Nigel Fletcher - Dale & Co.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Deary me, I have been slack on here recently, haven't I? Summer recess continues for Parliament, but I have in fact been very busy with Council work, as I know have all my colleagues.
Strange, then, that the Mayor of Greenwich has decided (after apparently consulting the Labour Group, but not us) that there was insufficient business to merit holding the full Council meeting scheduled for this Wednesday, 20th September. No matter that we've not met since July, that since then we have had the publication of worrying local crime and education figures, and that the concern over the Dome casino plan has exploded over the nation's front pages. No, it seems Labour are content to leave the people of Greenwich and their representatives without a forum for debate for a third of the year (the next scheduled meeting is November!).
Our group leader, Spencer Drury, has written to the Mayor to complain (see story here), and he is right to express his outrage. It may well be that there is "insufficient business", but if so, why? Too many formal decisions seem to be taken by just the Cabinet, or the tiny cabal that is the "Cabinet Committee" (of which just two people can constitute a quorum!). The attitude of the Council Leader seems worryingly like that of monarchs in the middle ages, who summoned a Parliament only when they needed money and had no choice.
This is the key point here - do council meetings exist solely for the convenience of the ruling executive to rubberstamp their proposals only when they are legally required to do so? Or should they be seen as the regular meeting of all the people's representatives, debating and voting on the buisiness of the borough we were elected to serve, and holding the executive to account? It is not just reports that are debated at Council (an inevitably passed with Labour's majority) - we also have the opportunity to put down written and oral questions to the Leader and Cabinet (as do members of the public), to present petitions on behalf of residents, and to debate motions on broad areas of concern, such as the motion on police numbers that we were planning to put down for this week's meeting.
There is a lot of talk at the moment about opening up democracy, and engaging with the community - and cancelling Council meetings is not a great signal to send. Although balancing full-time work commitments with Council duties can be difficult, and we all sometimes have to send apologies to committee meetings, I personally have never missed a meeting of the full Council since I was elected. It may just be a personal quirk, but I consider that for the money the people of Greenwich pay me, the very least I can do is turn up every month to represent and speak up for them.
This Wednesday, my Conservative colleagues and I will be in the Council Chamber, holding our regular group meeting. We usually hold this on the Monday preceding the Council meeting, to prepare the issues we want to raise. This time, we will have to discuss the issues we would have raised, and how we can find alternative ways to hold the Labour executive to account now that democracy has been postponed. If the Leader and Cabinet want to drop in and face questions, I'm sure they would be more than welcome to do so. But somehow I doubt they will.
Strange, then, that the Mayor of Greenwich has decided (after apparently consulting the Labour Group, but not us) that there was insufficient business to merit holding the full Council meeting scheduled for this Wednesday, 20th September. No matter that we've not met since July, that since then we have had the publication of worrying local crime and education figures, and that the concern over the Dome casino plan has exploded over the nation's front pages. No, it seems Labour are content to leave the people of Greenwich and their representatives without a forum for debate for a third of the year (the next scheduled meeting is November!).
Our group leader, Spencer Drury, has written to the Mayor to complain (see story here), and he is right to express his outrage. It may well be that there is "insufficient business", but if so, why? Too many formal decisions seem to be taken by just the Cabinet, or the tiny cabal that is the "Cabinet Committee" (of which just two people can constitute a quorum!). The attitude of the Council Leader seems worryingly like that of monarchs in the middle ages, who summoned a Parliament only when they needed money and had no choice.
This is the key point here - do council meetings exist solely for the convenience of the ruling executive to rubberstamp their proposals only when they are legally required to do so? Or should they be seen as the regular meeting of all the people's representatives, debating and voting on the buisiness of the borough we were elected to serve, and holding the executive to account? It is not just reports that are debated at Council (an inevitably passed with Labour's majority) - we also have the opportunity to put down written and oral questions to the Leader and Cabinet (as do members of the public), to present petitions on behalf of residents, and to debate motions on broad areas of concern, such as the motion on police numbers that we were planning to put down for this week's meeting.
There is a lot of talk at the moment about opening up democracy, and engaging with the community - and cancelling Council meetings is not a great signal to send. Although balancing full-time work commitments with Council duties can be difficult, and we all sometimes have to send apologies to committee meetings, I personally have never missed a meeting of the full Council since I was elected. It may just be a personal quirk, but I consider that for the money the people of Greenwich pay me, the very least I can do is turn up every month to represent and speak up for them.
This Wednesday, my Conservative colleagues and I will be in the Council Chamber, holding our regular group meeting. We usually hold this on the Monday preceding the Council meeting, to prepare the issues we want to raise. This time, we will have to discuss the issues we would have raised, and how we can find alternative ways to hold the Labour executive to account now that democracy has been postponed. If the Leader and Cabinet want to drop in and face questions, I'm sure they would be more than welcome to do so. But somehow I doubt they will.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Apologies for the silence on this blog recently. I've been away on a very enjoyable town twinning visit to our friends in Reinickenfdorf in Berlin, and have also been moving house. Not ideal timing, given the explosion of stories about the Dome Casino bid in the last week.
I've had many journalists from national newspapers contacting me for a response, and I think some of them have been disappointed that I'm not prepared completely to trash Greenwich Council's handling of the issue. I won't do so, because as I have said before, we support the bid, and it isn't productive to present a divided front. I have every sympathy with Council officers who are doing their best to be as open and above-board as possible, but who find their efforts undermined by the increasingly shambolic goings-on in central government.
As the opposition in Greenwich, we have a duty to criticise when things go wrong, but we do so from a constructive position. Every bad headline about the Dome damages our bid, and makes it more likely we will fail to get the licence, and the huge benefits of jobs and investment that go with it. That would be a bad result for Greenwich, and everyone involved needs to ensure that we rise above the murky allegations being made and demonstrate that we have the best bid, and nothing to hide.
I've had many journalists from national newspapers contacting me for a response, and I think some of them have been disappointed that I'm not prepared completely to trash Greenwich Council's handling of the issue. I won't do so, because as I have said before, we support the bid, and it isn't productive to present a divided front. I have every sympathy with Council officers who are doing their best to be as open and above-board as possible, but who find their efforts undermined by the increasingly shambolic goings-on in central government.
As the opposition in Greenwich, we have a duty to criticise when things go wrong, but we do so from a constructive position. Every bad headline about the Dome damages our bid, and makes it more likely we will fail to get the licence, and the huge benefits of jobs and investment that go with it. That would be a bad result for Greenwich, and everyone involved needs to ensure that we rise above the murky allegations being made and demonstrate that we have the best bid, and nothing to hide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)