Letter: Party Politics Has No Relevance in Local Government

Published on: 20 Jul, 2018
Updated on: 20 Jul, 2018

From Keith Childs

hon alderman and former Mayor of Guildford

I was proud to represent Tillingbourne Ward on Guildford Borough Council between 1991 and 2007. I was elected four times as a true Independent with no party political ties of any kind.

A clear majority of my electorate consistently expressed the view that they preferred their councillor to be independent and to represent their community, free from political pressures. I was the only Independent, although at times I had pseudo “Independent” colleagues who were actually “refugees” from parties.

My experience reinforced my view that party politics has virtually no relevance in local government. The quality of the person elected is far more important than any party allegiance he/she may have.

It was very rare for members to dissent from the majority view of their party colleagues not only because of party discipline but because of party friendships. This sometimes led to bad, ill-informed decisions being taken.

A return to having more Independent councillors on borough and district councils would lead to an improvement in the performance of these councils.

However, the electorate can only choose from candidates who stand for election. I urge those who are critical of the council to “put their money where their mouth is” and stand as Independents at the next election.

Responses to Letter: Party Politics Has No Relevance in Local Government

Graham Potter Reply

July 20, 2018 at 5:33 pm

Alderman Childs is quite right. AS GBC and SCC have been Conservative since time began, there is an overwhelming tendency to accept instructions and “guidance” from a Conservative government without protest.

The council should be “rocking the boat” with public denouncement of extra social services responsibility but no extra money to do it with and taking business rates back to central government.

But this, of course, could lead to Mrs May’s downfall. (Shock, horror.)
A Bedford Reply

July 20, 2018 at 8:15 pm

I entirely agree with Mr Childs comments as l have advocated for many years. Party politics has absolutely no place in local administration – and that is what it is – administration of one’s artificial area or boundary.

What we have is egotistic councillors wanting to ‘belong’ to a political party and perhaps further a career in Westminster or just to have the ‘power’. Career politicians are a dangerous phenomenon and one that is materialising in local as well as central government.

Councillors should remember why they are councillors and who put them there. Trust me it is certainly not their affiliation to a political party but how you can best represent the interests of your ward!
Nick Trier Reply

July 21, 2018 at 10:02 am

The problem with “Independent” candidates is that the majority of those voting do not know them personally and have to rely on what may be gleaned from the “independent” press and the occasional leaflet to understand what they stand for – and against!

The advantage of a party candidate is that the voters know where the candidate stands from what they know about the party’s values.

In great swathes of Surrey, the so-called “Independent” candidates are actually standing for residents’ associations, and once elected their main focus is to oppose all development – the Nimby party in all but name.

The failure to build adequate affordable housing either in Guildford or across Surrey over decades may largely be the fault of our Conservative-led councils, but the Independents have hardly been advocating more affordable housing – an intensely “political” issue.

All too often, “Independent” candidates for boroughs/districts subsequently appear as Conservative county council or parliamentary candidates. Mr Childs may have been the honourable exception to these general criticisms, but our experience in Surrey of “Independent” councillors has been no more reassuring than their party peers.
Shelley Grainger Reply

July 21, 2018 at 10:42 am

What Keith Childs and others are forgetting is that, yes, blindly following a national party’s ideology can lead to bad decisions, if that national party has a ‘bad’ ideology, but allegiance to a party defines the persons’ values. That is why Mr Childs found he could not trust the ‘pseudo’ Independents, as he knew they were still Tories at heart.

Also, Independent candidates may not have values defined by and in accord with any political party. What then do they actually believe in and stand for? It is difficult for voters to know. They might have progressive views on some matters and be extremists about others. Whereas candidates for political parties have signed up to those party values and you know what you are getting. The parties themselves carry out selection procedures to see if their views represent the party.

Another thing I’ve noticed is that ‘one issue’ Independents often have ill-informed views and little background knowledge about other issues.
Lisa Wright Reply

July 21, 2018 at 11:50 am

Yes, you’d think by voting for a leading party you’d know what you are getting, especially after reading the party literature posted through the door before the election. However, I suggest you check that literature as I’m not sure all those pledges were honoured.

Saying it is one thing, doing it is rather different.
Bernard Parke Reply

July 21, 2018 at 1:24 pm

I think Lisa Wright means the Conservative election newsletter with the headline: “Conservatives Say Green Belt To Stay”. They also said car parking charges were to be frozen, as well as a bit on council tax.
John Perkins Reply

July 23, 2018 at 9:06 am

It should not be necessary to know what a candidate knows or ‘stands for’; he or she should only be concerned with the proper running of the local council with reference to local issues. National party “values” have no relevance. A candidate standing on local issues will be known to his supporters or will not be elected.

If Independent candidates are “Nimby”s what does that make their opponents? In any case, the argument is spurious. To claim that Independents have not been advocating more affordable housing shows unfamiliarity with the feeling expressed in these pages and elsewhere. Even if it were true, the fact remains that the lack is the responsibility of those empowered to change it, nobody else.

It does not matter if Independents are associated with parties; while they serve as an Independent they are not, in theory at least, subject to the party whip. (Incidentally, doesn’t that word ‘whip’ perfectly illustrate the relationship between party and member and so between party and supporter?)

Whether a party has a bad ideology is usually only understood after the event, by which time it’s too late. Better to rely on individuals – any bad ones should always be outnumbered (unless they form a concert party of course).

It’s comforting to know that parties have selection procedures: it couldn’t possibly lead to an organisation controlled by like-minded extremists pretending to be the good guys. Could it?

How patronising to claim that party members are better informed than anyone else. And, if Independents are actually party members in disguise, do they lose or hide their knowledge when they leave the party?