This is not bullying, it is intra-election consultation

A real issue and some clever language.

From Poujadisme, in Desborough, Kettering, England from Samizdata.

10 ‘Conservative’ Councillors (of the 12 complement) on the Town Council in the little town of Desborough in Northamptonshire have resigned after an apparent hostile response to a 400% tax rise imposed by the local council, and there is an alleged undercurrent of unpleasantness in the local reaction, perhaps the spirit of Poujard lives on.

The BBC tells us:

Desborough Tory councillors’ mass ‘bullying’ resignation

Well, who is the bully?

Is it the Council for ramping up tax by 400% from £19.10 to £96.98 per year on those who have to pay, with the sort like the Chairman, Councillor Pearce, of whom it is reported:

Ms Pearce… …said “with hindsight we perhaps should have sent out some kind of warning it was coming”.

and then went on to say:

“But I absolutely whole-heartedly believe it was the right thing to do and I would do it again tomorrow in a heartbeat,”

That’s a ‘Feck you!‘ if ever I heard one, and which I assume is a reference to the true costs coming through after some financial juggling used to disguise the costs of the Council ended (more like that later). And the article goes on, Ms Pearce said that:

she was “shocked by the ferocity” of the reaction.
“My husband’s taken abuse on Facebook. I’ve had comments made to my eldest child who’s only 15. I’ve had people try to stop children playing with my nine-year-old daughter.

So a frank expression of views and voluntarily withdrawing social interactions is shocking when you start robbing people under colour of law?

Her observation?

“They didn’t ask for that and they don’t deserve that.”

I think that is exactly what the residents are telling you, Madam! Action and re-action, this is not bullying, it is intra-election consultation.

Stepping away from the particulars of the case, there is a very interesting and real issue reflected in this story.

How does a citizenry communicate to elected representatives when those representatives are insulated from both their constituents and the consequences of their own actions. It is a very real issue in a republic.

We wrestle with it here in the states. Most elected positions are not particularly competitive. Once elected, you are in until you decide to step down or retire. There is exceptionally low turnover in elected positions in terms of simply being voted out. This is especially true in cities which, in most parts of the country, are one-party governments.

We have flirted in the past with term limits. I empathize with the end goal but I think term limits are not at all an appropriate solution. People should be free to choose whom they wish as their representative.

So how does the citizenry communicate to their representative when they cannot turn them out? And especially when they might not even be able to communicate with them? Most elected representatives are appropriately secured against random encounters with citizens. They see only whom they wish to see and no one else.

There is no easy solution to the conundrum. In this case, the public has ostracized the politician's family members which is inappropriate. But it is certainly understandable. If the politician locks themselves off from contact with the populace they are representing and refuse communication, it is not surprising for the populace to find whatever means there might be for getting the politician's attention, even if that is an inappropriate means.

Who is to blame here? The public for inappropriate bullying or the politician for failing to lead and communicate? Both but for slightly different reasons. Ultimately, though, the onus is on the politician. The whole problem could have been averted had they simply done their jobs. But they didn't.

I did like Samizdata's term for the issue - intra-election consultation.