Councillor turnover is an under-researched and under-addressed problem facing councils across the country today. It is best defined as a councillor leaving their council duties for any reason other than electoral loss.

The 2010 Census of Local Authority Councillors shows that only 67.5 per cent of councillors were certain that they would stand for re-election, with the remaining 32.5 per cent being either unsure or definitely not standing again. This is even worse in London, with just over half (51.3 per cent) of councillors signalling their intention not to stand again.

Camden-Council-meetingExplanations of councillor turnover are not straightforward and it is possible to highlight several factors that are in play.

What is clear is that it is a phenomenon that affects male and female councillors differently, with existing research has consistently finding that women councillors are more likely to drop out after a single term, a finding replicated across the 1990s and into the new millennium.

The 2010 Census of Local Authority Councillors finds 69.1 per cent of men definitely standing for re-election compared to 63.5 per cent of women.

Political scientists Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher have noted that this leads to a ‘double-whammy’ for councils, whereby younger, more diverse councillors are standing down at the same time as older, more traditional councillors are remaining in their positions.

This is not a positive step in terms of increasing the number of individuals from traditionally under-represented groups like women and ethnic minority councillors.

However, another potential line of questioning is whether councillor turnover is a bad thing in itself?

It is possible to argue that it is not, and that having new faces in our council chambers on a fairly regular basis is good for our politics, and in turn the electorate. The catch here, though, is that if it is the same people staying for longer, and the same people dropping out quickly, the theoretically anticipated regular overhaul of practice and personnel simply doesn’t happen and instead facilitates the proliferation of the status quo.

Existing research has shown non-political factors to be the most instrumental in a councillor’s decision to drop out of their elected duties. The two key areas of note here are the impact of being a councillor on both their working and family lives.

Are there solutions to address these concerns which will in turn encourage councillors, especially women councillors, to remain in their elected positions for longer than they currently do?

Currently, the average basic salary for councillors is around £6,000, rising to an average of just under £10,000 in London. Therefore, most councillors will have another ‘day job’ in order to supplement their income.

This creates a vicious cycle whereby councillors work in a non-council job during the day and then perform their council duties in the evening. Unfortunately, council officers who are meant to support councillors work during the day which means there is often a time lag between cases being taken up and policies being implemented.

One possible solution is to create some sort of legal protection for councillors, whereby they could claim a day or two a week from their employers to work as a councillor, and that this would be seen as a prestigious thing (in time) for the company.

The main point is that it is not just a case of councillors putting in ‘face time’ at these meetings.

Hours have to be dedicated to doing casework for constituents especially in poverty-stricken areas. Time has to be spent preparing for meetings where councillors might be contributing to council policy or strategy. Days are spent researching and writing speeches for full council meetings especially if there are deputations from your ward.

As noted above, one explanation put forward for the high turnover of women councillors is that having two jobs leaves no time for family and children. The introduction of some sort of legal protection might mean that councillors could afford to solely concentrate on their council duties and perhaps, be in a better position to retain their status.

A second option is the introduction of term-limits for local councillors.

The introduction of term-limits to local elected service would ensure that the turnover of councillors discussed above was enforced as opposed to something that would be left to occur organically.

Existing evidence is mixed as to whether term-limits benefit women, although it should be noted that much of the existing evidence is taken from the United States, and as such, is not directly applicable here.

Having said that, it should be pointed out that term-limits would only achieve this desired aim of a more diverse set of local councillors if implemented in conjunction with the improved terms of both pay and working arrangements outlined above.

This is a two-strand approach which makes being a councillor both a desirable and possible activity for all kinds of people but at the same time prevents prolonged over-use of this new system by introducing legal limits on how long someone can be a part of it. As such, these ideas tackle issues of both recruitment and incumbency, traditionally gendered problems.

An obvious term-limit would lie around the current average length of service (more or less two four-year terms), although there are arguments in favour of both curtailing or extending this.

The ideas discussed above are simply that; ideas. There lie clear barriers between theoretical concerns and policy implementation, not least in the form of decreased levels of central government funding for local councils. Such barriers should not be transformed into methods of gaining tacit support for the status quo.

If anything, a time such as this is an ideal one to formulate new ideas and to get serious about the improvement of local government in this country.

I was fresh out of university. The job market was flourishing under Labour. Bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, I felt that the world was my oyster. I was hungry for a job in politics and I was determined not to be the last of my friends to secure employment.

Browsing through the many adverts on W4MP, I suddenly came across a position to work for Philip Gould. The Philip Gould. Architect of New Labour and polling guru. I knew this was a golden opportunity but I also knew how competitive this position was going to be. Imagine my delight when I got called for an interview.

Wisely I spent ages preparing for my interview and staying up all night reading The Unfinished Revolution. I walked into Philip’s imposing house (coincidentally, the same ward where I’m now a councillor) feeling a little nervous. Glancing around the beautiful but daunting room, I saw pictures of Philip with political heroes I had only read about.

That’s when it really hit me.

This wasn’t just any interview, this was an interview with Baron Gould of Brookwood. The man responsible for Labour winning three consecutive terms in government. The man who, despite leaving school with one O level, became a key strategic advisor to the Labour Party and one of the country’s most influential men. The man whose political expertise was relied upon by leaders like Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

My new-graduate brazenness depleted slowly and a dull, unfamiliar feeling of terror settled in the pit of my stomach. By the time I was ushered into another huge room stacked with Random House books , I was on the brink of panic.

Philip was on the phone giving some very complicated advice to someone clearly linked to the Clinton administration. With his cup of tea in one hand while pacing round the room, I soon learnt this was Philip’s usual mode.

After what seemed like the longest ten minutes of my life, Philip put down the phone, glanced at my CV on the table in front of him, cocked up one eyebrow and bellowed ‘Tulip – what kind of name is that?! You’ll never make it in politics with an unusual name like that!’

Suddenly my confidence resurfaced and I felt a surge of defiance, retorting: ‘Excuse me Mr Gould, Kitty Ussher has an unusual name and she won a landslide victory at the last election so that’s not true!’

Philip burst into loud guffaws and said ‘I see we have a feisty one here. Interesting! ’

Throughout the interview, Philip continued to pick holes in my life: where I lived, where I went to school, the internship I had done with Oona King (he decided it was my fault she lost her seat in 2005) and even my height. I gave as good as I got because I realised that he enjoyed the lively sparring.

Finally, we got on to the topic of polling. I regurgitated pearls of wisdom from his writing, which I was now well versed in. He looked at me with some element of surprise and asked ‘Have you read my book then?’ I responded confidently ‘Cover to cover’.

‘Right,’ he said. ‘You can start Monday morning, 9am’.

And that’s how I started working for one of the biggest political brains this world will ever have. Philip and I had our differences because we’re both strong willed and differ politically on several issues, but I learnt more in that job than I ever have in my life. His ability to predict and anticipate events in the political landscape was uncanny and a gift that I wish I had managed to learn from him.

Philip was demanding (text messages at 6am) and incredibly hardworking. He set himself impossible deadlines but still managed to meet them and he expected the same kind of dedication from me. He sent me on a course to learn how to conduct focus groups and polling soon after I started and assumed that I was an expert when I returned from the four-day course!

But even when he was at his most difficult, I could still appreciate that I was working for an actual genius. Very few people I’ve met in my life have the ability to analyse ordinary (non-political) people’s words the way he did, and then formulate political policies based on their thoughts.

One of the most exciting parts of my job was going to Downing Street to drop off policy papers. The first time I passed through security, a bored looking staff member asked me where I had come from. I said ‘Philip Gould’s office’. Immediately, there was a spark of admiration in his eye.

It was the first of many similar reactions I experienced whenever I mentioned Philip’s name. After working for Philip, I moved to the Greater London Authority where I encountered the same admiring responses when my former boss came up, and these were echoed when I moved on to work in Parliament.

More recently, I moved to a private firm to work in their corporate social responsibility department. On my second day in the job, I was sitting at my desk trying to get used to my new environment (somewhere that had an actual HR department – amazing!), when a very senior partner in the company came over to me. ‘Did you used to work for Philip?’ he asked excitedly.

‘Yes I did’ I said.

Again, that same flash of admiration. My colleagues around the table looked up curiously. Who was this new girl that a senior partner was so interested in?

‘So did I’ he said. ‘He taught me everything I know. We should meet for lunch when you’re free’.

I smiled ‘Sure’.

‘Aha,’ I thought to myself. ‘That touch of Philip gold never fades. Not even in the private sector’.

Dear Editor

I was delighted to speak at the ‘Here and Now’ archives launch last week. This exhibition was curated by the Bengali Workers’ Association with funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund. It’s a wonderful series of panels which tell the life stories of Bangladeshi people who have come to live in the UK. This is a big step forward for the archives in terms of the Bangladeshi community’s contribution to Camden, and it underlines the importance of recording history in both written and oral forms.

These reminiscences explore topical subjects like arranged marriages, racism and culture shocks. Not only are they interesting in themselves, the archives are also a positive reminder of how lucky we are to live in a community where our differences are celebrated. The exhibition is on until 19 December and I would urge everyone to visit the Camden Local Studies and Archives Centre in Holborn Library and view these valuable memoirs.

Yours

Councillor Tulip Siddiq

Cabinet Member for Culture

This is an article I co-wrote for Left Foot Forward on the low number of female councillors. You can read it below, or on their site here: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/10/we-need-more-female-councillors-for-everyones-benefit/

The 2010 National Census of Local Authority Councillors, published this week by the Local Government Association, shows static growth in the numbers of women local councillors in the UK. It reports that women make up 30.6% of all councillors in England despite numbering 51.2% of the population overall, and in fact is a slight drop on the 30.8% seen in the 2008 census.

Despite hundreds of separate local elections taking place in the time since the last census of this type, and therefore hundreds of opportunities for the pool of individuals who become councillors to become more diverse, the numbers of women have remained more or less the same.

The low number of women MPs at Westminster is cause for regular discussion in the media, amongst academics and within political parties themselves. This issue has also been highlighted by both domestic and international organisations. Conversely, there is considerably less of a spotlight on the number of women in local councils. The stagnant figures shown above suggest that a renewed focus on the role of women councillors is both necessary and timely.

The relationship between women and local government is undeniably a close one. Women interact on a daily basis with the services provided by local authorities in terms of childcare, education and adult care services. Research has shown that women make over three-quarters of all phone calls to council offices, yet despite this near-constant engagement, women are underrepresented on local councils. It is worth acknowledging that the percentage of women councillors is significantly a higher percentage than that of women MPs at Westminster (currently at 21.5%), but is still short of the 50% mark of parity. The argument for women to make up half of all councillors in the UK needs to be made forcefully if this situation is to change.

The key argument in favour of parity, and possibly the strongest, is justice. Quite simply, it is not fair that women are so underrepresented in local government. This argument posits that there should be no conditionality on the equal presence of men and women on councils as it is simply a question of justice.

However, it is also possible to argue that women councillors can make a difference for the women they represent, and could introduce a feminized view to local governance more broadly, something that has the potential to aid all constituents. That is not to say that women should have to help women in order to ‘earn’ their place on the council, but that the presence of higher numbers of women in local politics will make this feminization process more likely to occur.

Speaking from her own experience, after taking on the culture portfolio in Camden council, Tulip was forced to make an enormous cut to the sports budget because of the lack of government funding. However, her priority from the outset was to ensure that girls’ sport was not disproportionately affected by the financial situation. It is an oversight that could have occurred easily and without any malicious intent as more boys play sport than girls in the borough. From her own experience as a girl growing up in a country where very few sporting facilities were available for young girls, Tulip was keen to maximise the opportunities available. This is not to say that a male cabinet member for culture would have lacked this vision, it is just that it might not have been the top priority for him.

Finally, the role of local government as a political springboard for political careers should not be underestimated. Therefore, the number of women councillors overall should be considered in this context. Over 40% of newly-elected MPs at the 2010 General Election had been councillors, but nearly three quarters of these MPs were men, suggesting a springboard effect from local to national politics that is biased in favour of men, something also seen in data from the comparably-large 1997 intake.

If women are not able to use this pathway to Parliament in the same way as their male colleagues, it makes it even less likely that the number of women in the House of Commons will increase significantly without the use of quotas.

So, what can be done to increase the number of elected women in local politics and, in turn, the House of Commons? Crucially, political parties must work harder to encourage women to stand for their local councils – existing research suggests that women are less likely to decide to stand in local elections on their own than men, acting only when asked by a political party. Political parties, and the networks within them, need to acknowledge this by making women feel valued as members of their organisation and political community. A mix of practical barriers, such as childcare facilities and work-life balance, combined with negative perceptions of local political life as patriarchal, need to be combated in order to remove as many obstacles as possible and create a meaningful and practical equality of opportunity.

Political parties need to ensure that women are recruited to stand in local elections, are given the best opportunities to be elected, and work to increase retention levels once they are councillors. (Women have consistently been found to be more likely than men to stand down following only one term of service). Addressing issues such as the time poverty of councillors, a political culture perceived as patriarchal and updating local governmental practice to best support councillors in their work will ensure that a more diverse range of women (and men) will consider becoming, and staying, local councillors. This is something that will be of benefit to all involved in political life, the institutions in which they work, and the people who they are elected to serve.

You can read the full story in the Camden New Journal today – Kilburn Grange Park gets Aussie plant makeover thanks to British Museum and council partnership

Dear Editor

I am obviously saddened to hear that members of CPLUG are legally challenging Camden’s library policy.

Everyone is aware that we are facing very difficult financial constraints, not just this year but for the next six years.

As I have explained, we are dealing with a £80 – £100 million shortfall in the council’s funding due to cuts from national government until 2014 and a further £40-£50million for the three years afterwards. This has resulted in extremely tough decisions in all areas of public services.

Camden conducted an enormous public consultation with over 6000 people. We decided to try the idea of ‘community libraries’ which was suggested by library users themselves. I have been delighted by the zeal and resilience of Camden people who have said that they will work with me to keep their beloved libraries operating.

Let me be clear, this is not a vague ‘Big Society’ idea, the council plans to put a lot of resources for transitional support and helping these libraries extend their partnerships with other community bodies. There have been some really exciting ideas so far, and I believe we will succeed in preserving services if everyone works together.

A judicial review will not only cost the council and the applicants an enormous sum of money, it will also delay the complex process that we are currently dealing with and threaten some really innovative ideas.

The amount this judicial review could cost the council, in direct costs and delays to our reforms, could buy us 35,000 books for our libraries, or fund staff.

Camden’s Education Commission is currently looking at our ‘family’ of schools, and many organisations connected with education and informal learning, such as Children’s centres, are discussing how we can all work together to promote learning. As they haven’t already, I would appeal to CPLUG to engage in this process and work with everyone else, and not stand alone.

Yours

Tulip Siddiq
Cabinet member for Culture

Dear Editor

I am loath to, once again, write in about Highgate Library for fear of sounding like a broken record. However, it appears that Councillor De Souza has misunderstood the situation (Letters, September 1), and so for readers’ clarity I will endeavour to explain again.

Highgate Library is not closing. What is happening is that the mobile library books currently stored there will be removed and this will free up space at the back of the library. I will look to work with the local community to use this space effectively and generate revenue because we are, as everyone is aware, in financially constrained times. This will not change the fact that the council will continue to fund Highgate Library.

I have repeated this plan so often that most councillors could probably recite it from memory. Any councillor who was not aware of this obviously did not attend any of the (many) briefings and council meetings that took place.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Tulip Siddiq

Cabinet member for culture

I’m undertaking some research for my Master’s dissertation about the barriers women face when they stand for parliamentary selection. I’m not concentrating on any particular political party so any views would be welcome.

I would really appreciate it if any women councillors could spare a few minutes to fill out my questionnaire. Please contact me here if you are willing to do so. It would be a great help!

Thanks a lot,

Tulip

Having campaigned endlessly to get elected as a councillor because I want to help people, it now feels like I’m doing exactly the opposite. I got elected in May last year and was put in the cabinet as the lead member for culture. Within a few months, the pressure on local government budgets became obvious. The cuts dictated from national government meant that we had to outline savings to reduce our overall budget by £83m over the next three years. I was told to model a 20 – 25% cut over the next three years across my culture budget of 14 million pounds. The largest bulk of my budget covers the libraries and, therefore, I have to take £2 million out of my £8 million libraries fund.

The government’s solution seems to partly revolve around blaming local councils and partly engage in Big Society rhetoric. If the Big Society means more collective action, it is something I want to engage with especially if it is a way to rescue valued services. But how can we be expected to build a Big Society when the government is undermining the main vehicle, local government, which will deliver it?

For the first year I’ve made careful decisions about back office management costs, stock ordering and transportation costs. This has taken out £400 000 in efficiency savings. These are savings which will not affect front line services. However next year, I need to cut a further £1.2 million pounds and regardless of what Eric Pickles reiterates constantly, you simply cannot make that kind of saving by cutting overheads. By persisting with this flawed argument, government ministers either betray a complete ignorance of managing a council budget, or they are engaging in a manipulative ploy to transfer blame onto local councillors.

The main difficulty facing councillors is the communication to local residents that these cuts are not our decisions. Camden councillors made a decision to display a plain poster with the text ‘National government spending cuts mean tough decisions for Camden’s future’ across 52 sites throughout Camden. The strap line is the link to the Camden website which included a new section to increase public understanding of the financial challenge. Texts and graphs are shown to inform residents about how the council is funded, the scale of the budget deficit and how the funding shortfall will be met.

Even though this is within the publicity code, it is factual and it’s not party political, the government raised objections to local councils using such poster campaigns to communicate with their residents. Clearly, such communication methods weakens their mandate of constantly off loading blame on to councillors.

An example of an empty policy that puts the unfair onus on local councillors is the government’s announcement that it wants councils in England to hold a public debate when deciding whether to pay their staff salaries of more than £100,000. Naturally I’m in favour of making councils more efficient. I never thought I’d hear myself say these words but I do agree with Eric Pickles that we need to cut the salary of senior council officers. However, cutting chief exec pay will not make up for the funding fallout in our council. Even if we did save money, it will not come cLose Weight Exercise/”>Lose Weight Exercise to matching the sum of money that we are being asked to cut. There are 246 local govt chief executives in the UK. Halving their pay would amount to just 0.35% of the £6.5bn funding gap faced by local government in 2011/12.

Ironically, the government endorses the concept of the Big Society but seems bent on destroying existing community infrastructure that is the vital prerequisite for creating it. Of course I want to empower communities but how will the Big Society come into being if the cuts are frontloaded?

The nature and speed of these cuts has left me struggling to find time to implement ideas such as the community asset transfer of some libraries in Camden. I effectively have to make a decision by June this year with the changes coming into effect by the end of this year in order to meet national government targets.

How do the Tories think that this is enough time to set up the structure for the Big Society? In order to transfer a library to a community organisation, certain practical aspects need to be considered. I need to sort out legal documents, the tendering process, health and safety laws (especially if it’s something like operating the mobile library vehicle), HR administration, training and more. I need to dedicate time to building the Big Society to ensure it is a viable one.

The other problem with the culture budget is that a lot of services are discretionary rather than statutory. This makes the choice of cutting services even more difficult because benefits derived from cultural services, to paraphrase Philip Pullman, are unquantifiable. How do you put a price on the effect a local library has on a young Somali mother and her two children? It’s the only chance she has to speak English and the only interaction she has with people her age. How do you quantify the benefit of the all girls football team that runs in the summer? To what extent does it affect obesity rates, confidence levels and mental well being? What does the small local theatre mean to the elderly man whose depression has decreased ever since he started participating in the weekly acting classes? And how do we quantify the cost of that to the social care budget?

The truth is that local councillors are desperate to maintain local services and avoid making cuts. They are willing to work on delivering the Big Society if that’s the only option. But you can’t crush the roots of the Big Society and expect foot soldiers on the ground to deliver it effectively.

Dear Editor,

It is a well known fact that local government budgets are being hit savagely by cuts dictated from national government.

Councillors have to make difficult decisions and a libraries consultation has been developed so that the community can express their concerns and ideas.

It has been suggested that the consultation could be open to legal challenge because there are not enough options available and respondents are only required to supply their postcode leaving the consultation open to abuse.

Respondents to the consultation have two opportunities to share alternative views and options on how we can achieve the savings required. Question 4, asks for suggestions on how the service can be run at less cost and question 14 allows people to add any comments, views or alternative options.

Responses to the consultation are monitored for signs of abuse and we have no evidence to suggest that duplicate forms or multiple returns are being submitted from the same post code.

To date we have received over 3,000 responses to the consultation, testament to how valuable our libraries are to the communities of Camden. I would strongly urge as many people as possible to respond before the deadline on 4 April.

We need your responses so we can develop options that allow us to make savings but also continue to deliver the library service for Camden in the future.

Yours faithfully

Councillor Tulip Siddiq
Cabinet Member for Culture