This week the former leader of Ealing Council, Julian Bell, wrote an article in the Guardian declaring that “The evidence is in: low-traffic neighbourhoods are popular”. Quite the statement, given that wranglings over low-traffic neighbourhoods continue to make headlines across the country. So what evidence does Mr Bell cite for his claim? As detailed in a second article, it all rests on analysis of voting patterns in the recent London local and mayoral elections. These elections were, he tells us, “the biggest imaginable consultation on these LTNs”. The idea that LTNs are unpopular has been “proved wrong by repeated opinion polling- and now, conclusively, by a democratic election”.

We have several problems with these assertions. Before we start going through them, we should preface it with a couple of disclaimers. Firstly, we should state that we have no position on whether LTNs are good or bad things- that’s not our professional business. Secondly, the only mention of the research is in the two Guardian articles, and we have not seen the analysis itself- though from the articles we feel confident enough to comment on what is in the public domain.

The first problem is one of methodology, something that could be clarified greatly, and possibly even neutralised entirely, by seeing the underlying research. It’s a fairly straightforward issue, which is that it is simply not possible to accurately determine public opinion on a single particular issue by looking at the vote share. Even in cases such as this where the issue is controversial and there has been specific campaigning on the matter in question, it is a somewhat bold assertion to make that movements in vote share necessarily match the public opinion on that issue.

The reasons people vote for individual candidates are manifold and varied particularly at times like this where there are a lot of complex events going on in the world. Now, we should make it clear that if the underlying research has gone into more depth and say, canvassed opinion on why people voted the way they did, then it might be more valid to make claims such as this, but from the Guardian’s reports, it is not clear that has been done.

The second problem is the drawing of equivalence between an election and a consultation. The two are not the same, and even were you to be legitimately able to draw a direct link between voting patterns and a particular issue, you can’t simply say that the result of an election settles the issue and therefore that’s that. You might argue that we’re reading too much into it, were it not for a later paragraph in the comment piece, cited fully below:

“But I’m worried that some may still be taking the wrong message. Not least my own council, which has taken out one of our LTNs since the election. The council seems set to remove the others too. There will be some sort of consultation, but it’ll probably be dominated by the usual loud voices. We’ve already had the best consultation we’re going to get: a secret ballot with a high turnout where everybody got one vote.”

A rather dismissive attitude to consultation on LTNs on display. We certainly hope it is not mirrored by other serving Councillors.

The key point, and it is possibly one that consultation professionals need to become more proactive at sharing and educating their decision-makers on, is that elections and consultations are not the same thing. They do not share the same purpose, they do not share the same goals, they are not the same. Other than the superficial commonality of both being democratic processes, they share few features. They’re like the proverbial apples and oranges. Those are both fruit, in the same way that consultation and elections are both manifestations of democratic processes, but apart from that they are completely different.

For those at the back of the room then, and at the risk of seeming like a stuck record, let’s go through the key differences. Elections have one very simple purpose- to make a simple yes/no decision. Most elections are to elect the people we wish to represent us in any one of the governing bodies of the country whether local, national, regional, or other. It allows the public to decide, theoretically based on past statements and manifestos covering a wide range of issues, between (usually) multiple candidates and represents a fundamentally simple yes/no choice on each candidate in which there is ultimately no room for a qualified answer. At a basic level in most political scenarios an election is essentially a zero-sum game, in which you win, or lose- although the introduction of lists and alternative vote systems can reduce this factor somewhat.

Consultations are very different. A well-run consultation should generally not simply be a binary yes/no choice, but should allow the opportunity for reasoned (or unreasoned) comment and exploration of an issue. It should be a process of dialogue between decision-maker and the citizen, allowing for information to be shared. It should be a genuine opportunity to influence decision making, rendering it significantly less absolute than an election as a democratic process- a properly done consultation can result in scenarios where the “losing” side (in this case an objector to an LTN) could still make significant contributions and have influence over the ultimate decision made. A consultation, in many ways is more akin to science- it doesn’t provide a definitive answer, but it can inform a decision, and often merely raises more questions.

In response to Mr Bell then, we would say that an election proves very little about individual policies in isolation (though it tells us more about a collective of policies). Both consultation and elections have key places in a healthily functioning democracy, but an election should never be seen as a replacement for a consultation, in much the same way that one would not expect a consultation of any sort to be seen to obviate the need for elections. Particularly on LTNs and similar traffic measures, consultation plays a key role in making better policy, and in dealing with often fiercely held conflicting views. The key, as always, is making sure it is done well.