Opinion: Those Who Say They Are Apolitical Are Being Dishonest

Published on: 24 Feb, 2026
Updated on: 26 Feb, 2026

Cllr George Potter

By George Potter

Lib Dem borough and county councillor

It is a shame that Gavin Morgan, a man whose dedication to the town is undeniable, seems to be labouring under a very naïve belief that it is possible for decisions about public money and services to be apolitical.

“They should all just sit down as grown ups and agree on the right thing to do” is a very easy sentiment to express, but it is simplistic to assume that the “right thing to do” is something that is clear and obvious, rather than in the eyes of the beholder.

Let’s take a look at a few examples.

Some residents have signed a petition asking for the town council to stop using pesticides in the Castle Grounds, on the grounds that they are harmful to insects and other wildlife.

The town council looks into the issue and concludes that it could stop using pesticides, but doing so would require an increase in manual weeding, which in turn would cost an extra £5,000 a year.

So what would Mr Morgan do here? If protecting wildlife is worth a “measly” £5,000 a year then that’s a valid choice, but inherently a political one, influenced by beliefs which place a value on protecting the natural world and consider doing so an acceptable way to spend public money.

Equally, if you say it is too high a price to pay, since it’s taxpayer money which will come out of local people’s pockets, then that is also a political choice, one which reflects a belief system which values saving public money ahead of mild environmental protection.

Or what if the town council is considering starting up a local youth service, but faces a choice of where to get the money from? The operating costs could be raised by getting rid of the tourist information service, or it could be paid for by raising the parish precept by £10 a year. What is the right thing to do in that case?

I don’t think it’s necessary to spell it out, but once again you end up with a choice where “the right thing” is in the eye of the beholder, based on their own political values.

So with these and with many other decisions that a town council will be called upon to make, it is obvious that political beliefs can’t help but play a role.

A councillor who believes in low taxes and low spending will naturally find themselves making different decisions to one who believes in taxation as a way to publicly fund projects that improve the general wellbeing.

However what Mr Morgan clearly wants is a town council where everyone is elected as a so-called “independent”, free of any formal party political ties, and where everyone chummily pretends that they’re all on the same side.

But that just isn’t how things work in reality. Who you do or don’t vote for, and who gets elected, makes a material difference in which priorities are advanced and which are left forgotten by the wayside.

So, in truth, when confronted with multiple candidates for public office, you need a way to distinguish between them. To identify who cares about the things you care about and who will prioritise the things that are your priorities.

That is the whole reason why party labels exist, after all. So that like-minded people can commit to advancing a common platform and so that voters can choose which common platform they prefer the best.

That is healthy. That is democratic.

But government by people who claim to be “neutral”, “impartial” and “independent”, all while making political decisions that sacrifice one concern for the sake of another, is invidious.

Once elected you can’t remove them until their term ends, even if their values prove to be utterly contrary to what you thought “independent” meant.

That is why I maintain that one of the more harmful elements in our town’s culture are the well-meaning, well-off people, all of a similar mindset and values, who get together in forums and vision groups to sit down and agree with each other about what they are sure must be “best” for our town, and how it should be implemented.

And because they do so without the need of party labels (why would they, when their values are so similar?), they become convinced that the local government should be the same. Just good chaps, of the “right” backgrounds, all good-naturedly debating until they come up with the “right” decision.

I don’t fault Mr Morgan, or the Heritage Forum, or the Guildford Society, or the Guildford Vision Group, or any other civic organisation for this tendency. It’s natural. Like-minded people with similar values will invariably congregate and agree with each other, in broad terms, on what the “right” thing to do is.

But what I do find fault with is the level of self-delusion. When members of our local political parties meet, as residents of Guildford, to discuss what they think is best for our town, they don’t do so under any pretence or delusion that they are impartial or neutral. They do so knowing full well that they share a set of values and with the knowledge that to implement their idea of what’s “right” then they must manage to persuade other people to elect them into public office.

Which is why the real problem with those who subscribe to Mr Morgan’s viewpoint is that, no matter how dedicated they are to the wellbeing of our town, they have a nasty habit of presuming that their views are somehow more “pure” and “unsullied” by any political connections, and it is on that basis that they presume to pronounce that they know what our town needs.

And then, inevitably, they take exception when those who have actually been elected, who have actually had to earn the support of their neighbours through hard work, don’t just simply meekly agree with what the self-appointed great-and-good have decided must be “right”.

Because what they really want is for their biases, and the biases of like-minded people, to be treated as neutral common-sense, and therefore given greater weight, whereas those who openly acknowledge their political biases should be considered tainted and suspect. It is, in short, a superiority complex.

But what they forget is that those involved in politics in this town are local residents too, and have given just as much thought and time to what is in the best interests of the town. And, personally, I think it is far better, and far more honest, to be given a choice between different labels and platforms, than it is to vote blindly without any idea what you’ll get.

I know plenty of people whose dedication and hard work for their communities is unquestionable. That does not mean that the decisions they would make, if given public office, would not be shaped by their own beliefs and biases.

So I say give people a choice, and let them decide. But anyone who pretends that they are “apolitical” and have no political values of their own that will influence their decision-making is either lying to you, or lying to themselves, or both