Reflections on the Makerfield election from a resident and engagement professional

I live in Makerfield. Not Asthon-in-Makerfield, but one of the many other small Wigan suburbs that are part of the Makerfield constituency. Bet you had never heard of it until recently? Don't worry, most Makerfield residents hadn't either! Normally being a Makerfield resident isn’t part of my identity – particularly as it has always been a very safe seat where my vote hasn’t really mattered. But with the national political theatre playing out on my doorstep, momentarily it is a defining characteristic.

The waste paper coming through our door has definitely increased, the canvassers are out in force, and it is all very interesting and just a little burdensome. Because what I want from the MP who represents me is someone who cares about making a difference to local issues: recognises the impact of the potential closure of the local health centre, wants to hold the council to account over some almost unbelievable planning decisions, and cares about the impact national policies have on me and my local community. I think that is fairly natural and standard.

Instead what I am getting is rhetoric about who will be the next prime minister. None of the leaflets tell me anything about what the candidates will do for Makerfield; it is all about the national picture, plus a frankly bizarre argument about who has lived nearest to Makerfield for longest (like I care).

Every canvasser wants to tell me why either my vote will gift Farage the next general election, or make Burnham the next Prime Minister.

Now, being completely honest, I don’t have a massive problem with Starmer. He has a few problems himself, not least a communications one,  but I think mostly he has integrity, considers policies carefully, and tries to be measured in his responses. I hugely disagree with some of the decisions and optics, and some of the economic policies, but on the whole, he is behaving like a moderate centre-right old school politician. Could be better, could definitely be worse. Definitely not bad enough to put the country through the upheaval of a leadership contest that distracts from the very serious issues we have to contend with, both in the UK and across Europe and the world.

So I am not wildly taken with the idea of voting for someone who only wants the seat of Makerfield so he can have a(nother) shot at being Prime Minister. But nor am I thrilled with the very real possibility of having an openly self-declared sexist as an MP.

With this quandary in mind, I am taking the election seriously and doing my own research – with a bit of a twist. As this is a nationally important by-election, I am focusing my research on the pool of 3 people most likely to provide our PM come the autumn: Starmer, Streeting and Burnham. And my research started with an issue that is hugely important to me both professionally and personally: who actually believes in working with communities, listening and engaging. I thought I would share my findings with you.

Keir Starmer

Starmer talks a very good talk about giving communities back control, moving decision-making closer, and rebuilding trust through listening to communities.

He likes to hold town hall meetings, and visit local areas.

He is the typical politician and will change decisions based on public outcry (I don’t think you need me to cite examples here, but they are there a plenty).

He appears to believe in consensus and collective leadership and some of the policies coming out of his government have supported more community-led and locally-led decisions, e.g. Pride in Place and Neighbourhood Health Models.

However, there are a few glaring holes, not least that he has declared in committees frustration that legal requirements around consultations (amongst other things) slow down decision-making and implementation. He wants to reduce access to judicial review of planning decisions, meaning that planners will be less concerned about following the rules as it will be more difficult to challenge them. He is willing to limit jury trials to speed up justice, thereby removing one of the key ways people are asked to be involved in civic society and is being criticised by thousands of lawyers for reducing public participation. Despite recognising that our current voting system means millions of people feel that their voice doesn’t count, he is against proportional representation.

This all leads me to have concerns about his genuine commitment to engagement.

Wes Streeting

Now, I have a bit more personal experience of the impact of Streeting’s decisions on community engagement. Maybe that colours my view, so I am declaring it up front.

He, like Starmer, talks a good talk – often with a better soundbite though, lamenting the “ventriloquists” who claim to speak on behalf of people and communities and saying that “listening to patients isn’t just important for comfort and convenience”.

He also ran a public consultation to update 10 year health plan and in speeches stresses the need for government to work alongside the community.

Streeting believes in the power of accessing the public voice through digital feedback, reviews, etc. He doesn’t think people need intermediaries to share their views, or if they do, that is what the democratic process is for and the role of elected officials.

As a result of these views, he caused the dismantling of the organisations and teams that supported lived experience, patient voice and engagement and involvement in health. Instead, he thought it should all be done through the NHS app. An interesting perspective and one that would cause you a few issues with meeting legal duties and accessibility requirements.

He also declared in parliament that he wasn’t going to interfere in any of the decisions referred to him by people, communities or councils that were unhappy with local NHS decision-making. This is a strange juxtaposition to his other statements, but it shows a certain disdain for community voice and challenge.

The decisions on Palantir were also made under his leadership, and the lack of engagement and consultation on that decision was staggering – see my previous blog for more on this.

As a result, I have serious reservations about the future of consultation and engagement as we know it under Streeting.

Andy Burnham

Burnham is perhaps the most demonstrably supportive of engagement and listening.

To be fair, it is easier to be so on the smaller footprint he has leadership of, but it would be equally easy to just ignore it too.

On the big issues, he is loudly supportive of devolution and PR. In his role as mayor of GM he has repeatedly called for more local control, and emphasised neighbourhood and local communities in policy making.

Much of his political persona as mayor has been based around these, and it would be interesting to see how much of this he would be able to hold onto if he moved back to Whitehall.

Like Starmer, he spends a good amount of time being available to the public – although obviously not quite so tightly controlled and choreographed. He has held Mayor’s question times, regularly appears on local radio answering questions, and has been a big supporter of the GM “Live Well” model which puts a huge focus on community-led public health and wellbeing initiatives.

Like Streeting, he has held consultations and large scale public engagement pieces, particularly on transport and spatial planning. Some of the outcomes of those consultations have followed the public feedback, some hasn’t, but as we all know, that is the nature of engagement and consultations. One of his consultations, Places for Everyone, is currently being challenged in the High Court, but that is a risk of all consultations and I haven’t reviewed the arguments to know if the challenge is well grounded.

Overall, I have fewer (but not zero) concerns that Burnham will unpick the requirements around engagement and consultation.

Reflections

Does this research help me decide how to vote? Possibly, yes. It certainly might help me make peace with my choice if I decide to vote tactically.

But it also does more than that.

As an engagement professional, and someone passionate about community voice and involvement, I worry about politically where we are heading. In a time where it is easier than ever to access people’s thoughts (I am with Streeting that digital is an important tool), I fear that we are hurtling ever more rapidly to only listening to those who shout loudest and calling that engagement, and that expert-led, nuanced, locally focused and accessible conversations will be lost.

What do you think?