders relating to the conduct of meetings. By way of illustration, Bradford Council – at its recent budget meeting – suspended the standing order relating to the length of speeches thereby allowing each party group leader to speak for ten minutes.

Barnet – or any other Council could easily accommodate photography or filming of proceeding should that be the wish of members. Yet these councils choose not to – and in the case of Barnet the aim is to limit coverage:

“The only thing we will do is consider responsible media requests, and they are the only thing we would allow at this stage. If we had a request, I would expect an officer to approach me about it.  I do not think we would consider a request from bloggers. Only respectable media would be considered.”

In the end this is both a minor matter – the debate and decisions of council meetings are on the public record – and a major concern – decisions affecting the public should be made in public and the public should have the broadest possible opportunity to witness those proceedings.  So when one blogger – Kate Belgrave - says this I have to agree:

Lynne Hillan's attempt to keep the public out last Tuesday seemed to me...as good a reason as any to make sure the public got in. I turned up with the equivalent of a small television station in my bag: a camera, two phones, a laptop and a couple of alternate-provider dongles. I wasn't the only one – the long queue outside Hendon town hall lit up in the gloom like a nightclub as people prepared their cameras and phones for action.

We should not be keeping people out – that is a negation of openness and democracy. Too often Councillors seem to take the view that any audience can only be a source of trouble and that is to be avoided! For my part I’ll fight my corner and make the case for what I believe to be the right thing – and if Kate and her mates want to heckle me, that’s fine. I’d rather that than make decisions behind some sterile authoritarian protection constructed from fear of the mob.

....