I love a council question!

I don’t know Matthew Francis, but I love the question he asked at Gedling Borough Council’s Full Council meeting on Wednesday (4th). Firstly, I love that he has taken his own time to be a proactive and involved member of local democracy. Democracy isn’t a spectator sport, and we don’t just participate in democracy when we go out to vote in May—we get to do democracy whenever we want, and how we want. I love that Matthew is, unashamedly, holding these mediocre people to account.

Matthew’s question is fantastic, and I’m going to explain why. Firstly, the question was framed very well. It highlights how the Labour administration is trying to balance being righteous in everything they say with actions that often conflict with those values. The question essentially invites us to consider their hypocrisy and inconsistency when making decisions compared to the values they publicly announce.

Groups like this Labour group are really quite arrogant. They think they get to be the arbiters of narrative, and their arrogance ignores the fact that we—the audience, the voters—have the power to create meaning as well. We create meaning for ourselves, partly from hearing what they say and seeing what they do, but also from various other inputs. Matthew’s question, and the response to it, show how their actions do not always align with the righteous narrative they want us to believe. And they get a little bit annoyed if you ask questions that expose this contradiction.

Matthew’s question asked the Leader of the Council about 16 parking bays that had been removed from public use, near a children’s play area, and allocated to Nottinghamshire Police. The question noted that the Council did not carry out a consultation on this decision and, shockingly, did not conduct an Equality Impact Assessment to evaluate the effect on protected groups, including disabled people. The question also mentioned how this decision would impact young families using the park, as well as disabled access to the park. Matthew raises a great point: Gedling Borough Council, in their own words, says that equality, diversity, and inclusion are threads that run through everything they do. So why skip the Equality Impact Assessment? My guess is it was skipped because it didn’t fit the narrative they want to present.

The Leader’s response was really quite shocking too. His body language and tone showed the utter contempt he—and his group—have for people who dare to challenge their narrative. Instead of thanking the questioner for being an active member of democracy and scrutinising the work of elected representatives (whom our tax money pays for), the Leader replied, “I’ll give you the answer that is in front of me today.” What does that even mean? Would we have a different answer tomorrow? Is it an answer someone else has written for him to just read out?

The Leader’s response showed contempt for public scrutiny and ignored the question’s real substance. Instead of acknowledging that the Council must make difficult decisions that consider both residents and financial pressures, he constructed a separate narrative about having a police presence at the park. He did not address the actual point of Matthew’s question—namely, the lack of consideration for the impact on local Gedling residents.

Matthew's question highlights a lapse in the council's decision-making process and emphasises the importance of public engagement and thorough impact assessments, especially when actions affect community resources and vulnerable groups. Instead of acknowledging that, the Leader became defensive, mildly aggressive and seemed insecure.

This incident is not a big deal in isolation—it’s their attitudes towards us, the taxpayer and their gaslighting that are the real problem. Their mentality is the problem; it’s that mentality that underpins every decision they make.