Camden Liberal Democrat backbenchers do mushroom impression

Following a series of poor (and consequently unpopular) decisions at Camden Town Hall, you have to start asking some questions about the quality of the internal checks and balances Camden Liberal Democrat backbenchers (pictured) put in place to monitor policies made by their leadership.

For the uninitiated, it is usual for political ‘groups’ of councillors at Town Halls to discuss policy before papers are decided at the Executive, or put before scrutiny. It is an important part of the policy making process, as it is at this point that councillors pose political questions, anticipate challenges or downsides, or points of potential political controversy. Councillors often ask for policies to be modified, and on occasion policies may be ditched outright.

Labour group in the 2002-2006 administration had many such discussions, with reports presented to backbench Labour councillors by Executive members. Policy on the ALMO was debated, modifications were made to our ASBO strategy and dispersal notices, muslim councillors argued for better halal meal provision in the school meals contract and reports were taken on items in the forward plan.

Such a process meant that councillors were generally educated on council policy to a high level. The level of challenge was high, although sometimes backbenchers did not get their way (notably with trying to soften Camden’s parking policy).

I raise this because it seems that the current set up with the Liberal Democrats, with the exception of sustainability issues perhaps - does not seem to contain an effective backbench challenge to policy. The Frank Barnes debacle, where the special school was first proposed to be relocated outside of the borough and then forced to co-locate with Edith Neville primary, appears to have only been discussed at Lib Dem group at a very late stage. Likewise the location of the secondary school in the north of the borough, at a stroke effectively ending the Liberal Democrats as a political force in the south of the borough seems to have been pushed through by an over-mighty executive.

The issue of youth cuts might have spurred Camden Town with primrose Hill Lib Dems to argue that the Haven should not be cut – but it appears that no such conversation took place before the policy was decided.

Without proper information and discussion of policy papers at an early stage, the Liberal Democrats increase the risk of blundering about like this. Note, for example, the fuss over the ‘Commercialisation of Parks and Open Spaces’ paper and Better and Cheaper proposals. No paper of that title would ever have got through Labour group and its financial proposals significantly watered down. I wonder if this was discussed at all at a Lib Dem group meeting?

Contrary to what one might think about the Liberal Democrats, they are quite a top-down outfit. The Leader decides his cabinet (all posts in our Labour group were subject to annual election), and it seems that the information cascade follows this route. An ex-executive member commented to be that life on the outside of the Executive was notable for the sudden absence of information.

The policy is surely a ‘mushroom’ policy from the leadership.

Keep ‘em in the dark and feed them, ahem, 'compost.'