I’ll let you in on a guilty secret.
I quite like politicians.
I think most of them do what they do for the right reasons.
And I know that the vast majority of their critics would run a mile from getting stuck into the thankless, tireless, tedious work that makes up a huge proportion of a councillor or MP’s lot.
But my defence of these volunteer public servants – and my ‘put up or shut up’ instincts – only go so far.
And the Grenfell Tower horror has shown what happens when politicians – along with the whole apparatus of public services – are allowed to operate without sufficient scrutiny.
The shrunken regional media have to take some blame for that, as I said in a blog last week.
A lot of heartbreaking horses have bolted, but journalists are now tenaciously shutting the stable door against further tragedies, with some great examples of investigative reporting, including this from Newsnight’s Chris Cook.
It’s been a torrid time for Kensington and Chelsea Council.
The local authority will be one place where one of the bucks from the public inquiry will have to stop. The chief executive has already gone, and others – elected and paid – may follow.
I feel for the council’s staff, who include a cousin of mine working in a completely unrelated field, and no one could condone some of the abuse that has come both their way and literally to the doorsteps of some councillors.
But the authority has scored a massive new own goal today by deciding to ban the press and public from a meeting of its ruling cabinet tonight.
The council says it has taken the decision because of the risk of ‘public disruption’, and quotes an obscure standing order.
Of course it’s a legitimate concern.
And doubtless the police feel they have better things to do than referee a council meeting packed with grieving relatives and neighbours.
But this is the thin end of a very worrying wedge.
— Katherine Clementine (@KC_Journo) June 29, 2017
Any council could argue that the presence of the public at its meetings could be disruptive.
In some ways, that’s the point. The public should be disruptive, up to a point. They should be allowed to challenge their elected representatives, to make them feel uncomfortable at times, and to remind councillors who put them there in the first place.
And whenever the press are barred from council meetings, deafening alarm bells should ring. There is no public disruption argument that can be used here, so we can only assume the council simply – and shamefully – wants to avoid bad publicity.
The reason this is particularly worrying is that, 30 miles down the M4, in Theresa May’s own constituency, the local paper’s legitimate journalistic efforts are being trashed by her own party’s councillors.
In some ways, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead councillors’ abuse of the Maidenhead Advertiser amounts to little more than what in football would be dismissed as ‘handbags’.
But it – and that other royal borough’s behind closed doors policy – are symptomatic of something which is more than just disdain.
It’s playing fast and loose with one of the pillars of our democracy.
The very best organisations – public and private – welcome the disinfectant of publicity and scrutiny.
We should push back against those who use the fig leaf of disruption to make life easier for themselves.
If Grenfell Tower was a result of anything, it was an appalling lack of scrutiny, and a complete failure to listen.
The council needs to put up with a night of disruption to show that a new day has dawned.