The Stoke-on-Trent Governance Commission was appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in autumn 2007 to review the governance of Stoke-on-Trent and to inform the public debate which will be taking place on the future pattern of the city’s governance. The report was published on 28th May 2008. It turned out to be a damning indictment of local politics.

"We have been alternately excited and dismayed during the course of our journey. Excited by the interest shown in our work, by the commitment to Stoke-on-Trent and the concern for its future shown by so many. Dismayed by the repeated stories of missed opportunities; the apparent breakdown of conventional politics in the city and the fragmentation of the mainstream parties; and the – we believe consequential – rise of extremist politics. We have also been saddened by the apparent unwillingness of able and engaged people to stand for elected office and take part in this crucial aspect of the city’s life."

"We have also heard countless stories of the absence of leadership in the city, of low levels of aspiration and attainment, of parochialism and an unwillingness to learn from the experience of other places."

"Stoke-on-Trent needs a new start; we believe that this will be best achieved – in governance terms – by creating a new basis for the Council. We also believe there is a desperate need to increase the volume and intensity of civic engagement. Some of this can be done at city-wide level, but we contend that it will only really take root if there are arrangements for devolved governance."

"Civic engagement needs to come from as diverse a range of the city’s population as possible – young and old, newer residents as well as older and so on. We believe that will only happen with deliberate encouragement and development."

The report reflects a picture of Stoke politics that everybody will recognise - except maybe the Council itself:

"Whilst there was respect for the work of some individuals, we heard widespread disillusionment with local politics. This disengagement brought a feeling of hopelessness and despair. Alongside this comes a reluctance to get involved. Without a transparent, competent and dynamic political team of councillors representing local people in all their diversity, and building with them a vision for the future, people would continue to feel let down by their elected representatives. "Lack of any political leadership in regeneration. Lack of ambition and purpose."

"The messages are stark and clear. The problems and needs are apparent but there is a widespread weariness with the perceived infighting, self-interest and lack of action or communication seen to be coming from the people’s elected local representatives, whose job it is to lead Stoke-on-Trent to a new future. There is seen to be a lack of vision, strategic thinking and leadership from the City Council alongside a history of not delivering. Business partners spoke of lost opportunities to access regeneration and other funding. The frustration felt by this situation was tangible."

"The political history of the City Council seems to have compounded and exacerbated the challenges the city faces with the continual power struggle between the first Mayor and the members following the adoption of the elected mayor and council manager model in 2002. The city councillors have failed to work together for the prosperity of the people of Stoke-on-Trent and there is a pervasive culture of negativity, parochialism and self interest. This was highlighted in the evidence not only from those outside the Council but also the majority we saw from within the Council."

"There was also a lack of trust between the Elected Mayor and members, with the members feeling disengaged and marginalised from decision making and therefore attempting to thwart the Elected Mayor at every opportunity."

"The lack of vision, strategic thinking or clear leadership from the City Council has caused frustration for local people and a feeling of disengagement with the City Council. There has been severe criticism from external partners about a continual loss of funding opportunities for regeneration and development of the area and a history of non delivery from the City Council. There is a feeling of a lot of wasted energy from partners over a number of years."

"The weakness of political leadership was reflected in the poor performance of the Council."

At last an authoritative body has articulated the feelings of the people. Hopefully the Council will be forced to act on this report. But first reactions from the Council in the media are not promising:

Elected Mayor Mark Meredith on BBC Midlands Today:
"Any lessons that are to be learned will be learned by us all." We have heard that, or very similar sentiments, before - with no results.
"All elected members need to hold up their hands. None of us should be living in denial. But now it's about working together. We've demonstrated over the course of the last twelve months by working together, the Elected Mayor with Councillors, that we can deliver positive change in Stoke-on-Trent." Mr Elected Mayor, if your stated opinion that your Cabinet has been effective over the last twelve months is anything but living in denial ...

And in The Sentinel:
"We will take time to discuss it with our political groups and debate in the council chamber as to which, if not all, of these recommendations we can support." So, nothing has changed! You are going to discuss it with your political groups - and ignore the people. The report states: "Prior to these formal decisions, the City Council will no doubt wish to consult widely. Given the complexity of the process, they will want to communicate as clearly as possible with the people of Stoke-on-Trent ..." ASK THE PEOPLE IF THEY WANT THE COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATIONS!

Councillor Roger Ibbs in The Sentinel:
"The report isn't very pleasant reading for the politicians in Stoke-on-Trent, of any party, and those of no party. I would hold the view that the changes we have made in the last 12 months have started to address these issues." "There is comment within the report about a lack of leadership, but in the last 12 months no-one can complain about the lack of leadership any more." "This report doesn't make particularly good reading about the past, but it's about where we were, not where we are." Mr Ibbs, we would hold the view that you are also living in denial.

"It’s ironic, isn’t it, that [one of] the City’s Football Club[s] is preparing for life with the elite just at the very moment when its politics are identified as distinctly lower league."

Mayor Meredith

"I got elected … promising the people of Stoke-on-Trent to have a say …" Yeah, but election promises are election promises. Break the mould and actually deliver what you promised!

"I hope that the people of Stoke-on-Trent will be able to help us decide what way forward we need to go." No, the people will decide. The Council and the Executive will deliver what the people want.

"I personally prefer the Mayor and Cabinet system." Probably all the more reason to go for Leader and Cabinet or None of the Above.

"We need to listen to the people of Stoke-on-Trent." So you keep on saying. Actions speak louder than words. Please practise what you preach!

"They wanted to break the political mould. They wanted the City to deliver on its promises." And they did. But it didn’t.

"We need to deliver on many of the proposals they [the Governance Commission] put forward." No, you will deliver on all the proposals.

"I call on all Councillors today to work together with me. Put party politics to one side and let’s deliver." Yet again, practice what you preach, Mr Elected Mayor. Dissolve the Lab/CIA/LibDem coalition and give others representation in your Cabinet.

"Let’s provide the people of this City with the answers they are looking for." How do you know the answers if you haven’t asked the questions?

Councillor Roger Ibbs

"The primary thing in the report is we need to engage better with our public." Bit of a change of heart, Mr Ibbs? Pity you didn’t think of, or do anything about, that one in the last year!

Mark Fisher, M.P.

"We have failed hopelessly. You can see that. Ten years ago, we had sixty out of sixty Councillors. Now we only have sixteen. I think that shows what the people of the City have thought about the way that my party has operated at a local level. The people of the City have rejected both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party and the Lib Dems." At least one Politician in the City has got his head firmly screwed on and his ear to the ground!

Professor Christine King

"The City does need leadership." Couldn’t agree more. Good, strong, leadership entails:

• asking what the people want, listening to their answers, and acting upon that information.
• accepting constructive criticism and acting on it.
• accepting what is visibly happening as the truth, and escaping from a state of denial.
• accepting the blame when things go wrong, and taking the fall.

All of these have been sorely lacking in Stoke-on-Trent.

"The decision is not with the Commission. It is with the people." Notice that the good Professor used the word “people” and not the word “Council”. This thoroughly discredited Council must listen to the wishes of the people.

One of the most important parts of the Report, in our opinion, is "Recommendation 14 – appointment of Transition Board and development of Action Plan".

Recommendation 14 reads in part (it is long, but is crucial):
5.27 Given the evidence presented to us about civic disengagement in Stoke-on-Trent and about the weak capacity of the City Council to act on many fronts, we remain concerned about the creation and maintenance of momentum in the implementation of this report. We have therefore given considerable thought to ways in which this might be enhanced.
5.28 We consider that constant ministerial intervention would be inappropriate ...
5.29 Consequently, we recommend the establishment of a Transition Board of local stakeholder representatives which will monitor progress on the implementation of our recommendations and help hold the Council to account. Action Plans will be presented by the City Council for ‘sign off’ by the Board and regular reporting to the Board will also take place. The Transition Board will have the freedom to comment publicly and to the Secretary of State on the adequacy or otherwise of plans and progress and to ask the City Council to reconsider matters about which it is not persuaded. We believe that this will maintain local pressure from the people of Stoke-on-Trent on the City Council to make the significant changes which are needed.
5.30 We do not believe that the Transition Board should have any executive powers. The development and implementation of our recommendations must lie with the City Council ... The Board’s role will be to strengthen local accountability for the reform process.
5.31 We believe that the Transition Board should be appointed as soon as possible, during the summer of 2008, and should be thought of as having a three-year life in the first instance. It should comprise people who live or work in Stoke-on-Trent and be representative of community and business interests, the third sector, the universities, key public agencies etc. We believe that the membership should be sufficient to represent the broadest possible interests, but no more than 15. ...
5.32 The City Council should be required to present as a matter of urgency an immediate action plan, together with detailed timelines, for the handling of our recommendations.
5.33 Decisions and action on electoral matters are required on very short timescales. The Action Plans will need to address this but also embrace the determination of devolved governance arrangements and the ‘softer’ issues which surround the business of strengthening engagement, the rebuilding of a robust local politics in Stoke-on-Trent, and developing/supporting elected politicians. There should be quarterly reporting by the City Council. We thus envisage the Board meeting at least four times per year.
5.34 We believe the City Council and the Transition Board should report to the Secretary of State in parallel and recommend that this happen twice a year. ...
5.35 We also believe that the responsibility for formal appointment to the Transition Board should lie with the Secretary of State, in consultation with the City Council, as was the case with our Commission. We would encourage the use of an open and transparent process and would hope that there might be public advertisement in parallel with the inevitable search processes. ...
5.36 ... The basis of the proposal is that it would be difficult for – and unreasonable to expect – the City Council both to design and manage the reform process and hold itself to account for delivery. We have drawn up some suggested terms of reference for the Transition Board which are attached in Appendix 1 to this report.

This is a lifeline thrown to the people, as opposed to the politicians, of Stoke-on-Trent.

What choice do people of the City have?

None. The political world of Stoke is moribund. We, the people, have to be involved right now. Unless the people want the same disengaged politicians who have caused this crisis to create the solution, we need to find a way to be a part of it. Everybody has some views on what should be done. Every view matters.

So-called "leaders" decry apathy, but they are currently so far removed from their electorate that they do not realise, even after the Schools débacle, the Dimensions fiasco and the "Hole-in-the-Wall" U-turn, that the people are far from apathetic. All of these sagas were preventable. However, the Council leadership carried on in their "we are right and everybody else is wrong" mode, and made bad decisions. All they had to do was talk, and listen, to the common man before announcing their decisions. People care about the issues that directly affect them. Take parking in Burslem or the potential closure of Dimensions as issues. If the people of Burslem have had absolutely no dialogue with anybody on either of these issues that they almost universally agree adversely affects the town, how can anybody say they are being engaged?

What the Council considers to be little things have a huge effect on people's lives. The Council need to accept that if they are being massively challenged over what they consider to be insignificant, then there has been a total failure in leadership. Dialogue and proper consultation can prevent issues becoming divisive and build trust. Of course it is hard to get people involved. But that is what the Council get paid for. Why did the potential closure of Dimensions need to turn into an issue that brought ridicule and scorn onto the Council, instead of being discussed with Residents Associations and, however improbably, the users of Dimensions? Who has ever been asked about whether parts of Hanley should be rebranded, wiping its name entirely from roadsigns? The communities of Hanley? We have to assume not.

So, in this context, and in the current climate of almost total breakdown of trust in the polity of the City, Mr Meredith's throw away line "We will take time to discuss it with our political groups and debate in the council chamber as to which, if not all, of these recommendations we can support" is a direct insult to the people.

The report is well thought-through, leaving options open for discussion where possible and clarifying the areas where choices are more limited. Reporting it simply as a row over whether we have a referendum for a mayor or leader rather misses the point: our system is so damaged that the replacement system doesn't really matter. If we accept the Commission's view of the problem - and there is no reason why we shouldn't because it echoes all of the views expressed every day in the City, at least that part occupied by Joe Public - we need to accept their solutions. The council need to take immediate action to fix the breakdown in engagement and start to show people it is worth getting involved again.

Mr Elected Mayor, the future is no longer negotiable. You have to accept the report in its entirety - you have no choice! Yes, it is critical of your leadership. But the perception of the people is that they have had no leadership. Yes, it says that there is infighting, self-interest and lack of action or communication seen to be coming from the people’s elected local representatives. But the perception of the people is that there is infighting, self-interest and lack of action or communication. Yes, it says that there is a lack of vision, strategic thinking or clear leadership from the City Council causing frustration for local people and a feeling of disengagement with the City Council. But the people are frustrated and disengaged. It is your failure to see these blatantly obvious facts has led to the publication of this report.

It is time for you and the City Council to stop deluding yourselves and to stop "mushrooming" the people. It is time for the Council to become properly accountable to the people. We need a Transition Board - free from political control - to oversee the Council's adherence to the changes recommended in this report. We do not trust you to do it unsupervised. The most important feature of the Transition Board is that it will have the freedom to comment publicly and to the Secretary of State on the adequacy or otherwise of plans and progress - free from the constraints of your Information Department, free to tell the truth. If properly constituted, and free from Council interference, this Board should be the saviour of Stoke-on-Trent.

We share one other sentiment from the report: