The Planners’ Dream Goes Wrong? Questioning Citizen-Centred Planning

Alex Lord, Michael Mair, John Sturzaker and Paul Jones  

We are delighted that our paper The Planners’ Dream Goes Wrong?’ Questioning Citizen-Centred Planning has won the 2017 John Stewart prize for best paper in Local Government Studies.

The paper emerged from an empirical study focused on the at the time emergent policy of Neighbourhood Planning. On the basis of a small research grant we set about conducting fieldwork in contrasting urban settings whose differences would tell us something important about the ways in which that policy was being implemented. We were interested in addressing three questions through the research. Firstly, we wanted to know why the policy took root in some places but not in others. What were the drivers of/barriers to neighbourhood planning becoming established in particular areas? Secondly, we were interested in how communities had responded to the request for ‘them’ to take on what was in effect a new semi-professional role, that of citizen-planner.  What had to be in place for individuals to take on this role?  Thirdly, we wanted to understand the local government perspective on this particular rebalancing of state-civil society-market relations following the election of the Coalition government in 2010.

We are hugely indebted to those who participated in the work and enabled us to answer the questions we posed by showing us what was happening where they were.  In the course of our fieldwork we interviewed citizens, community activists, planners, business people and politicians. They gave up their time willingly and for no recompense.

In trying to make sense of all the information we eventually gathered, all four of us spent a great deal of time together comparing notes and discussing findings. As a group, we represent two urban planners and two urban sociologists. Whilst there is an overlap between us in terms of our interests and our work, we brought separate skills and reference points to it and that interdisciplinarity was itself of benefit to the research.

Following these meetings we produced a first draft of the paper. The central device of writing it around song titles came from an article one of us had read about the ‘Jam Generation’ of which then Prime Minister, David Cameron, was said to be a part. The Jam song, ‘The Planner’s Dream Goes Wrong’ suggested itself from there. It chimed with us for several reasons. Citizen-centred planning had indeed long been the cherished dream of some (academic) planners. But given what we had seen of neighbourhood planning in action, we found it hard to imagine they now had what they had been dreaming for.

The final published version continued the trope of using dream-related song titles as sub headings.  Some are more obvious than others. The rest of the paper was developed in the traditional iterative manner whereby documents sequentially appended ‘version xx’ were passed between the four of us over a number of months.  In deciding on a journal to submit the final iteration of the paper to (’version 23’) we very quickly decided on LGS.  So much of what we had to report on spoke to the devolution of power from professional planning vested in the democratic institution of local government to putatively ‘self-assembling’ arrangements of citizens and businesses.  Themes of statutory retrenchment and de-professionalisation were all bound up with political theory and the live testing of a policy.  LGS was the obvious place to go.

When we learnt that The Planner’s Dream had won the 2017 John Stewart prize we were suitably chastened but delighted.  The experience of publishing with LGS has been nothing other than positive and we definitely hope to do so again in the near future – perhaps using movie titles as the structuring device next time.

What we might focus on in any future article is hard at this point to say: the political landscape is particularly volatile at the moment and both central and local government could be said to be in a near permanent state of crisis, or at least crisis management, leaving us unclear as to what policy is, or what it might be, in many important areas. What is clear, however, is that the underlying issues the article spoke to remain. As Wendy Brown has noted, devolution “frequently means that large-scale problems, such as recessions, finance-capital crises, unemployment, or environmental problems, as well as fiscal crises of the state, are sent down the pipeline to small and weak units unable to cope with them technically, politically or financially” (cited by Roy Scothorne writing for the LRB in Dec 2017). Insofar as devolution continues to be the preferred solution to a whole series of issues, not just planning, planners are unlikely to be the only ones whose dreams will be going wrong.

 

Alex Lord is professor in the department of Geography and Planning at the University of Liverpool.  He has led research projects for the Economic and Social Research Council, the European Union, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Royal Town Planning Institute. 

Paul Jones is a senior lecturer in sociology at the University of Liverpool. His research centres on the political economy of the urban, and has recently included studies of architecture and the built environment and digital city models, and – with Michael Mair – analysis of the Private Finance Initiative, supermarkets and contemporary state reform.

Michael Mair is a senior lecturer in sociology at the University of Liverpool. His most recent research falls into two main areas: politics, government and the state and the methodology and philosophy of research. 

John Sturzaker is a senior lecturer in the Department of Geography and Planning at the University of Liverpool, with a background combining planning practice and academia. He has published on participation, power and localism in planning, and is engaged around these topics within the planning practice community.

All views represented in this blog are those of the author(s) and not INLOGOV or the University of Birmingham.
Advertisements

Emergency Preparedness

Cllr Ketan Sheth

Emergency response is at the forefront of the minds of elected members and officers who work in the UK’s local authorities, helping to provide important public services. That’s because in the last year or so we have seen emergency responses to many challenging situations from flooding, to terrorism attacks and of course Grenfell Tower.

While the terrorist incidents in London were managed by individual local authorities and emergency services with minimal need for support from their neighbours, the scale of the Grenfell Tower disaster required a pan-London response. I’m proud that over 100 Brent Council staff answered the call for mutual aid. They covered roles as diverse as working at the Borough Emergency Control Centre and providing support directly to affected families. Brent’s own Chief Executive temporarily joined the head office of the Grenfell Fire Response Unit to head up the humanitarian assistance response.

In light of the number and scale of incidents in 2017, Brent Council’s Audit Committee agreed there would be benefit in reviewing Brent’s own emergency preparedness. Given the cross-cutting nature of incident response, the task group was drawn from the Council’s three scrutiny committees and the Audit Committee; and I was chosen to chair it.

During this work we looked at best practice and benchmarking from other London boroughs, heard from experts in the field, reviewed documents and plans, took part in a scenario exercise as well as visiting the facilities that would be used as our own Borough Emergency Command Centre during a major incident.

The resulting report, which we discussed at Full Council a few weeks ago, outlined a number of Brent’s strengths, and made nine recommendations, many of which were already underway or completed by the time the report was published. Emergency duty rotas have been reviewed and numerous more senior council officers have been trained to coordinate major incident responses. New training has been commissioned from the Cabinet Office for both senior council staff and local ward councillors to ensure they are ready to respond if needed, a review of emergency accommodation and rest centre locations has been carried out, and meetings and exercises have helped maintain our already very strong relationships with the police, ambulance, fire, and local partners such as Wembley Stadium.

Thankfully, incidents on the scale of Grenfell are rare. Outside of Brent’s support for the Grenfell response; the Civil Contingencies team dealt with 21 incidents in 2017; mostly domestic house fires, floods, or explosions, and a few localised issues such as power cuts, storms and burst water mains. The exception was the discovery of an unexploded bomb which required the (thankfully temporary) evacuation of a large number of households in the Brondesbury Park area, which tested officers and local ward councilors, both of whom rose to the occasion. While we all hope that the people of Brent are spared any major incident, they can feel reassured that a strong foundations are in place should the council be called upon to respond. And, we will continue to keep emergency response in the forefront of our minds and respond to many different situations.

For more information about Brent Council’s Emergency Preparedness Task Group Report, please visit www.brent.gov.uk/scrutiny

Picture1Cllr. Ketan Sheth is a Councillor for Tokyngton, Wembley in the London Borough of Brent. Ketan has been a councillor since 2010 and was appointed as Brent Council’s Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee in May 2016. Before his current appointment in 2016, he was the Chair of Planning, of Standards, and of the Licensing Committees. Ketan is a lawyer by profession and sits on a number of public bodies, including as the Lead Governor of Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust.

Blog posts represent the views of the author(s) and not those of INLOGOV or the University of Birmingham.

 

 

 

 

What can you expect from the INLOGOV MSc Executive Apprenticeship?

If your organisation has signed up to  INLOGOV MSc Apprenticeships, and has given you the option to apply, you might be wondering if the course is right for you.  This post gives you a brief summary of what to expect to help you decide.

By the way – if your organisation is not signed up then read this post about why it is worth talking to INLOGOV about our MSc Apprenticeships.

The benefits

This is a course than can help you in your work and in your career.

In work it will help you develop as a public service leader and give you new ways to think about the challenges you face.  You will get to meet INLOGOV staff who are involved in cutting edge research and build new connections with others on the course.

Your career will also benefit.  Once you complete the course you will gain a Masters Degree from a Russell Group University, a Level Seven apprenticeship and diploma from the Chartered Management Institute with the possibility of membership.

And, because the scheme is part of the apprenticeship levy, you do not have to pay fees.

Your employer also benefits.  The INLOGOV MSc Executive Apprenticeship is a great way to improve the workforce and to ensure that pressing organisational challenges can be met.

Time and commitment

The course takes two and a half years during which time you need to spend 20% of your contracted work time on the apprenticeship.  This covers both the taught and the work based elements.

The way you spend this time is flexible and can be agreed between you, your employer and INLOGOV.  However, this time must only be used to work towards the MSc Apprenticeship.

Studying for the apprenticeship

Some of your time will be spent on the taught element.  This includes six modules and a dissertation.  You can expect to spent around 8 days on the Birmingham University Campus and the rest of the time studying online at a times to suit you.

There are no exams.  You will be assessed on written assignments and on the dissertation.

The modules you will study are:

  • Public Management and Governance
  • Leadership in Public Services
  • Commercialisation of Public Services
  • Public Policy and Evidence
  • Performance, Strategy and Challenge
  • Digital Era Public Policy

Each module will be assessed in the same way:

  • Assignment 1, 1,000 word essay (30%)
  • Assignment 2, 3,000 word essay (70%)

You will also complete a 12,000 word dissertation. The topic of this project will be chosen with input from your employer.

The workplace element

During the two and half years of the course you will upload a portfolio evidence to demonstrate the knowledge, skills and behaviours set out in the apprenticeship standard.

In the final six months you will also complete a workplace project to look at a current organisational challenge that you have agreed with your employer.

The assessment for the work place element will consist of a professional discussion, looking at the portfolio of evidence,  and a project showcase for your work place project, held with an independent assessor.

Support

Throughout your studies you will receive the same academic support as any other student studying with INLOGOV including access to the resources of the University of Birmingham.

INLOGOV will also provide a practice tutor to support you through the workplace elements of the apprenticeship.

At the beginning of the course you will meet with your practice tutor and someone representing your employer to agree responsibilities.

Applying

Once you get the go ahead from your employer you can start the application process.

To be eligible for the course you should have either a good first degree or be able to demonstrate sufficient work experience.

The application is done online and there is no formal interview required.

Further information

For more information about the course, including details of the MSc modules, visit the course website.

Talk to INLOGOV about your MSc Executive Apprenticeships

 

The MSc Public Management and Leadership Executive Apprenticeship is a new course that has been developed in partnership with SOLACE.  It’s being offered by INLOGOV from October 2018 and has been designed with the Apprenticeship Levy in mind.

Catherine Mangan, Director of INLOGOV, explains why it’s worth thinking about.

“Here at INLOGOV we have been working in partnership with local councils for over 50 years to provide training and learning that is tailored to meet the needs of local government.

We have evolved as you have evolved and we understand what matters to you and to your employees. The challenges of austerity and of working with the wider public sector, for example, are major themes in our research and in our courses.

If you have been working with us on our 21st Century Public Servant project, on commissioning, on commercialisation or on co-production (to name just a few), you will know that staying in touch with local government is part of what makes our research cutting edge.

Using the Apprenticeship Levy to Support Senior Leaders

If you are thinking about investing your apprenticeship funding in the development of your senior managers, then we would love to talk to you.

Whether you are integrating MSc Apprenticeships with your existing leadership programme or creating something new, we can work with you to deliver an MSc Executive Apprenticeship that helps you to attract, retain and develop talented staff and to:

  • Prepare the next generation of senior managers and leaders
  • Recruit the brightest and best into graduate entry posts
  • Invest in your current senior leaders

This course is a way for you to promote a learning culture in your organisation and, through carefully targetted workplace projects, the MSc Executive Apprenticeship will also give you extra capacity to address pressing organisational challenges.

For employees the MSc Executive Apprenticeship is a way to gain an internationally recognized masters degree from a Russell Group University and a professionally recognized qualification without having to pay fees.

About the Course

The core elements of the apprenticeship have been designed with the new Apprenticeship Levy in mind so that local authorities have the option to use their apprenticeship funding to develop their senior leaders.

The workplace elements can be tailored to ensure that the 20% of time that students spend ‘off-the-job’ provides the maximum added value while fitting flexibly around service delivery. Throughout the course students will have access to INLOGOV staff and resources to help ensure that both their academic and workplace studies are a success.

The programme, which typically takes two and a half years, involves a combination of in-work learning and University study.  Participants will be offered a tailored experience and the opportunity to study in the UK’s leading academic centre for local governance and public management.

The MSc element of the apprenticeship combines online course material with a small number of days of more traditional teaching. This gives students both the flexibility that comes with distance learning and the benefit of a campus experience where they get to mix with apprentices from other councils and international students doing our regular MSc in public management.

On successful completion of the Executive Apprenticeship, participants will have acquired the knowledge, skills and qualities necessary to become dynamic and effective leaders of public sector organisations and will be awarded an MSc in Public Management and Leadership from the University of Birmingham, a Chartered Management Institute (CMI) Level 7 Diploma in Strategic Management and Leadership, and Chartered Manager Status (subject to necessary experience) through the CMI.

You can find out more on the INLOGOV website here.

About INLOGOV

The Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV) is the leading UK centre for the study of public service management, policy and governance. With over 50 years of experience working within local government and the public sector, the Institute of Local Government Studies creates the latest thinking for public servants.

INLOGOV is uniquely placed to offer the executive apprenticeship.  As a team, we combine expertise in local government, experience of working with local councils, excellence in teaching and we are a pioneer in offering an online Masters in Public Administration.

We also have a strong track record of co-designing postgraduate programmes with local authorities and public organisations, including delivering the training component of the National Graduate Development Programme in partnership with SOLACE, for the Local Government Association.

Our staff come from varied disciplinary backgrounds and regularly work with politicians, managers, communities and partner organisations to enhance practice through academic insight.  We are engaged in policy and management research, continuing professional and management development and consultancy for central government and other national and local agencies. We draw great strength from our close links with the world of practice in local government, the voluntary sector and other public service agencies, for example those of criminal justice.

We offer a range of postgraduate degrees, at Doctoral, Masters, diploma and certificate levels. We welcome applications for part-time study as well as full-time. Our applied research activity feeds directly into our programmes, so our participants are among the first to hear the latest research findings and to reflect on how new thinking might impact on future policy and practice.

If your organisation is interested in the MSc Executive Apprenticeship contact:

Stephen Jeffares S.R.Jeffares@bham.ac.uk or Louise Reardon L.H.Reardon@bham.ac.uk

Never mind who you voted for, where did you do it?

Chris Game

They’ve become a standard feature of the election season – complaints about the complete or partial closure of schools selected as polling stations. Some, no doubt, are from the actual children whose education is being potentially disrupted.  But more come from heads of affected schools – who are informed, rather than requested, by their respective council Returning Officers, and feel they have little say, even over any financial reimbursement – and from teachers, who have no leave entitlement but are expected somehow to make up lost teaching time.

Bitterest protesters, though, are understandably working parents. Facing fines if they decide to take their children out of school for a day, even for something educational, they’re told by, in effect, their Local Education Authority that in this case they must do so, and no, on this occasion it’s really not detrimental to their child’s learning.  Plus, they must find and pay for responsible childcare at pretty short notice.

This year was less irksome than those when polling day is in Bank Holiday week itself, but for many it was still pretty unsettling: close on Thursday, reopen Friday, close on Monday, reopen Tuesday.  And last year, of course, we had Theresa May’s ‘snap’ General Election in early June, called too late to combine with the locals, thereby doubling the grief for many.

But for how many?  Difficult, because in our localised ‘system’ of electoral administration, no one really knows. Local authorities select the buildings they’ll use as polling places, and the Electoral Commission keeps no collated records.  All we actually know is that it differs from council to council – greatly, as was illustrated by one of this year’s complainants – the independent campaigning group Parents Outloud, as reported in the London Evening Standard.

Even the group’s non-systematic comparison of London borough polling arrangements showed that practices varied widely. “In Tower Hamlets, 43 school buildings were turned into polling stations, in Croydon 33, Kensington & Chelsea 18, Kingston upon Thames seven … and in Camden four schools closed.”

“Turned into” obviously isn’t the same as “closed”, but it seemed clear Camden’s approach differed markedly from that of at least some of those other boroughs. And a check of the council’s complete list of 60 polling stations showed just five schools in total, or 8%. The other 55 were community centres, council buildings, church halls and other religious venues, libraries, gymnasia, and, pleasingly, The Pirate Castle – which isn’t in this case a pub, but a children’s water sports centre on the Grand Union Canal. Either way, though, it and Camden’s other 54 polling stations wouldn’t have involved children missing a day’s school and parents having to find child care.

I don’t know if it’s an actual Camden policy to avoid using schools where possible, and ignore the Electoral Commission’s guidelines positively pushing schools as an easy and financially advantageous option:

“Schools that are publicly-funded, including academies and free schools, may be used as polling stations free of charge, and the legislation allows Returning Officers to require a room in such schools for use as a polling station.”

But I once did some work for the 2007 Councillors Commission, chaired by Dame Jane Roberts, a former Leader of Camden Council and also a Child Psychiatrist, and I’d be surprised if it’s accidental.

It also prompted me to check Birmingham’s list of polling places, particularly as journalist Anna Tobin had done a detailed count of all 460 in 2014, finding that 60% were in schools, whereas for Leeds’ 357 it was only a quarter. As she acknowledged, from a Returning Officer’s perspective, schools tick all the boxes: general accessibility, disabled access, available parking, facilities for polling station staff, and above all free to hire. In short, the almost too easy option. There’s little doubt local authorities could be a lot more imaginative, if they chose, and examples are cited, like Cambridge City Council, that manage simply not to use schools as polling stations.

Beyond that, one’s instinctive solutions depend a bit on perspective.  Parents Outloud are clear that, if councils can’t or won’t find alternatives to schools, then one or the other should provide free childcare. To which I’m extremely sympathetic, but I’m not and never have been a parent.  My own preferred solution, therefore, would be to do what the great majority of countries do and hold elections at the weekend – whether on Sunday, which most do, or Saturday, or even both doesn’t particularly bother me.

I used to have a map of countries’ usual election days, which at a push – including explanations of why, say, Americans always vote on the first Tuesday after November 1st, and the Irish, as in this month’s abortion referendum, on Fridays – could be spun into a whole lecture.

map_Usual election days

My received understanding of our post-1918 choice of Thursdays, incidentally, was that it was the day furthest from either pay-day Friday, when voters might be unduly grateful to Conservative brewers, or Sunday, when more Liberal-inclined Free Church clergymen could get at them.

The last Labour Government, curious as to whether weekend voting might reinvigorate the democratic process, and – who knows? – maybe get more potential party supporters into polling stations, issued a consultation paper on Weekend Voting almost exactly ten years ago. The evidence was mildly positive. Among responding members of the public, a small majority supported weekend voting, and in an Ipsos MORI survey (p.22) 36% of self-identified non-voters said they’d be more likely to vote at the weekend, with just 2% saying they’d be less likely to.

Unsurprisingly, like so many constitutional reform initiatives, this one came to nothing, and, with weekend voting being such an obviously entrenched Euro-practice, it’s not about to be resuscitated any time soon. Personally, therefore, I’m getting behind Parents Outloud: free childcare or, better still, the ears of some sympathetic Returning Officers.

chris gameChris Game is a Visiting Lecturer at INLOGOV interested in the politics of local government; local elections, electoral reform and other electoral behaviour; party politics; political leadership and management; member-officer relations; central-local relations; use of consumer and opinion research in local government; the modernisation agenda and the implementation of executive local government.

 

All views expressed in this blog are those of the author and not of INLOGOV or the University of Birmingham.

Our Councillors are being disappeared – by stealth

Chris Game

If, as I did, you worked in the pre-internet age for something called the Institute of Local Government Studies, writing occasionally on matters electoral, these April weeks preceding annual local elections could be trying.  Even in the Citizenship Test era, it’s hardly a deportable sin for an English elector to be uncertain if their council is elected in entirety every four years, by thirds in three years out of four, or even in alternate years by halves (I’m thinking of you, Nuneaton & Bedworth) – and, in the latter cases, whether this year’s elections involve their particular ward councillor(s).  Nor is it certifiable to suppose that surely someone in that INLOGOV place would know – so they’d telephone to check.

Even if I weren’t already, it would have inclined me strongly to some countries’ practice, long backed by the Electoral Commission, the 2007 Councillors Commission and others, of a single four-yearly national or at least regional Local Elections Day for all councils. That’s not, however, either of the points of this blog, the lesser of which is a tabular demonstration that old habits die hard, and that I still rather like knowing who should and shouldn’t be voting on Thursday and where.

2018 Local elections table 2

The table is intended to be accurate, comprehensive in its way, and illustrative of the heffalump traps awaiting reporters and broadcasters on Thursday night. But nowadays much fuller lists are easily available, from, inter alia, Wiki and Open Council Data UK.

The latter is particularly detailed, and any minor errors usually inconsequential – though not entirely in this exceptional instance.  For – when I checked, anyway – it omits Blackburn with Darwen as one of the two unitary councils, with Hull, holding all-out elections this year to implement the proposals of a comprehensive boundary review, a process that constitutes the principal justification for my own modest table.

By my reckoning, of the 4,262 Councillors elected at this round of local elections four years ago, the seats won by 99 or well over 2% of them have already been lost before a single vote is cast – lost not just to them, but to their councils, and almost certainly permanently.

The 99 are the net sum of the rulings of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) following its reviews of the 17 councils that are implementing those rulings in all-out elections this Thursday – although ‘net’ is somewhat misleading, as it represents eight proposals of Councillor reductions, counterbalanced by no proposals for increases.

Next year, a further net 51 council seats are already set to go, and last year it was 34. So, in three years that’s the abolition of about five councils-worth of democratic representation, without a ministerial whisper of the R-for-reorganisation word – and that’s from a start in England of a 2,250:1 citizens-to-councillor ratio already far higher than almost any other EU country.

At which point, I should declare a personal citizen interest. As previously anticipated in these columns, my own council of Birmingham contributes 19 of this year’s lost 99, despite the other three significantly smaller big cities also reviewed in this cycle – Leeds (99), Manchester (96) and Newcastle (78) – being allowed to retain all 273 of theirs.

It’s tempting, certainly in lectures, to misquote here the Lutheran hymn about God moving in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform. The LGBCE obviously isn’t that mysterious, for it publishes all its proposals and reports and a certain amount of its reasoning.

The Commission’s aims too are distinctly more modest than God’s, being limited to achieving its singular interpretation of electoral equality: namely, equalising the number of electors represented by each Councillor in any particular local authority. About that intra-council form of electoral equality it is passionate, and it’s what prompts most – though importantly not all – of its reviews.

However, about inter-council electoral equality, and also about other measures of intra-council equality, it is passionately indifferent. As described in that previous blog, Birmingham’s case was exceptional in its being referred to the LGBCE following the now Lord Kerslake’s highly critical review of the council’s governance and organisation – but not really in the Commission’s processing.  Kerslake identified the number of councillors as one of the council’s weaknesses and recommended cutting them to a round 100, and presumably increasing their workloads, as part of the solution – a recommendation that the LGBCE endorsed and implemented almost precisely, though far from unproblematically.

Its draft ward proposals generated an emotional spasm that canvassers in these local elections would almost pay for, and produced “over 2,000 submissions”, aka protests, possibly some kind of record, and to which, as is their wont, the Commissioners sought to respond.

Council size, however, was non-negotiable. In Commission arithmetic, the former 120 councillors represented an average of just over 6,000 electors, although, since all were elected to three-member wards and had to canvass, deal with and represent all ward residents, the more meaningful figures would have been 18,000 electors and 30,000 persons, considerably higher than any other single-tier authority.

In future, 37 of the 101 councillors will represent single-member wards, with 64 in two-member wards.  Currently, therefore, candidates in the former group will presumably be almost relishing campaigning for the first time for the votes of ‘only’ an average of 7,000 or so electors – the more so as they see their colleagues canvassing similarly new electorates, but twice the size. For, in our system, electoral equality is not for the likes of footsore aspiring councillors, but for generally unaware electors.

Part of this blog’s purpose was to highlight how this most under-appreciated tier of our political class is being gradually but steadily whittled away in a kind of policy vacuum. For there is nothing in the LGBCE’s terms of reference requiring it, rather than equalising upwards in response to generally growing populations, almost always to equalise downwards.

There are, certainly, several instances – including Bexley LBC, as listed in the table – where reviews were initiated not by the Commission, but by the council itself wishing to reduce its own elected membership, whether for financial or other reasons usually not being stated.  In both types, though, the Commissioners’ phraseology, though varying slightly, is that they are satisfied that “decreasing the number of members by XX will make sure the council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively”.

Most council officers will have had the occasional thought that “if it weren’t for those pesky members … ”, but it’s a bit concerning, especially at election time, to realise that there’s an unelected body already doing something about it.

chris gameChris Game is a Visiting Lecturer at INLOGOV interested in the politics of local government; local elections, electoral reform and other electoral behaviour; party politics; political leadership and management; member-officer relations; central-local relations; use of consumer and opinion research in local government; the modernisation agenda and the implementation of executive local government.

 

The views in this blog are those of its author and do not represent the views of INLOGOV or the University of Birmingham.