The Good Candidate

To be 'a good candidate' for a political election is a complex subject, with varying interpretations according to one's point of view (literally) and is also different for the various levels of governance.

Today I am looking at just one type of candidature, the one I know best: to stand for election to the local council. Believe me, this one is complex enough! what does one need to be a selected candidate, quite apart from winning the seat? The latter part of that is complex in itself, as it could be a safe seat for one's own party, a safe seat for a different (incumbent) party, or at any point in between right down to being a very finely balanced marginal.

Also, is one a brand new candidate with no experience, a re-applying candidate in the same seat, or someone who has stood in at least one other seat previously – either on the same council or elsewhere in the country.

Most candidate hopefuls will put themselves up for consideration within a political party structure, and it will normally fall to the parliamentary constituency association for that party to decide on council candidates for the wards that sit within that constituency.

They will be looking for someone who not only echoes and would represent their values and opinions, but who'd also campaign vigorously and regularly. Thus they are, in a very real sense, more party-driven than anything else. They'd make the point that they are all putting in their time, effort and money to support the party, and (with some justification) expect their candidate to do at least as much as any of the Association's members was doing – and had probably been doing for years.

Thus there is the very real danger of only party-dominated people getting selected to stand as candidates – and indeed we see this happening within all major (and most if not all minor) parties; and this has been at least a decades-long characteristic of candidate selection.

We the voters are unlikely to be offered any community-led candidates unless they are Independents – and those just do not have the party machinery behind them to campaign sufficiently to achieve much more than a few handfuls of votes, so there are rarely any non-party councillors elected as such. Usually only those who have left their party after having been elected with the aid of a party machine can be found on an elected council, or occasionally those who re-stood as Independent incumbents after having been first elected as a party member.

Here in Medway, that last category have primarily needed their old party not to stand its own candidates against them, and when they eventually did it meant the end of those Independents' political careers.

Therefore, to be a good councillor, as distinct from being merely a good party politician, requires someone truly exceptional: a person who will satisfy the local party's expectations, will earn their support, but will also do good work on the 'patch' both before polling day and (hopefully) after being elected. There are some overlapping demands, so it is possible to be both provided one is prepared to treat it as a serious occupation, not a casual spare-time business paying only perfunctory attention to issues in one's ward.

When I moved to this area some eighteen years ago, it has been traditionally a fairly solid (and obviously so) area for one political party, council-wise. Several years before, because it had been taken for granted by the then incumbent councillors of that party, they had lost both their seats to another party – and that situation lasted for three full council terms (nine years).

It took not only new faces and a strong local issue to first take back the seats – with a huge swing, it has to be said – but ongoing highly-dedicated work in the ward thereafter to hold those seats very strongly, long after that one big issue had faded from most of the public's broad awareness.

In this specific case, which I know so well, the ward doubled in size just three years later, growing from a two-councillor to a three-member patch, and from two to four polling districts. Lots of new areas were 'bolted on', like a Sinclair Spectrum with all the hardware add-ons hanging off its various sides, bringing a wider variety of new matters than we had encountered before.

There was no difficulty in the two of us being re-selected as candidates for that second (for us) election, as our track record on both sides of the equation – party work and ward work (plus, of course, what we were required to do on committees and outside bodies, though these carry little weight in candidate selection terms) – was very strong, though I'm sure we weren't the best-ever.

The real dividing line came the following selection time, when four of us vied for the three seats, including the three incumbents and one other who had made her name in another ward (that no longer existed by then) and within the party away from the council. It was at this point that those who were to vote in three of us, and reject the other, were put into a position where they had to be more analytical of our individual performances, not just as a group of three lumped together.

Thus it was that we came out as two pairs – the 'newcomer' and myself as high scorers, and the other two ward incumbents as almost an identically scoring lower pairing. In the event, a poor performance by the better of that latter pair, and some serious political nous by the other, resulted in the less good one winning that third place – but it was close and could, in theory, have gone either way.

The lesson from all of this is that it isn't just about winning a candidature, or even winning the seat at the subsequent election: that is just the start of the work, not an opportunity to sit back, relax and take the money(such as it is). It's an ongoing challenge and requires actual work, not mere posturing (and I have witnessed enough of that in my time) and an assumption of automatic re-selection every few years.

Some seem to think that clever speaking and manipulation of others will see them through – and it often appears to work, at least for a while. One day, though, a time of reckoning will be at hand; and it will be one's entire record that could be brought into the equation when it comes to the crunch time.

Beyond all of this are often factions within party associations (and some are famous for this) and typically hidden agendas, and one just cannot do anything about those. This can mean that even the best of candidature applicants can lose out and poorer-quality candidates be selected – and again I have personally witnessed/experienced this.

Therefore, as long as one has consistently shown one's own qualities, but ends up rejected and then watches a poor job being done in the ward (and perhaps also within the party), there is no need to be resentful. One might wish to occasionally remind those who made that choice, and chide them for their obvious foolishness in the hope that they'd learn the lesson and do better next time – as I recently did with someone, for example.

I doubt that candidate selection will ever be all that good, as the conflicting interests and attitudes of a potentially good councillor relative to someone whom the party will more likely go for is ultimately irreconcilable. Whatever party officials and members claim, they can never be relied upon to get it right every time.

The best one can do is to satisfy both sides of that equation, establish a personal track record in both respects (party and community) – and also not to ruffle any feathers within the party, especially locally.

Virtual Receptionist

The Telegraph reports that Brent Council in north London is installing a 'virtual receptionist' named Shanice at their £90 million Civic Centre (ninety million?). They are incorrectly calling her a hologram, though I expect it is a 3-dimensional model like the Vocaloid characters.

Actually, thinking about this, if they had waited a couple more weeks they could have had Miku (English) instead, giving visitors to the council the bonus of a song-and-dance routine in answer to their enquiries.That sounds better, to me at least, than the very limited range of enquiries the new projected (literally!) receptionist will be capable of handling.

There is a touch screen for choosing a topic, so they could have had, for example when the 'housing' spot is touched, Miku performing to some House music. If it's about roads and traffic, then something from a road movie could fit. Want to pay your council tax or another council bill? How about Abba's 'Money Money Money'? Now that would bring in the people, and add hugely to the council's satisfaction ratings for front-desk customer service...

Weekly Political Digest – 5 July 2013

Here's my week-to-date round-up of a few aspects of what has been happening on the political front...

Who Really Runs Labour?

The thorny question of who really pulls the strings of Labour has raised its head again with what has been portrayed in various respected news outlets as a botched attempt by the (huge) UNITE Union to manipulate the candidate selection at Falkirk, and apparently in forty other constituencies as well. Dan Hodges, fully back in his stride these days, tells it as it is and what it means for his party.

This is not new; and indeed there is a certain degree of legitimacy in the Unions' claim to need to be represented within what they perceive as an increasingly middle class Labour party. After all, Labour was created as the political wing of the Unions and the so-called 'working class' whom those unions represented (well, they did back then, to be fair to them), long before so many of the big unions were taken over by Communists and became predominantly political organisations themselves.

The Unions' first big move in this decade was to do whatever they could to get 'their man' (Ed Miliband) to be the Labour party leader, shoving aside Ed's brother David in the process. This worked; and it was UNITE and the GMB who (seemingly 'illegally' under Labour party rules) who sent out material to their members suggesting that Ed was the one of the then five candidates to 'best represent the interets of [insert union name] members'.

This will rumble on now, and where it might eventually lead is anyone's guess. Meanwhile, it has to be said that all parties suffer from the practices disclosed in the Falkirk revelations. I (and no doubt some visitors to this 'blog) will have read about it happening in Tower Hamlets with Lutfur Rahman, those with longer memories will recall the Southall and environs claims and counter-claims of a few years ago, and there have been many others.

Indeed, I have personal experience of this, and could write a lot more about that, but perhaps it is better that I do not, at least not yet... Yes, it happens, and it almost certainly happens a lot. Personal agendas...

Council Tax Collection

Closer to home is the always concerning question of Council Tax collection rates. The thing is that those of us who do pay up have to pay more in order to 'fill in' for those who do not. In practice, there has always been a proportion of rates and its modern day equivalent that, at any moment in time, has not been collected for one reason or another, and no doubt there always will be.

The trend regarding such arrears is a slowly moving downward one, though Labour are trying to hoodwink the public into thinking that it is a worsening situation. It is not, as explained here, and is indeed creeping downward as a fraction of the total collectable amount – which, if you think about it for a moment, is the only valid way to do it (as the actual amount goes up almost every year).

Now, as to why there is a small by proportion, but nevertheless large-ish by actual amount, outstanding at any time is complex, as I could elucidate in several paragraphs (remember: I was the chairman of our council's Audit Panel for several years, so know a lot about this, including the numerous legal obstacles to recovery) but that isn't appropriate for this digest. Just accept that this is nothing new, that it rolls on from year to year with new arrears appearing and old ones being (often very slowly!) paid off simultaneously.

It all comes out in the wash, as the saying has it...

No New Runways Needed

That was the clear message conveyed to officialdom by half a dozen campaign groups from the south-east of England, as reported by 'AirportWatch' here.

Now, one might well expect that to be the line they'd all take, and they would be certain to have some evidence to back it up. It could equally be said that they'd find a way to arrange that any reports, investigations, surveys, whatever would be 'rigged' to produce the answer they want, rather than the answer that is true. After all, Sir Humphrey Appleby taught Bernard how to do precisely that, in Yes, Minister.

Indeed, I am personally a little wary of the conclusion that no new runways are needed in this region. I have a strong gut feeling that one or two could well make a significant difference if the question were handled intelligently – but at existing airports. I certainly do not subscribe to the idea that a new hub airport here is either needed or desirable – though if it were, the London Thames Global concept, to be located at Thurrock in Essex, seems to be far and away the best of those ideas.

There is still so much potential within what we still have in this part of the nation, so that if it is decreed that some kind of limited expansion in runway capacity must be provided (and I think it will), it would be much better if the campaign groups had something sensible to offer as a fallback position, rather than offering nothing and therefore having to be completely sidelined when the detailed decisions are being made.

Having such a 'Plan B' ready is my recommended approach for the campaigners, operating in concert, so that they can protect those whose areas they represent in this arena as best they can, even in the case of a modest expansion final decision. Without that, they'd end up completely out of the picture.

Ah, Grasshopper!

Not Keye Luke to David Carradine in Kung Fu this time, but the perpetual explanation for Medway Labour's continual flitting from one subject to another. There is no coherent 'master plan' in their policy activity, as such, only picking whatever at that moment will do them some political good or can be twisted to that end.

Some might suggest that they are simply being comprehensive and covering all areas – but they aren't. It is always highly selective, and if it cannot be made to make themselves look good (particularly when it gives them scope for attacking 'the Tories' sic) it will generally be ignored until and unless it can be thus presented.

Those of us who have been watching them for years have long ago realised this, and some of us have always personally witnessed how it has been stage-managed, from the collusion with local reporters (and there is a whole essay I could write about that!) to the use of out-of-area Labour-friendly outfits and individuals.

There is also (again) a Union-led agenda of 'motions' to Council with a 'heads we win, tails they lose' narrative worked out in advance (and the motions and speeches by Labour worded precisely to steer such occurrences in that way, and (also again) the disconnected nature of most of them, when one looks down successive Council agendas.

It doesn't require a Mensa membership-level intellect to spot what is going on, and indeed has been the norm for many years. By their actions shall ye know them, and it takes only a fairly modest effort to work it out for oneself. Lefties will no doubt remain blinkered, and will try to explain it all away; but once anyone has seen the truth, even those attempts lose all potency. Clarity overrides propaganda, every time!