Jayne and I both had letters from the Labour party yesterday with feedback from our recent interviews.  The good news is that we are both being recommended to go onto the panel of candidates. The even better news is that everyone else now seems to be realising what I have known myself for a long time – that Jayne will make a much better councillor than I would (or did).

Obviously this was not a great surprise.  We have both been candidates before, we have been through the same process before and nothing has changed in our circumstances, so it would be unusual if we were now deemed to not reach the minimum standards. 

Along with this news was a feedback form. I had a bit of a laugh over mine, but I can see how this whole process could upset some people. Here is what it said about me:

Andrew seemed to understand the basic workings behind 'town hall' structures but was perhaps weak on areas that this particular council was responsible for.  He clearly understood the importance of group discipline and the whip system. He was not clear about any training needs in particular other than he needed training. He has a good record of local involvement and campaigning. It wasn't clear where he saw himself on recent job changes, time available and commitment.

At the end there is a section for areas in which the assessment team consider I would benefit from  further reading, training or action. It lists two:

1. What a council such as CBC is actually responsible for
2. Increased all year round campaigning in Crawley for the Labour party.

I actually think that I do know what CBC is responsible for. If I do not know, after being a councillor for four years there is something seriously wrong with me, and with the party for not pointing out my ignorance earlier.  I think that what this actually shows is that I didn't make enough of an effort during the interview and in itself that is an important lesson.

Of the three interviewers, one was a sitting councillor who I served alongside for four years, and who interviewed me last year asking the same questions. Another member of the panel was our campaign officer who I have been out with canvassing and delivering leaflets all over town during the year. The third person was from the Oxfordshire county party who I obviously did not know at all.

Sitting there, being asked the same questions which I was asked in 2003 and twice last year (when we had to re-run all the interviews) I will admit that I was just going through the motions in a haze of deja vu, and this was probably not fair on Ivan from Oxfordshire.  It could be argued that I should not take part if I am not going to take it all seriously, and that is part of the problem – I am not desperate to be a councillor and that probably shows.

I may ask wny they came to those conclusions, becasue I really can't remember being asked specifically about the roles of the council.  I do remember answering some questions about whips and collective responsibilty using examples from all sorts of areas as analogies rather than because I thought they were areas the council deals in and that may be where the trouble is – I like left-field analogies and the more bored I am the more tenuous they get. I was forgetting that one of the members does not know me and my idiosyncrasies.

As far as campaigning goes it is a fair point.  I do need to do more. The fact that I did more campaigning than most members does not mean I should not and could not do more. The interview was assessing me in absolute terms – not relative to others – and I could do more.

As for understanding the council, although I think this is really me failing to communicate properly in the interview there is always the possibility that I am not as good as I thought I was and not as good as councillors of all three parties in town have said I am. I am always complaining about our complacency locally so having received some criticism I can't just dismiss it: that is a dictionary definition of complacency isn't it?

Interesting times ahead though, as I can't see many people taking such a distant and objective view of any perceived criticisms, so the next GC meeting where this is discussed should be lively.

I almost for got the training issue. Many potential candidates have very specific training needs. Often it is that they have never had to chair meetings or are unsure about speaking in public or about reading, digesting and interpreting large reports. It is less common now, but it used to be that many potential candidates would need help with the IT which is part of being a councillor now, particularly e-mail.  The problem is that I feel confident in all those areas through endless training with my jobs and as a former stage actor I don't have a problem with public speaking. However, when asked if I would need training I felt it would sound arrogant and (that word again) complacent to just say "no, I know everything" so I said that I probably would need some training, but when pushed I couldn't think of anything specific.  I'm still not sure what else I could or should have said. Any ideas?