YOUR readers will no doubt wonder about the nature the consultation process that anyone can take part in, including members of the public, (You Say, May 7), given the extreme reaction by Maggie Watson and her colleagues to my views on the Blair reform agenda.
She and I both know that policy is made in Downing Street by appointed advisers. Consultation is just a patronising sop to the punters to make them feel listened to.
No one has any leverage because there is no democratic mechanism for deciding on the merits of private submissions.
Proposition documents such as "Partnership in Power II" can only be changed in emphasis at the margin because the direction is predetermined.
Annual Conference is presented with them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, spiced with the blackmail that to leave it would be playing into the hands of the Tories.
As women, I would have expected Maggie Watson and her Chairwoman, Joy Squires, to spot a disempowerment strategy without any help from me.
Instead of accusing me of sniping from the sidelines, why does she not show the gumption to argue her case and reply to my arguments as our Labour colleague Richard Udall has done over my views on Israel (You Say, May 7).
Treating people like passive consumers can only end in disillusionment and indifference, leaving the impression that we have a presidential government.
You may as well write to the Duke of Edinburgh.
PETER NIELSEN,
Claines, Worcester.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article