My comments at the Lib Dem Conference that we need to strike a new balance between the parliamentary and councillor wings of the party has clearly struck a chord with councillors.

The immediate reason for my outburst was the way that the police debate had been approached by the Parliamentary Group – well, to be fair, we should not blame them all too much. This paper was discussed under ‘any other business’ at a shadow cabinet meeting. Most MPs had not seen it until the week before conference. Although conference delegates had seen the resolution when the agenda was published, the paper that lay behind it was available only the night before – and it showed.

Councillors were not at all concerned about the direction of the paper or the philosophy which underpinned it. Our concern is that the ‘thing’ that we have agreed won’t work, and shows a woeful ignorance of how to convert theory into practice. We deliver that practice and we know how to make it work!

There are many reasons that localism is failing, and a lack of democracy is only one of them. Far more important is the fact that services within and without local authorities are run in silos by specialists. Electing those silos will not help join services around the needs of individuals or communities but entrench the silos. Having more elected bodies will lead to turf wars about supremacy, and will make it for more different to join up service providers around one long-term and coherent direction for the town, county or city.

Indeed two members of the Lords did not seem to understand what was before them. Lord Dholakia and Baroness Harris both said that councils would not be suitable to take responsibilities for police because there would be too much politics. But if they are elected bodies won’t there be politicians involved? Even if politicians like ourselves do not stand (and I have asked them if that is what they mean) then the elected members will become non-party politicians because they will be exercising priorities and suggesting direction – just what politicians do in the real world.

Outside this particular debate we might be making some progress. I have agreed to meet three separate groups of parliamentarians when the House resumes, and David Laws (as head of the public services team) is making arrangements with us for regular meetings with group leaders. Some MPs are good at consulting and involving. Our education and transport teams have regular joint meetings and conferences, and are good at making sure the Party speaks as one. Others become pompous and distant within seconds of being elected and do not respond to approaches from councillors, either officially or unofficially.

At the end of the day the Paper was passed because the big guns were brought out. Indeed, members of the Parliamentary Party were paged three times to get them to vote. But it was a Pyrrhic victory. We have agreed a paper that won’t work, and which we won’t be in a position to introduce for a minimum of 12 years. We did so by alienating the only people in the Party who could deliver it and who now feel antagonistic to most of the Paper’s otherwise good features.

* Cllr Richard Kemp is Leader of the Local Government Association Liberal Democrats.