It concerns me that interest in local politics is at a low point and I want to have a conversation about how we as elected politicians can reconnect with those that have placed their trust and confidence in us. To regain trust we need to become more accountable, more relevant and more outward focused. Devolving more power and decision making to local communities is achieving success in many local authorities. Engaging young people must be a key priority. Live streaming via webcam and encouraging Twitter interaction saw Oldham Council receiving more questions at their last meeting than they had in the last five years. When changes are suggested, the Council Constitution does not always enable us to make such changes but of course we have the opportunity to change it to meet the needs of resident engagement. I'm keen to hear your views on what you would like to see us do better and how we work to meet your ambitions for the area we all love and most of all, how we can do it together. Look forward to hearing your views here or on my own blog post (http://johnfahy.org.uk/2013/07/24/rewiring-public-service-agenda-for-change/) about this or feel free to get in touch directly.
The following are all a little peripheral in that they don't relate to core servicve provision but they could help to improve the reputation of the Council and councillors 1) Allocate small sums of money to be spent at the discretion of local councillors in their wards after consultation with residents. This will cost but seems to be well established in Lewisham and is a way of encouraging active citizenship 2) More senior councillors to follow John Fahy's example in encouraging dialogue with residents. Not the least of Chros Roberts's crimes against good governance is his joke about "anti-social media" 3) Council to provide a blogging platform for councillors on its website. There would have to be strict rules about what can and cannot be said but I can't see any objection in principle. Participation would be voluntary but voters could draw their own conclusions about councillors who didn't engage. 4) Stop ring-fencing the £900,000 + a year paid in councillors allowances. I support the principle of payment (and benefited myself when I was a councillor). However a 10% reduction would be easily managed and appropriate in the current financial climate, either by an across the board cut or preferably by focussing on some of the special responsibility allowances paid to about two thirds of the Labour Group.
John, I think its great that you've recognised some of the problems that have led to such a disconnect between the council and the electorate. Personally I'm likely to remain sceptical until action replaces words, the problem with an electoral system that creates "safe" boroughs with "wasted" votes is that it leads those in power to feel to secure and voters with a feeling of impotency. Transparency is a fine starting point, I'd like to see a public access site where we can post ideas and questions, these would then received an equally public reply from the council either answerign the question or suggesting next steps. A series of packages could be deisgined for projects of escalating size incorporating council oversight and governance systems but leaving the bulk of the work to local interest groups. Turning your back on the party political squabbling and blame games would also be refreshing. There was a lot to be learnt from the public involvement in the Games last year, I'd like to see some of those lessons leading into action. If you're serious about change then I'm sure many from Greenwich would be willing to contribute in time and ideas. I think the St Alfege Park fiasco remains a blot on the idea of public involvement, its a shame that years on we haven't been able to move on from blame and establish a well controlled force for good in the park. Darren
Dear John, Just read your proposed amendment in regards the A&E department at QE Hospital. Please don't come on here talking about engaging with the electorate and transparancy and honesty and then play pathetic party political games with peoples lives. I work in the emergency side of the health service, new flash for you: Your hospital is broken! You need to start doing things to fix this situation and all the time you're playing sad tired party political games some of your electorate are suffering dangerous levels of health care. Shame on you. Darren
About the St Alfege Park fiasco: this seems emblematic of more general problems. It would indeed be good to move on from blame, which was all heaped on the Friends of the park (which still exists, and of which I am one) and particularly its former chair. Obviously, we deserve our share of it and needed an overhaul (already under way before the fiasco). But who was in charge of whom over the 3-week period when gravestones were smashed, and who decided to even touch gravestones far beyond the extent of the garden project, is to this day a well-kept secret ("to protect people", as Councillor O'Mara put it). The affair is a festering sore that might more readily heal if the council would come clean. The Friends were aiming for green flag status and had started or planned several projects to achieve it. All lost now. I still feel injured by those events, which stain my whole perception of the council's ethical stance. They so often treat residents as underlings and enemies rather than as partners in a group effort. Councillor Fahy's suggestion of webcam streaming would be an excellent place to start -- should apply to all council, cabinet, and committee meetings.
yeah - John, you know I go along with most of all that. Although I am far from sure that we ever really grasp, or even understand ourselves, the real issues about interaction between the elected and electorate. Web streaming would be good but I am not sure it gets through to the real areas of discussion and action. We talk a lot about the big formal council meeting- yet virtually no one goes along to the various small committees and scrutiny panels which deal with issues which have a much closer relevance to people's day to day experiences and where even councillors at my level contribute. People need to have a realistic knowledge of what a Council can and cannot do and what it's relationship is with other decision making bodies. There are a multiplicy of cultural issues among councillors and council officers about their relationship with the general public - people don't all think the same. And many of them are frightened of what we still call 'new technology' (slightly-older-than-it-was-technology). I've been twelve years on the back benches and I sometimes think I occupy a sort of intermediate state between 'decision makers' and everyone else. I do what I can - and will be gone sooner rather than later.
The trouble, as ever, is with communication - there isn't a mindset to communicate honestly with people, because "showing leadership" is more important than engaging with people. Most councillors do not communicate regularly with their constituents, some have barely been heard of since the election three years ago. Some have even spent great lengths of time out of the country. On a corporate level, Greenwich Time hammers home lies every other week. People are starting to see through this, and it has a corrosive effect. There's a kneejerk reaction, and John Fahy is as guilty as the lot of them, of seeing all criticism as being unjustified, and that those who make critical points are enemies that should be crushed. Yet if people find it hard to get their streets swept more than a miserly once a week, if people see the council pressing ahead with charges for services without listening to service users first, if people see or hear councillors blaming others for their own failings, then they will become cynical. Webcasting meetings - full council, cabinet, scrutiny, planning - would be a start. But councillors' mindsets need to change first. It's no good being open on one forum and grumbling about "the usual suspects" on another when the debate turns the wrong way. The council may win debates in the town hall, and it may win elections based on the values expressed by its ruling party nationally (if not locally). But without communicating properly with people, it'll never win debates on the streets.
Last October I was lucky enough to accompany Caroline Pidgeon AM to the Young Peoples Council in Woolwich Dockyard. It was a day organised by young people from across Greenwich and the members of the Youth Parliament. Caroline (pictured below with some of the youth leaders on the day), who is leader of the GLA Lib Dems and the deputy Chair of the GLA Transport Committee, was there to talk about transport issues with the young people and especially about issues relating to bus travel. Len Duvall AM was there, in great and jovial form as I remember, Cllr Jackie Smith and the Mayor. There were loads of young people participating and it was a day interspersed with games, events and discussions. Bus drivers, police and community leaders were there as well and the main thing that struck me was how mature and intelligent all these young people were - much more so than some of the so-called adults. In fact I remember that the adults couldn't help but talk over the young people when the latter had much more interesting and relavant things to say. This was real engagement in issues that mattered to young people - crime, bus transport, education - as well as fun stuff like sport, music, media etc. and that is the sort of thing that should be encouraged and built on. As Darryl said it is the attitude of the adult councillors that needs to change. I witnessed the shocking scenes at the Council on Wednesday night from the public gallery - I was ashamed to be part of the proceedings even though I was only an observer. If that is the blueprint, communication is irrelevant. Politicians are finished in Greenwich. Can you imagine if that had been broadcast... If people like me, and others in opposing parties, are going to find it difficult to shift Labour from Greenwich, which despite all that they do (or don't do) is likely and the Labour Party stay here until the next ice age, then someone in the Labour party in Greenwich has got to do something about it instead. That's where the problem is and that is where the change and improvement in engaging all residents in what local politicians do, has to start.
If I was feeling just a tiny bit cynical I might point out that more than half of the people who have contributed to this thread so far are members of one of the main political parties (and that's not including Darryl who may have stood as a candidate but whose independent voice through his blog is essential on these issues). Some might suggest that those voices probably aren't who Cllr Fahy really needs to hear from and the rush to offer pre-packaged, partisan solutions rather than give the people of Greenwich a chance to respond first, might be indicative of the problems the council, and local politics in general, faces right now.
SteveE It's been three-and-a-half days now and the "people of Greenwich" aren't exactly queueing to respond to Cllr Fahy's post. Those who tend to engage in this type of discussion tend to have stronger-than-average polirtical views - which is why they engage. I don't think that makes their views any less relevant. There have been some serious, concrete suggestions as well as a number of very cogent criticisms laid out in the comments. I hope Cllr Fahy will respond to all of them.
But Steve, I'm one of the people of Greenwich and by nature not a politician at all. The only reason I'm involved in local politics is that I'm mad as a wet hen at some councillors' (not Mary's) contempt for some of us and I think I have a duty to try to do it better. This isn't just a political matter; it's a human and ethical one. Mary is surely right that going along to committee meetings etc would improve our understanding of what the council is doing and what it can and can't do. Having these recorded and available at our convenience would greatly help that process. Another improvement, and a huge one, would be if answers to questions asked by the public and by councillors were straightforward and informative rather than blatantly and contemptuously evasive as is so often the case.
Cllr Fahy, the perpetrator of Alfegegate, want to know how he can regain our trust. Satire is dead in Greenwich.
Once again, John Fahy professes his "sincere desire" to engage with the electorate in Greenwich, and then completely ignores their replies. John, your silence in response to the comments and positive suggestions in response to your own request for feedback sums up neatly all that is wrong with your "Labour" Council.
A big thank you all those who commented on the recent debate. It is very important to me to have a regular exchange of views both with those I represent and those, friend or foe, who have a point of view. I am fully aware of my shortcomings but it is important to be reminded of that from time to time. Exchanging passionate views can only be a good thing. As bloggers have pointed out in recent days mistakes are made from time to time. It is, however, necessary that where failings occur they must be resolved. Standing for election every four years and being elected is a privilege, not a right. Being elected on a mandate presents challenges and opportunities. We can take pride in the changes that have taken place in the last four years. Investment and regeneration has been significant. Filling the vacuum left by Government, new employment opportunities for hundreds of people have been made. Of course there are issues that continue to niggle and I fully accept that not everyone is satisfied and rightly so. We need to find ways to empower local communities to take responsibility and pride in their own neighbourhoods. There is enormous talent and expertise across the Borough. As I mentioned in the piece I wrote about Rewiring Local Services this is happening across the Country. These debates will continue,and I look forward to further exchanges. Am I likely to change the views that have a particular position? I guess not but I will continue to engage and influence where I can.
"It is, however, necessary that where failings occur they must be resolved." Yes, indeed Mr Fahy - so who gave the order to smash up the tombstones?
Cllr Fahy, I guess St. Alfege would be a place to start. Maybe you could outline specifically what steps you feel would need to be taken in order for a friends group to recommence work on the park. Or alternatively point us in the direction of someone who is willing to work towards that goal. Darren
I very much wish that local politics were more engaging to the public. My heart sinks when it just turns into a cheaper version of the same party political dogma as the national stage.