This isn't a post about party politics!

The balance I want to consider here is between various roles that elected members play.

Of course, national politics exposes the shortcomings caused by electoral considerations and cycles more sharply than local government politics.

How much better suited to our economy is the education system now than it was in the 1970s or 1980s?

Has the NHS got better because of its many reorganisations since the 1970s?

I won't go on...

Let's accept too that there are many councils at the moment where the available political choices are so limited by tight finance that there's only marginal decision-making to be done.

I'm focusing here on authorities that still have some scope to change the way they do things.

What I want to argue is that a well-run council will aim to create opportunities for investment and spending decisions every year.

This should be a design objective and success criterion for its financial and budget strategy.

The amounts of money might be quite small, but the best way to build and retain political support for financial discipline is to provide the administration, however it is constructed, with some positive decisions to take at budget time.

This helps the senior management team's credibility with political leadership.

And it helps Leaders, portfolio holders and committee chairs to maintain their group's belief in the purpose of their stewardship of the council's resources.

So one issue of balance is this - alongside the difficult job of continuing to look for efficiencies and savings, make sure you're releasing some funds to be allocated as part of every budget for members' political priorities.

But there's another 'balance' consideration.

A council whose financial strategy is delivering a balanced budget that allows these positive annual spending decisions is very likely to reflect good quality work on service operations (however these are sourced).

It will have well-designed services, and properly functioning governance of them, and of projects.

These dynamics will be shaped by common design factors such as openness to feedback, flexibility to vary and resilience to stress.

Service plans will be framed by values, principles, rules of thumb and clear strategies that drive decisions about how people, processes and resources are combined to deliver outputs and outcomes.

So how do all these factors relate to politics and the role of elected members?

The administration will have considered and endorsed the core values and strategies.

Once these are in place, they shouldn’t need to be materially adjusted mid-delivery. If assumptions have been tested, risks understood, accepted and provided for (not only through financial provision but also by ensuring good governance) then strategies can unfold and be adjusted within expected tolerances.

All of this is properly the job of executive management reporting results to the political executive.

But more political input is needed.

Things may be changing that don't affect the way strategies and plans should be delivered right now, but that should be taken into account when planning subsequent phases.

Changes in demography, the local economy, social changes, cultural changes, core values and opinions waxing and waning. 

While the executive functions are iterating and tweaking delivery of well-designed strategies and plans, broader engagement through the scrutiny function can yield invaluable impetus and detailed prompts that shape the next phases of delivery, and the strategies and plans that replace those that have run their course.

The questions aren't so much about 'how well are we doing the job we've set out to do?'

They're more about 'are we planning to be doing the right job in the next few years?'

How many councils - even well-run councils - benefit from their scrutiny function working this way?