THE ongoing Punch and Judy show between the SNP/Greens and Labour continued apace at Full Council a fortnight ago.

For the uninitiated, or those fortunate enough not to know, Full Council is the meeting of all councillors held every six weeks or so. It supposedly allows all elected members a real chance to discuss the matters that are being raised by Glaswegians about the services provided by the council.

Instead, it provides a forum for a lot of cliched (and that’s being kind) political toing and froing. It allows a lot of hot air to be released but achieves very little of substance apart from providing certain ambitious councillors a chance to show loyalty to their party at the expense of proper analysis of how to improve our city.  

Two years ago, I took my place in Glasgow’s magnificent and historic council chamber. I was proud of being given the opportunity, at this stage in my life, to represent the people and city I love and ready to play my role as a member of the Conservative group. I was also hoping for opportunities to work collegiately with councillors across the political divide, to find common cause in the improvement of our city.  

Twenty-eight months on I am sorry to report that, in the main, my hope has been proven to be spectacularly naive.  

Other local authorities surrounding our city manage collegiate working, across the party divide, very effectively. I have spoken with colleagues and council officers who have experience of working outside of Glasgow City Council and they are constantly surprised at how “tribal” and politicised the city’s administration is, often at the expense of effective governance.

The authority itself, as part of its own improvement agenda for education for example, often requires very different schools with differing priorities, leadership styles and personalities to work together for the greater good of the city provision as a whole. It understands that the pooling of talent and expertise is a valuable asset and that those involved can work through their differences to produce effective outcomes.  

Now, I am not so wet behind the ears as to suggest that Glasgow’s old political lags should get together and sing a rousing chorus of Kum Ba Yah but at a city level at least, where politics is not only closer to the people but the services are more personal and immediate, collegiality should be more commonplace.  

Glasgow’s cohort of elected members mostly seem incapable of doing what should be a no brainer – outside of elections – and that is putting Glasgow first, political party second.    

At local level, issues such as the constitution, foreign affairs and gender ideology to name a few can form part of a broader agenda but too often council business centres around issues over which it, as a body, can have little or no control.

In doing so it means that time, energy and often money is spent on concerns not shared by the people who put us there. Schools, roads, bins etc are our voters’ priorities if our inboxes are anything to go by.

Perhaps if all of Glasgow’s councillors came together to address those issues in a solutions-focused, collegiate frame of mind rather than role-playing Westminster/Holyrood then we might solve a problem or two and earn the respect of the people who put us there 28 months ago.