There is a longstanding debate in local politics about the responsibility of candidates and councillors to meet their Association's political and campaigning objectives. Equally, should members of an Executive Council (ie, those who like to attend meetings and like run the affairs of the Association) also be expected to pro-actively campaign?
Is it right that many councillors do all that is asked of them (with many doing more) whilst a small minority do nothing whatsoever, unless their own name is on the ballot paper?
Should Associations demand councillors meet their obligations, as defined in the CCHQ Agreement (which stipulates that a candidate / councillor must contribute to the Association's campaigning objectives) or should we turn a blind eye to those who fail to campaign?
All parties have councillors who stay "one term too long". Should Executive Councils / Local Government Committees be more pro-active by removing candidates who are clearly too old / infirm or ill, from the Approved List? Indeed, if such a councillor is too old to fulfil his or her campaign obligations are they not also too old to be effective local councillors? And are local political parties (of all colours) failing their communities by allowing such candidates to remain in office?
These are difficult questions, and I would appreciate your views. Please click on the link below to answer these questions (seven in total). As always, the survey is anonymous and will be open until Sunday evening.