Article 2 for The Review By Harold Beck

PARTY POLITICS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Why should Party politics enter into District and Parish decisions?  Perhaps most people feel it should be entirely absent.  Surveys have shown that many able citizens decline to stand for election because of the involvement with politics.

There are some advantages which can, with some justification, be claimed for political Party activities in local government.  At elections, the competition between Parties generates interest and the Party organisation ensures that the number of votes is much greater than would otherwise be the case.  Promises are made which, if not altogether fulfilled, at least imply that thought has been given to what the electorate wants.  Day to day decisions can be made in the light of a set of political principles, thus leading to consistency.

The value of Party groupings is often advocated by considering the alternative of Councils of 50 or more Independent members.  Councils would never come to a decision; it needs organisations of like-minded people to obtain positive action. What then are the drawbacks or objections to party politics in local Councils?

1. The enmity or bad feeling generated in the community.  Members of other parties are seen by some as enemies and are despised or even hated.  A sympathy for a sound and persuasive argument by "the other side" is apt to be described as "seduction by a smooth and honeyed tongue".  Sometimes a strong aversion to a member of another Party is justifiable but often "the external foe" is an invention to ensure Party discipline.  The expression of views by members can be suppressed by appealing to them on the basis of what "the enemy" would make of them.  It is surely more constructive to think of members of other Parties as our fellow countrymen, most of whom wish to contribute to the well being of the community.  Their methods can be different, their priorities are often at considerable variance with those of other Parties but basically their wish is to serve others.  It is quite extraordinary that politicians said, just after the E.E.C. referendum when they shared platforms, that they found to their surprise they could get along with members of other Parties.  No Party has a monopoly of all the virtues and the public would be better served if this were accepted by all involved in politics.

2. It is rare that there is any rigorous examination of issues in terms of political principles. Even if members are aware of the principles which their Party embodies - which they usually are not - there are so many principles and they are so varied and in many cases conflicting that which get applied to what issues is largely a matter of who is the most vocal or persuasive during discussion.

3. Party politics can lead to a wastage of resources, particularly in the use of the skills and experience of members of the minority Parties.  On St. Albans District Council, the policy of the Conservative majority is that all Chairmanships and Vice Chairmanships of Committees and Sub-Committees must go to Conservatives - with one notable exception, that of the Chairmanship of the Manual Workers Joint Consultative Committee.  This has resulted in some Conservative members being Chairman or Vice Chairman of several committees instead of these responsibilities being spread around over the whole membership of the Council.  There are some key Chairs which it would be reasonable for a majority Party to retain for itself, such as Finance, but the remainder could be open to members of other Parties.

The principal vehicle of political decision-making in a local Council is the Party Group.  This usually comprises the group of Councillors of the same Party plus a few Party officers in attendance.  The Groups meet a few days before each Council meeting and go through all the items which are to come up.  There are additional meetings to examine particular aspects of policy in some depth, usually taking a Party statement on the matter as a starting point.

There can be a great sense of exhilaration, cohesion and camaraderie in Group meetings, often brought about by political rivalry.  A good example of this was the Conservative Group's formulation of St. Albans District Council's policy on declarations of interest.  Discussion was initiated on a Council committee by a Liberal Councillor who wrote a paper on the subject, the Conservative Group took up the issues and, spurred on by the thought of doing better than the Labour Group, produced in a welter of goodwill a set of proposals which went much further in the direction of open-ness than is required by statute. The proposals, with the exception of a later Conservative amendment to one clause, were adopted on an all-Party basis.

However, much of the business of Group meetings is taken up with discussion of what the opposition might do and how to prevail in spite of this.  There is a special hazard for democracy in Groups with a voting majority on the Council.  There is a tendency for such a Group to regard itself as the Council.  Remarks in the Group such as "we will appoint so and so" or "we will make up our minds, let the other chaps ramble on a bit in Council for form's sake, then vote it through," indicate that much decision making in local government is removed from the Council meeting to the majority Group meeting.  Councillors are elected to the Council and not to the Party Group.  Moreover, the meetings of the Council and its Committees are for the most part open, whereas Party Group meetings are strictly confidential.  With majority group meetings making basic Council decisions in secret, where is open local government?  The implications of this arrangement have not been thought through but it is reasonable to assume that a great deal depends on the extent of the discipline required of majority Group members.  If this is too oppressive, democracy suffers grievously.

A legitimate purpose of a Party Group is to act as a forum of discussion for individuals to clarify in their own minds the issues on which they will have to vote.  If the members then went away and voted in the light of what they had heard at the Group meeting supplemented by whatever other arguments came up at the Council meeting itself, there would be no problem.  However, there is a device known as "declaring a matter to be Group Policy", which requires Councillors of the particular Party Group to give the maximum support when voting in the Council.

In the St. Albans Conservative Group there has long been pressure from a few members who seek regimentation of members - they would like to see all Conservative hands going up in unison when voting.  In drawing up rules for the Group these members strongly advocated some restrictive clauses but in the main these were rejected by the Group.  In the rules that were  adopted it is written that every member has a right to speak or vote against a proposal which has been declared a "Matter of Group Policy".  However, it is pointed out that any member who is going to depart from the Group's line should, as a matter of loyalty to the Group, inform the Group or its leader of his intention to do so.  The Conservative Central Office "model" rules state that a member may depart from the Group line "without acrimony".

Over the East Ward, Harpenden, boundaries issue, zombie-like adherence to the Party line was expected and departure from that line gave rise to extreme acrimony.  In the subsequent selection process of Conservative candidates for the District Council elections to be held on 6th May, erroneous information was disseminated about the Group rules, which were crucial to the basis of selection.  This and other irregularities in the selection process are indicative of the tendency to totalitarian behaviour by a dominant few within the Conservative organisation.  One of the principal reasons why I am standing as an Independent is to bring out these matters for public discussion.