Local politics - uglier and worse behaved than Westminster?

Liverpool should be the beacon of Britain this year: the 2008 European City of Culture drawing in 2 million new visitors. Good to see members of the local council rise to the occasion, then.

According to an Audit Commission report released yesterday: "There has been inappropriate behaviour dealing with some officer issues" / "The behaviour of members at Council meetings is poor with personally abusive language used and aggressive behaviour regularly demonstrated" / "Some members said that they would not speak at a Council meeting for fear of being shouted at or ridiculed" / "Members from all parties recognise that the culture of the organisation is not appropriate and affecting capacity."

It suggests that local councillors have even sought outside help - "External support has been secured to address some of the relationship issues". Is the public paying for councillor counselling?

The inevitable consequences: "Undefined budget gaps" for 2008/09 and 2009/10 and a shortfall on Capital of Culture funding of around £20 million. Silly things, too: "There was a proposal to hire accommodation at a cost of £40,000 when there was existing vacant accommodation in City buildings."

This is a Liberal Democrat council (they are holding their Spring conference in the city) with Labour in second place and no Tory councillors. The report's conclusion: "The behaviour of some members is damaging the reputation of the Council."

Comments

[David Boothroyd]

I sometimes wish people would be clearer about their meaning, and not say 'Westminster' when what you mean is 'Parliament'. Westminster is a prominent local authority as well as the site of Parliament.

Westminster politics was at one time (late 1980s) highly charged, personal and bitter on both sides, and it was rare that a meeting would go by without the police being called. By now we have improved so that we have robust political debate but without personal abuse.