[an error occurred while processing the directive]
Live-in Councillors?
I’ve just discovered the Local Government Officer’s blog. It’s a really good blog that does (as a visitor remarks) what blogs do best – anonymous low-horizon perspective commenting from an insider.
The latest post asks the question:
Is it better for Councillors to live in the area that they represent?
Or, more accurately, how much better is it for a councillor to live in the area that they represent?
Spread the word:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Leave a Reply
[an error occurred while processing the directive]
[an error occurred while processing the directive]
[an error occurred while processing the directive]
[an error occurred while processing the directive]
Thankyou, most kind. I didn’t go into detail about answering my own question – partly because I was building up to a different one – but partly because I’m just not sure.
I think it would depend on the sort of area in which I lived and what there was to choose between the candidates in terms of views or experience otherwise. It would also, of course, depend on whether the ward boundaries made any sense in the first place from a community identity point of view – sometimes they don’t!
Where the candidate lived would definitely influence me strongly at a GLA Member level if they didn’t at least live in the same quarter of London, or at a County Council level if they lived in a complely different town.
On the other hand I’d probably be actively put off by attack leaflets that made a big deal out of a candidate living in, to pick somewhere completely at random, the South Side of Muswell Hill, but contesting Crouch End ward.
But I’ve worked with plenty of very good Councillors who don’t live within their ward boundaries, and I would hope that in most elections there is still enough Politics going on that there are plenty of other factors for the average voter.
I’d come at it from the question (theoretical) of ‘what makes a good representative’ – and the Edmund Burke quote I used in this post helps answer it:
https://localdemocracy.org.uk/2009/01/13/eavesdropable-2/
The ‘live in closest union’ suggests that councillors should be physically close to the people they represent. There’s another longish-boringish post to be written about how far elected representatives should be ‘representative’ (in the sense, how far they should socially / culturally mirror the people they are elected by).
Yes, what I am yet to conceive of, and which you imply with your closing paragraph above, is any real argument against a Councillor being from the area they represent, again subject to ‘all else being equal’.
Although I do know a number of Councillors who refuse to be school governors because (or at least the reason they give is!) if they were governor of one school in their area, it would be seen as unfair by the others.
Now, if I lived in a ward which was very divided for some reason – let’s say one part was very deprived and one was very wealthy – would I prefer a candidate from a similar area in a neighbouring ward to me, or one from the different part of my ward?
Which brings us back to your second point – how far should Councillors represent communities of interest, and how do you guarantee that when they are explicitly elected to represent communities of place.
I’d say that most ‘taught’ understandings of democracy include the view that – once elected – you have to represent the polity as a whole – not local or partisan interests. However, the question of proximity to voters is in the need to ensure that you are listening to them, ensuring that you are aware off all of the relevant ‘content’ before you make a decision.
I’ve done a few posts on this blog that include the word ‘eavesdroppable’ where I outline what I think the relationship should be. I’d be interested in your views on them….