With the Council Elections on 3rd May, this is the hot topic and by no means a straightforward one.
Many UK local auth0rities are governed by coalitions because in local elections local issues are in most cases the ones impacting directly on the lives of voters.
‘Local’ elections also mean that most candidates are known in a way that candidates for national or UK elections may not be. Outsiders can be parachuted in on a party ticket to offer to represent an area in wider arenas but in local government, ‘local’ means local.
These two factors, local issues and local candidates, give local government a distinctive character and give election campaigns and voting preferences a direction of travel that has its own impetus.
Political parties cast lustful eyes on local government, knowing that popularity and control at grass roots level is a powerful seed bed for votes at national and UK level.
Some see this as preferable to the rule of independents-led administrations which are usually free of political philosophy and often free of policy.
These two elements are not one and the same thing although, where there is a political philosophy, policy necessarily evolves from that.
Lack of ‘policy’ and ‘philosophy’ are also not the impediments they may seem, with political parties at national level manifestly unable to produce compelling offers in these fields.
Competence and integrity can and should be the frontline criteria.
Support and development
Local candidates standing on a party card should have the advantage of a protective and developmental party machine behind them, schooling them beforehand on the issues, means and procedures of local government.
In, practice however, this rarely, if ever, happens. Strategic advance thinking and preparation – and the organisational focus and capability to deliver it – is, somehow, not the British thing.
In theory, Independent candidates cannot be expected to have such support, while in practice, they are no more enabled or disabled by this than are their party political rivals.
Where party backing comes into play is, to a degree, in the matter of campaigning. Behind party candidates is some sort of a ‘machine’ – not, actually a realistic concept in the ad hockery of local government at all levels. But there will at least be a knowledge of what to do and how to do it.
This can be as much a disadvantage as an advantage as it will tend to perpetuate the status quo and to lack innovation; although it has great practical value in access to existing lists (the word ‘database’ would, in most cases, be stretching the point) and contacts.
Party-based candidates will generally be given – or have imposed upon them – overarching, party-driven manifesto commitments to flesh out the paragraphs in their election literature and save them the trouble of thinking too much.
Independents fly absolutely solo on the means and content of their campaigns. They have neither guidance nor instruction nor any or much campaigning infrastructure.
With independents, this situation tends to produce extremes – the crash-and-burners or the inspirational free-thinkers. Party backing will always produce a few stars but in general it presents apparent middle-of-the-roaders who, in practice may be worse or better than this but for most voters, there’s little telling in advance.
All unschooled candidates will make promises on a wish list unrelated to any sense of what is achievable. But then, experienced candidates do exactly the same, in what is still a pretty unprincipled bidding war for votes at all costs.
Issues
This is where there is a sharp difference between party political candidates and true independents.
There will be a party line providing the perspectives that lead to decision taking on how to vote – and, where necessary, there will be a party whip dictating a particular vote. Failure to observe the whip can lead to expulsion which, for mediocre candidates, voted in on the basis of their party affiliation, is political death.
Elected members representing a political party can count on facing real predicaments where their conscience and the interests of their electorate run counter to party instructions. Most resolve such personal conflicts comfortably enough and rarely to the advantage of their constituents.
Some resign from their party. Very occasionally, a party group will act in concert and on principle, as was the case when the SNP group walked out of the then ruling coalition over the school closures issue. Even here, though, it would be naive to dismiss party political advantage from the calculations leading to this action.
Independents are, theoretically, free to vote as they see it on an issue by issue basis, although those who join a group of independents are normally as constrained by group policy as are their colleagues who are political party based.
The generality, with elected members who are party or group based, is that party or group interests will always be placed before those of constituents. There are a very few occasions where, when constituency interests fit with the larger party political interests, it may appear that constituents have been put first, This will be no more than sleight of hand. At best, they will have had conveniently equal force.
In Argyll and Bute, the Alliance of Independent Councillors has become a sort of policy-free party by dint of its long years in ruling coalitions and its consequent taste for power at all costs.
In a way, this is the worst of both worlds for voters because its members stand at election solely as ‘independents’. This promises all that is good about an independent stance, yet, in actuality, these candidates are more hamstrung by the brutal – if selective – ‘discipline’ of this group than are their counterparts who are party representatives.
It is fair to say that the spirit of the voter at local authority elections is with the independent thinker who will put the issues and the needs of constituents above all.
In Argyll and Bute, this is carried to a previously unknown degree by the Argyll First group who pledge, where there may be a conflict between them, to put the interests of Argyll as a whole above constituency interests.
In a way, this is the beginning of a new politics in local government and perhaps beyond that.
Electorate leverage
Party discipline has a role to pay in the conduct of members elected to local government.
This means that, from the party’s standpoint, renegades can be brought to heel or expelled.
From the electorate’s position, there is a means of leverage on the conduct of a party-based candidate who is ignoring their interests, where they have no such immediate leverage on an independent.
Voters may approach the local party organisation if they have concerns over the conduct of an individual councillor who is on the party slate. If they do not get satisfaction there and if the issue is sufficiently aggravating, they may take their concerns to the party’s national organisation.
No party wants to see that the behaviour of their elected representatives at local level is weakening their political base in a local council and potentially undermining their national vote.
However, the other side of the coin, for both member and constituents, is that party discipline can also neuter an elected member seen politically as AWOL but electorally as a principled supporter of an issue with profound local importance.
Political careers
Political careerists will always be party-based candidates, although this does not mean that all party-based candidates are careerists.
The reality is that there can be no serious political career in being an independent local councillor – although for those who join a powerful group of independents, the position of Council Leader is a realistic ambition that has a sort of further outlet for favoured candidates in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Since COSLA is a ‘political’ orgaanisation, even here it may be more helpful to be a noted local politician operating from a party base.
On very rare occasions, where a local independent has become a toweringly effective and principled representative, they may develop a sufficient personal power base to support and even to win a candidacy for a seat at national government level.
Beyond that though, however able and effective the person, as things currently stand, there is absolutely no means of further progress up the political ladder.
From the electorate’s point of view, a careerist candidate can be relied upon to put personal and party interests well before those of constituents. That’s the name of the game they’re in.
Party (and which party) or independent? What most benefits the area as a whole?
One school of thought says that it is in the interests of an area to have a party group in power or shared power locally, which is also the party of government.
The proposition here is that this will give a local administration access to the levers of power and the influence to get a local case heard, with a few favours on the side.
We’re not sure about that.
The row over the determination of the Alliance of Independent Councillors not to fund the Mid Argyll Swimming Pool when its new board was clearly blazing a trail of competence and commitment, is a case in point.
There was serious local interest at stake but there weren’t enough votes in the issue for the junior member of that administration, the SNP group, to resist the stance of the senior partner.
In party political terms, it was more important for the party to have a partnership in the administration of a local authority than it was to look after serious local interest on a modest scale – until it came to the issue of school closures where there was a serious volume of votes involved.
Politics being what it is, still savouring the usefulness of the pork barrel at all levels, there will indeed be the odd favour dropped in for advantage from time to time for an area where the party of national government has a role in a council administration.
We would all be better off if we chose to put merit above favour and insisted instead on the proper evaluation of cases and proposals as the basis for action. ‘Favours’ lead nowhere other than to the perpetuation of a diseased political status quo.
What we all need is for the strength of a case to be recognised, even where it conflicts with the policy, the philosophy or the wish of a ruling local or national party. This is the foundation of good government, worthy of respect.
Here is the weakness in a party being involved in a local authority administration that is also the party of national government.
If the local case is one that does not suit the interests or strategies of the national party, the local group will either be persuaded or, if necessary, instructed – in the greater interests of the party, not to push the case. And they will not.
If one could contrive it, the most effective local administration – where action at national government level is required – is a competent, confident administration allied to the party of effective national opposition.
In this scenario, a strong local case must be properly addressed. If it is wrongly binned it will lose local votes for the party of national government. The only political capital to be made in such a situation is in acceptance of the case – which, had it come from the government’s own party at local level, would have been sidelined.
Wastefulness – the big issue
Particularly at local government level, there is a scarcity of genuine ability to the point where it is damaging for Argyll and Bute for posts of responsibility to be filled by willing but less able appointees simply because they are members of the ruling administration of the day.
The underuse of able councillors also leads to an unhelpful degree of disengagement. They have no real challenges appropriate to their ability. The best like to be tested.
Given that in Scotland and elsewhere in local government, independents predominate – there is little logic in the necessity for clusters of random independents to have to come together to form an administration, as is currently the case.
Such groups can have no political philosophy and no party affiliation so neither of these can be said to be an issue.
What matters is competence – and the current imperative to have a majority group in or leading government at this level actually ensures that we cannot have a competent administration across the board. There will be the odd lucky strike at best and the rest will be smilers who leave it all to their unelected officers.
There is every possible case for being experimental with local government – to all our advantage and with a possible impact on national government should the case be proven.
Why don’t we elect the post holders on the basis of nominated candidates?
It is not beyond out intelligence to come up with an electoral or mathematical means of also covering ward representation at General Practitioner level.
This approach would not prevent an individual from standing on a party slate; nor would it prevent political parties from standing a slate of candidates.
It would make it imperative for any candidate to have demonstrable specific abilities, experience and proposals to bring to the position; and it would make it imperative for any party only to field candidates of very real ability in specific fields if they wanted to succeed.
At one sweep this would get rid of the ‘buggins turn’ and default selections of candidates and appointees and rule out the ambitious juveniles with no real experience or proven ability in the working world but who fancy themselves as politicians. They should do their apprenticeship in life and work and come to the vote eventually with expertise and experience behind them that voters rate.
This approach would give us the talent we need in every single council post of responsibility and in the Leader – who would work with his given cabinet much as is currently the case, with whatever he is given by the electorate. The difference wold be that they would all be capable of doing their jobs and that they would not be dependent on the Leader’s patronage.
The case of Donald Kelly
The case of Donald Kelly in South Kintyre is a uniquely interesting one.
He is one of the three founding councillors who created the Argyll First group – mentioned above.
He is standing as an avowed Scottish Conservative and Unionist – but will not be a member of that party group in the council – because he has, like his two colleagues, John McAlpine of Kintyre and the Islands and Dougie Philand of Mid Argyll, pledged to put the interests of Argyll first, as a matter of practical and philosophical principle.
His personal voting preference is undisguised but he has rejected party politics in the interests of a new take on local politics. Everyone knows exactly where he stands.
This is a powerfully interesting position and one which we feel has opened eyes in Argyll and Bute to new and better ways of doing local government.
Re Donald Kelly.
I much prefer the SNP position. If you stand for the Council as an independent you relinquish your SNP membership. I cannot see how a member of a political party can actually be politically independent.
That is contradictory
Actually Bruce Marshall, a candidate in the Cowal Ward, tried to stand for the Tories at this coming election but they chased him. He was coming away with the same guff about being a Tory but independent on the council. He was initially elected as a Tory but he ascended to the well paid post of Vice Chair of the Area Committee when he became an independent. And we still don’t know if Chris Lambert, standing as an Independent in the same ward, is still a member of the LIbDems (for which he served as a councillor in Kirn).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think Donald Kelly has (as explained in the excellent article above) been upfront with voters, in his politics and voting intentions. That gives the electorate the choice to say ‘aye’ or ‘nay’. The only people adversly affected by this position could be Conservative voters who wmay feel their position somewhat diluted. To Cllr Kelly’s credit he has been totally honest.
There is also the position of (say) a candidate puting themselves forward for election, and failing to win the endorsement of their political party vetting process (which we dont generally hear about). They then may choose to stand as an independent and depending on the (whatever) party rules, have to relinquish membership.
Once again a first class article above from ‘forargyll’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As someone who has some friends who are Tories but is,I fear, programmed so that I cannot possibly imagine voting for their policies I am truly perplexed about Donald Kelly’s stance. He states that he is nominated as a Conservative and Unionist but will not follow the Conservative line when in the Council. That seems far from clear to me!
I see that you state that in Scotland “independents predominate” Is this true? I find it difficult to believe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I still can’tsee how you can be a member of a political party and stand as a “independent”.
It also smacks of weakness by the political party involved and in the political committment of the actual member.
I fully undertand however why candidates may not find standing as Tory or LibDem much help in getting them elected. I’m sure across the country there are many in this election who have not been as honest as Donald Kelly and are flying under false colours
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As alluded to previously, you may have say an SNP member wishing to become a councillor, and does not receive the backing of the party as a candidate, then that person has the right to stand if not Snp, but Independent. They still believe in the ideals of their party, but believe more strongly in their own ability to make a difference, and will not be whipped in to place, so stand under their own steam. Why should they be forced to relinquish membership of that party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because they will be standing against Party candidates- which under the Party’s rules means automatic expulsion. Its a matter of Party discipline.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have to say I think much of this article misses the point that it makes right at the start – these are local elections and that makes them several degrees more sophisticated than national elections. Folk voting much more to consider. They have to balance what they know, and often know personally, about the abilities of the candidates; what each candidate say they will achieve; and what the electors can realistically expect candidates to achieve in their interests (in-spite of what the candidate said). People change how they vote for council elections particularly under STV. I have spoken to both staunch Labour and Conservative voters in South Kintyre who will be voting SNP in the council elections. These people would never, even in their wildest dreams, support us in a national election. They see a good job being done and so support that work. Council elections are not about one kind of politics mantra or idea vs another, they are about common sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree wholeheartedly with John Semple. For me national politics and strategy are largely irrelevant when it comes to deciding on who to support in local elections. The focus should be on the local candidate and whether you feel they are the right person to represent you, and your community. If they are currently serving councillors then there is a track record which can be used as evidence and which they can be judged upon. If they are standing as candidates who have never been elected then there is more of a need for a leap of faith and also the possibility of other local knowledge and community involvement which could help people make an informed decision.
I know of people who won’t vote for an SNP candidate because of the Independence issue and I also know of people who won’t vote for a Tory candidate because of the Unionist argument. These are national issues and independence, or otherwise, will happen regardless of what occurs at local government level.
We are an area made up of a small number of urban areas and a mass of rural communities and we need people who are committed to protecting, and improving, this way of life. For that to happen you need your ward councillors to be committed to representing you, not a national manifesto. This doesn’t mean for one second that I am saying you should vote for an Independent Councillor and ignore the party affiliated ones – candidates can be party affiliated and committed to their communities. I am just saying that I think what is most important is the person rather than the colour of the badge they are wearing.
We have witnessed, across A&B wards, some of the current crop of councillors letting their communities down by sticking to a party line on school closures – many of them telling the public one thing whilst voting in direct conflict to their words. Councillors like that we don’t need because if they will do it on issues like schools then you can be sure they will do it again when other issues arise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Worse, far worse, was when that “party line” was the blind support by supposedly “independent” councillors to adhere to the discredited Walsh/Sneddon line in the face of effective community opposition and, it would appear, in some cases at least, for the prospect of enhanced financial reward.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Some of the comments here seem to be a pre-emptive attempt to justify local issues over what is best for Argyll and Bute as whole.
Provided a party has a programme which is responsive to local needs then there is no reason why its programme cannot be region wide.
A & B is diverse and as a result more challenging than any other part of Scotland, but funding is tight. Consequently efforts must be focused on increasing an economically active population while ensuring an equitable social policy.
That means that parochialism must have no place in the new administration. Are Independents up to that challenge?
It would have been refreshing if candidates had challenged voters to ask what contribution the voters could make rather than the promises from candidates which with one or two exceptions show a worrying lack of ambition and vision.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I challenge those who wax generous about independent councillors and independent run councils to have a look at the last twenty years of Audit Commission reports on delivery of good local government and note which councils invariably inhabit the bottom few places.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What we’re suggesting as a experiment would look after this sort of mess.
The fundamental problem is GP elected members put in specialist positions where they don’t know what they’re doing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The whole problem with Independents ( so-called although most of them are actually Conservative without the intestinal fortitude to admit to that ) is that they , by and large, stand without any policy commitment. And so when they follow the Walsh line – the one Independent who knows what he is doing, although he wouldnt admit to it in his election address – they cannot be held to have broken a commitment to their electors. Newsroom has commented often enough about how they soit there in Kilmory, saying nothing and not even being sure how to vote on a motion until they get the message from the Leader. They are all members of the Walsh Party, without any Party policy because Dick hasnt told them what it is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wrong Gerry
Can think of two in my ward (Sean Macintyre and Neil macIntyre) both ‘Independent’ and both certainly not Tories, and both likely to be councillors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can’t agree with you entirely on this Gerry. Sure there has been an issue of Walsh and his lapdogs, but surely these closet Tories are then actually following Mr Walsh’s Labour origins?
And then we have the example of George Freeman, who as an Independent, made a stand against Walsh (and boy did it cost him) but he has been steadfast in representing the views of his constituents.
The goal is clear though, Walsh’s useless cronies – or non-independent independents – have got to go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Some interesting comments but where does Mary Jean Devon and her coat of many colours feature in the list of quality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There are plenty of good Independent candidates out there, who articulate their own policy priorities in their leaflets. What voters need to ask them is whether they intend to remain independent and fight for those priorities, or whether they intend to join an ‘Alliance of Independents’ large enough to form a majority ruling group.
If the latter, then they should be challenged to be upfront, before the election, about what the policy vision & priorities of that group should be, and their own ‘red line’ conditions for joining it.
Independents have an important and valuable role to play in a council, bringing professional experience or a genuine non party-political interest in the concerns of their constituents into the mix. However, those who are content simply to drift by gravity towards a political ‘strong man’ or two, and then do their bidding in a policy vacuum, need to be shown the door.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In my opinion all local councillors should stand as Independents and not under a Party ticket. Local councillors should remember that they are elected as representatives of their local electorate and not lining their own pockets at council taxpayers expense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The independent thing doesn’t make any sense to me, (though I’m happy that there are independents who are on the side of the angels).
There are 36 councillors. If they all fight for their own corners, they’ll have two or three buddies in their ward, which makes a maximum of four against 32. You might link up with a neighbouring ward and make it eight, but you’d still be outvoted by the others. So each is battling for its own corner, none can achieve his/her aim alone, and no-one has any real focus on the larger picture.
It’s not effective and it leaves us open to the kind of nonsense that sees the Alliance of Independents and the Lib Dems with the voting power to close schools, whilst each of them shamefacedly claims to be fighting tooth and nail for their own ward. And since you didn’t ask any of them what their policies were, you’d be hard pushed to complain about the things they do. So long as they appear to be fighting for you, they get away with it.
That’s why I’m happier with parties or groups that have clear policy. The idea that it’s anti-local is misfounded. Those policies are there for everyone to see. You can vote for the policies you wantfor your area, as well as a person you think can work towards them, effectively and with the benefit of a group of colleagues who will also have the same aim when they cast their votes in council.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All independent councils?
The proven recipe for aimless, policyless and completely unreliable councils.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Finally, Marshall has admitted it. How two faced can you get, telling voters party politics has no place in local government but at the same time desperately trying to rejoin the Tory fold.
http://www.cowalcourier.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When the Tories don’t want you you really need to start looking in the mirror. Hell they even welcomed the Lib Dems!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Anne – “That’s why I’m happier with parties or groups that have clear policy”. Can you clarify soemthing for me please
Is it snp policy to give the right of veto to parents of pupils in rural schools but not to give that same right to any other grouping threatened with service cuts?
Or is that just your own idea?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Back to trolling again I see “Simon”. This subject was dealt with in depth in another thread. If anyone is interested in it search back a bit. For the rest of us I suggest just ignoring this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rubbish “doc” – I’m asking Anne if the giving parents in a rural schoola right of veto is official SNP policy – or her own idea. Totally differnt question to what was asked previously – and if you had been paying attention you would have noticed that.
Thsi question is asked inthe contex tof Anne’s declared preferencce – “That’s why I’m happier with parties or groups that have clear policy”.
My question is asking if this is veto thingy is SNP policy.This si not the same as asking Anne if she would extend this veto right to other groups.
Do at least try to keep up “doc”…
But while I’m on why do you feel the need to protect Anne and advise everyone else on how best to treat questions from me? Paternalism knows best eh “doc”??
Have a nice day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh c’mon “doc” – don’t do an evading and avoiding Anne on me – just answwer the question!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Simon – if you were asked to do a review on the tenure of Councillor Walsh and his Alliance group accompanied by Mrs Louden and her Senior Management, what would you say?
They’ve done ok? Could do a lot better? Can hold their heads high?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Scruff – I started to write a jokey response but recognise that you deserve a better answer.
My honest opinion is that wee Tricky Dicky is head and shoulders above the rest of the ‘politicians’ at Kilmory. The combined efforts of EVERY OPPOSITION COUNCILLOR could not muster an alternative to Tricky’s budget.
It was Clinton who said “It’s the economy stupid” – now if the combined opposition cannot come up with alternatives to Tricky’s budget – what are we the electorate to deduce???
Duh!!!
They are numpties. And incompotent numpties at that.
I also like the fact that Tricky and his administration have taken an overall view of the Council services when it comes to the service cuts imposed by the snp government.
There are those on here who would demand that rural schools with small and falling rolls be preserved at ALL costs. You’ll find that these selfish-single issue folks don’t care about the big picture and don’t really care about others. As far as they are concerned you can make cuts to any other sector but theirs. They are NIMBY – no cuts – NIMBY.
There you go Scruff – make of it what you will.
But do have a nice evening.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Simon – thank you. We have spoken about the merit or otherwise of Dick Walsh before, and I agree that his last budget was a very good ‘political’ budget. It was certainly designed to be a vote winner but as you know, ‘vote winning’ budgets aren’t always the best budgets.
I disagree with your comments and opinion on rural schools, but there are others who are better positioned to argue with you on that one.
Can I ask, have you read the Fatal Accident Inquiry into the deaths of Niamh Lafferty and Georgia Rowe? How do you feel the Council discharged it’s duties in relation to this case? Do you have an opinion as to why managers ignored and/or dismissed the recommendations made by their own Social Workers on several occassions?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Scruff – no I haven’t read it and I don’t have an opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You should, in fact anyone who still thinks Argyll and Bute Council has any credibility left really should read it, every single word of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0