With an extract from The Politics of Consultation

Right now, with Council elections taking part in 248 English local authorities, and with on/off European elections in the offing, there is a restriction on public consultations … all in the name of a vague principle called Purdah.

At the Consultation Institute, we are rather sceptical, but aware that there is a deep-seated attachment to the principle – both by officials and politicians. Without doubt, it is highly disruptive to the continuous dialogue public bodies need to hold with stakeholders, and we need s proper debate about whether this concept is past its sell-buy date.

Here is an extract from The Politics of Consultation, which, hopefully is a reasonably objective analysis of the relative arguments …

“ … The weeks before an election are referred to in political circles as a period of ‘purdah’. It’s a highly inappropriate term but has been adopted to mean a curtain of discretion behind which certain activities can be concealed that would otherwise influence the public before they exercise their democratic right to vote. In a classic British fudge, it mostly relies not on law, but on a conventional wisdom that accepts that it is better to avoid some situations in the period immediately before an election. The textbooks call it a ‘self-denying ordinance’, though most government departments and local authorities follow official guidance to the effect that during this period, it is best to avoid significant policy announcements or controversial consultations.

The original idea was to avoid giving any incumbent politician an advantage over a candidate who had fewer opportunities to impress the electorate. Over time this has been interpreted in general as avoiding controversy. The 2011 Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity has a section entitled ‘Care during period of heightened sensitivity’, which warns of the dangers of publishing anything controversial that identifies elected members. It even says, ‘It may be necessary … to close public forums’ – a recommendation we think is well beyond what is necessary, and in an era of social media, unrealistic.

But many experienced politicians disagree with us and adduce some additional reasons why ‘purdah’ should be applied very tightly. For example, in an election, one wishes to focus the public mind purely on that election, and to discuss or even mention controversial subjects detracts attention from this goal. Secondly, the same politicians argue that even if public bodies are scrupulous in avoiding bias, the media is very prone to personalise any controversy. Finally, we hear that candidates, when faced with contentious issues, are believed by many (especially officials!) to be prone to ‘playing politics’ and adopting voter-friendly positions just for the election.

For those who worry about these matters, there is probably a case for prudence. It applies particularly in hung councils, or those which change hands politically at regular intervals. The guidance talks of not starting any fresh consultations during the pre-election period, but allowing those that began earlier to finish. Those who argue for a tight interpretation claim that there should be no consultation at all, effectively preventing any from starting for weeks beforehand. Surprisingly, advocates of a tighter approach include the NHS, which technically is not covered at all, as it is not an elected organisation. During the 2010 election, Sir David Nicholson, its then chief executive, even wrote to health trusts suggesting they suspend any focus groups. Total nonsense, in our view!

If there ever was a time when one could discourage public debate – in order, allegedly to focus on an election – those days have now gone. Social media means that people will debate whatever they want and no one will tolerate the idea that ‘Sorry, we can’t discuss that because of “purdah”’! Surely in a healthy democracy, difficult issues and controversial decisions are precisely what should be discussed? Is this not the time when candidates should be put on the spot and forced to declare their positions? To those who claim that candidates will say anything just to win votes, isn’t the rejoinder that it is time for them to be properly accountable for what they say and do? If they are foolish enough to promise one thing and do another, the media or the ballot box can often extract revenge. Maybe the current rules are there to protect politicians from themselves? Or to save them the discomfort of having to adopt a position on controversial issues in case they want to change their minds later?”

From Chapter 9 of The Politics of Consultation  (2018)

Available from the Institute

Publications