Consultation - not worth the paper it's written on

For some time now amongst many organisations ‘consultation’ has been the buzz word. It seems that no decision can be taken without being seen to consult with the local population.

Given the poor response rates to most consultations, around 3% in many cases, I am of the opinion that the process is largely a complete waste of time and money.

Those that respond to consultation documents are by their very nature a self-selecting group, a bit like voters really. People that are happy with the status quo are not much bothered by the outcome. In my early days as a District Councillor, wanting to do well, I spent endless Saturday mornings ensconced in freezing village halls, holding my ‘surgery’ only to find that no-one turned up, or if they did, it would be within the last five minutes. I quickly learnt that if there is trouble brewing they’ll find me quickly enough, and that’s as it should be, being there when I’m needed.

In selecting those who make decisions on our behalf we should have sufficient faith in their integrity and objectivity to have confidence that they will make the best choices. That if the decision is not what we would want, then at least we feel our opinions have been heard and we understand the reasons for the decision. Isn’t that what our representatives  are there for? Do parents consult on every decision they make within a family?

We are in severe danger of over consulting when those who do not get the outcome they want the first time around call for yet more consultation. I know someone who has very specific views, and who asks as many people as it takes to find someone to agree with them, to validate their own fixed and intransigent opinions.

In the rush to promote ‘localism’ we are now inundated by surveys and consultation documents on everything from waste disposal to education. Often the forms are poorly prepared, ask leading questions, and take too long for respondents to complete. In addition, there is the increasing trend for these to only be available online, precluding many from having access. Call me a cynic, but I often feel that despite assurances to the contrary, those wanting to engage us in the consultation process have an end game in mind. To the practised eye this is evident by the choice of questions asked, and the phrasing of them; a bit like saying to a child ‘Would you rather have an apple or a bar of chocolate?’ No contest. Or, ‘You can have an apple or a bar of chocolate. If you have the apple you will grow up fit and healthy and won’t have to go to the dentist. If you have the chocolate, you will grow up fat, and all your teeth will fall out. Which would you rather have?’ The same basic question, but with a different slant.

We do of course always want our own way, and in order to get it we will often use the same evidence, with the odd omission maybe, to skew the outcome. It’s human nature to do so, but we need to be especially careful when those representing us need to remain as objective as possible, and be seen to be so.