People’s differing motives for voting in the recent general election are still being debated, but it’s clear that the Government will be able to push through whatever legislation it likes.

This got me thinking as to what the consequences are of decisions taken by politicians that “the people” disagree with. The demise of Theresa May and the rise of Boris Johnson as prime minister of this country is undoubtedly linked to the decisions by Parliament not to pass the original withdrawal agreement presented by Mrs May – despite Mr Johnson being one of those who voted against it.

In the election, the public decided Labour’s arguments to try and unite the country around a new deal that better protected employment rights and elevated environmental protections and to vote on that, were not persuasive enough. They also rejected the neither liberal nor democratic option to revoke Article 50 presented by the Lib Dems.

Here in Watford, the current big topic is “Watford’s Manhattan” as the Observer described it, which the council’s planning committee passed on December 16. The development comprises blocks up to 28 storeys high and some local people are very, very angry about it.

I think it’s important because, echoing the general election, politicians are supporting development plans that the majority of those expressing an opinion are firmly against. In a sense, it’s irrelevant that some local Lib Dem politicians argued against the development in the meeting because their colleagues on the committee voted it straight through. The Labour councillors voted against it.

Will politicians in positions of power voting against the way the public want them to lead to consequences locally, just as they may have done nationally? Will sufficient foundations have been laid by the time of the local elections in May to tell? We can but hope.

  • Matt Turmaine is a Labour councillor for Holywell