On first glance this seems like a noble attempt to include the public in a very difficult exercise. Yet on closer inspection this is little more than a box ticking con, a waste of public money, and worst of all, of little value to councillors when it comes to swinging the axe on public services.

Why do I say this?

Consultation is about quality not quantity. This proposed consultation is fundamentally flawed as it will not identify residents honest views on the cuts that people are willing to accept for the benefit of the services people really want protecting.

The consultation proposes (once again!) to ask “What are your priorities?”, and the answers coming back will likely be a list, based on their experiences ““ lets say street cleaning, pot holes, etc. At the end this is what will be presented to councillors.

I have seen it done year after year. Officers will justify their proposals to close this, that and the other based on residents top ten priorities. (Remember Dimensions).
Surely what councillors want to know is what services people are prepared to sacrifice.

I want to know from residents, for example, “If your priority is potholes, would you want to see libraries closed so that we have no potholes, or are you prepared to put up with the potholes for a bit longer if we spend the money on say libraries instead?”

This is the kind of data I want so that when it comes to budget time, I have some idea what is really important to people. What would be even better is to know at a neighbourhood level. People in Longton may want their council tax spent on playgrounds, while Tunstall wants to keep its swimming pool.

I am concerned that this will be a typical consultation, simplistic and blunt, with little or no value to the budget process.

Cutting spending will be hard enough, but if we get this consultation wrong, I can see us blinded into thinking we have residents support, yet having demonstrations and campaigns galore ““ all because we asked the wrong questions.