A staggering affront to democracy.
The council have finally shown their utter contempt for the democratic process in a series of decisions, spearheaded by Cllr. John Warmisham who heads education, on the relocation of the Youth Offending Service to a site in Irwell Riverside.
When the decision was originally taken it was ‘called in’ – a process which means the decision is placed on hold and a scrutiny committee at that council meets to hear reasons for and against the decision making process. The call-in isn’t about the decision itself, but about how it was taken – whether proper consideration was given to alternatives; whether it’s legal; whether proper consultation has been carried out etc. The scrutiny committee in this case listened to the concerns of residents expressed by Lib Dem councillors about the process and said that the decision must be either reconsidered or go before full council for a full debate and vote.
What actually happened is that Cllr. Warmisham decided to change the decision such that a part of it, which involved committing cash for building an extension, has been deferred for six months. Funnily enough the changes to the timing of the decision had already been forced by the call-in process which delayed the decision. In actuality no changes had been made at all to the outcomes of the decision or the process it was arrived. However, officers have refused to admit that it is no way materially different from the last decision – which is frankly a staggering.
As far as I can see, a cabinet member, when told by a scrutiny committee to reconsider a decision, can simply tippex out a comma and call it a new decision. The law that Labour introduced to allow backbenchers to hold the executive to account is utterly toothless – what a surprise.
Of course, since nothing had changed we called the decision in again. I have this morning learned that because of the decision to defer expenditure on building and extension officers have taken the view that it no longer represents a ‘Key Decision’ and so isn’t subject to call-in any more. Key Decisions are those which incur expenditure of over £100,000 (or ‘have a significant affect on two or m ore electoral wards’) – a threshold that Labour raised from about £10,000 (if my memory serves me right) only very recently.[Edit: having spoken to a council officer today, it appears that my memory serves me wrong on this point - apologies]. Now I know why. Cllr. Warmisham has voluntarily submitted the decision to the scrutiny committee for consideration anyway (how generous of him), a decision in no way helped by the fact that the composition of the scutiny committee has changed since the first call-in to give Labour a greater majority I’m sure. The fact that the new member was present at the last call-in and tried to vote despite not being eligble gives us a clue as to how things are likely to go. Of course, scrutiny committees are supposed to be non-party political and entirely neutral in making their decisions and should not be whipped – I’m sure that it’s purely co-incidental that, aside from the occasional rebel, Labour members overwhelmingly seem to vote together (and it’s never their backbenchers issuing a call-in).
I often seen Labour hold decisions that they have masses of time to make until the very last minute so that they can by-pass the call-in procedure by determining the matter urgent, and I’ve seen them take decision during recess when there is no way to scrutinise them. This new wheeze is another way of sticking two fingers up to democracy and saying ‘Screw you, Labour knows best’ to the electorate.
If they had their way they’d probably figure out a way to exclude opposition councillors from council meetings altogether – they’ve already done their best to chip away at opportunities for questions and challenge. It’s long past the date when Cllr. Warmisham should have been booted out of office – he should resign and the rest of the sorry, anti-democratic bunch should follow.
12:53 pm on July 6th, 2009
Well said Steve.
4:58 pm on July 6th, 2009
It makes my blood boil that this Labour-led council seem to constantly ignore the wishes of it’s residents (the Buile Hill Park lottery bid fiasco is another such case).
Warmisham, Merry & co seem to have forgotten why they were elected in the first place.
I’ll be reminding them from now until 2010. If they don’t like what I write, tough!
5:01 pm on July 6th, 2009
Lets just retrace this . First of all you argued that the new member for pendlebury should be denied the opportunity to vote then you are angry that you were denied the chance to call in the new decision despite the fact that it has already been refered to the scruitiny ctte anyway and you wanted the ctte not to have the chance to discuss it. This approach seems straight out of Alice in Wonderland or the Norman Middleton tactics handbook.
Now if you want a rational discussion on when decisions should be subject to call in then I am happy to have that but please dont argue that there has been some sort of carve up . The scruitiny ctte asked the lead member to reconsider the decision he has done so and at the same time agreed to subject it to consideration by the scruitny ctte in exactly the same way as if Norman had called it in. I would have expected this sort of childish postureing to be more suited to others in your party.
5:06 pm on July 6th, 2009
Steve/Norman I will be delighted to debate your role in Buile Hill and the way in which your partys campign deprived the people of this city of £3 million pounds worth of investement in their parks. The decision has nothing to do with whether the hotel goes ahead. It just means you have a lot of explaining to do to the people of this city. By the way it was Richard not me who called you Normans attack puppy
5:28 pm on July 6th, 2009
Somebody please remind me… who did I call “Normans attack puppy” and when? “Attack puppy” is more of a Lindleyism.
5:44 pm on July 6th, 2009
. And I really think that Norman needs to put his favourite young internet attack dog back on his leash for some much needed puppy training,
So thats not on your blog then Richard???
6:08 pm on July 6th, 2009
Oh.
[So actually I named nobody with the exact moniker "attack puppy" then.]
Thanks for the vindication! (A rare moment of honesty for Rog).
[It's really very interesting to see just how quick Roger was to jump in on this one when there was even the slightest hint of a perceived opportunity for a Carvath-bash... people will be considerably narrowing down the possibilities re the anonymous Roger at this rate. Certainly any reader can guess who Roger's political pals are likely to be.]
6:46 pm on July 6th, 2009
I don’t have ANY political pals Richard old chap (I sponsored Steve for his swim and think most of his comments are quite sensible and would probably say the same about Mole from what I’ve read but that’s about it)
You have referred to me as “an attack dog” (as well as a number of personal insults) quite a few times so are you saying that it wasn’t me you where referring to ??? (I’m sure everyone will believe you)
Just to help you out with describing me in future (assuming it was me that you where talking about) the description “puppy” wouldn’t be one that would be that appropriate because if I’m a puppy then you’d be a two day old kitten by comparison xx
7:04 pm on July 6th, 2009
I assumed it was Steve you were talking about Richard I thought it fitted the bill Sorry if you ire was adressed elsewhere.
7:14 pm on July 6th, 2009
No apologies necessary John, it’s no big deal!
I was not referring to Rog btw.
[I'm starting to get a little concerned that Rog is now putting "X's" (which I assume signify kisses) in some of the comments he makes about me (here and on Mole's blog). Anonymous Rog has previously claimed (on Mole's blog) to be an engaged-to-be-married heterosexual man in his thirties but now he's giving me kisses - worrying!]
7:19 pm on July 6th, 2009
Everyone that disagrees with Richard is “an enemy” John so it’s understandable that you’d make that mistake!
Not wanting to steal any of Steve’s credit but I think I’ve been elevated to the dizzy heights of current No1 Antichrist sorry I mean Anticarvath.
I’ve tried to explain that it’s his political stance on certain subjects that I detest and that as a person I’m fairly ambivalent about him but it’s impossible to make him understand that and I’m sure he wants to challenge me to a boxing match rather than a verbal sparring match!
7:24 pm on July 6th, 2009
I don’t “claim” to be anything Richard, I’m sure that Steve would confirm my approximate age if it really bothers you ( hell if you ask him nicely he might even tell you if he thought I came across as a heterosexual or not) (personally I don’t think it’s that easy to tell but I’m sure you’ve got a stereotype in your head of all homosexually as wearing make up and whistling Judy Garlad tunes)
8:30 pm on July 6th, 2009
Why the kisses? !!
I’ve never had internet kisses off John Merry, Steve Cooke or Iain Lindley so what on earth is Rog thinking doing that? !!
Rog should keep his gay stereotypes to himself and not try to foist them off onto me.
I have no desire to cauliflower Rog’s ears; the thought of physical violence against Rog has never crossed my mind.
I think Rog’s ranking Steve [Cooke or Middleton?...I don't know which one he means] with the Antichrist is one of the most outrageous things Rog has ever come out with – and Rog has come out with some whoppers before now!! Certainly not words in my mouth or thoughts in my mind about Steve.
8:37 pm on July 6th, 2009
God your an idiot Richard
9:08 pm on July 6th, 2009
The following is a direct quote (cut and pasted from M.E.N) from Richard and for someone like him to talk about anything being an affront to democracy after openly advocating discrimination and comparing being homosexual to being a Natzi is ineradicably hypocritical to say the least.
It is entirely right, proper and correct to discriminate against homosexual perversion because it is morally evil and because of all the obvious and diabolic consequences that manifest as a result of the practice (as have been documented in a previous comment on this thread). It is right to discriminate against and oppose Nazism because it is evil; it is exactly the same with the evil of homosexual perversion.
Ps I’m 99% sure that you won’t have taken any offense at my earlier comment Steve and will see that Richards comment is a blatant attempt to shit stir (help I’m turning Carvathian and talking about excrement on the internet) But on the remote chance that ANYONE will have seen something the same way as him I’d like to appolagise and assure you that it wasn’t deliberate at all.
10:49 pm on July 6th, 2009
I must admit I did have to laugh at some of that!
11:16 pm on July 6th, 2009
I think I referred to Ray Mashiter as Hazel’s “attack puppy” last year (based on his daft little protest when Cameron came to town) – can I stake a claim for copyright?
11:20 pm on July 6th, 2009
Anyway at the issue at hand, as I’ve made clear to member of the Council, I agree entirely with Steve. The substance of the decision has not changed and if the call-in procedure is being followed correctly then the motion should be debated at Full Council.
Incidentally John, I look forward to the Life In Salford article on the Place Survey. I notice it hasn’t appeared on the Council website yet… wonder why?
11:40 pm on July 6th, 2009
Hmmm, I find myself with the unenviable task of agreeing with a Tory. OK, well, just this once. Iain is right, the decision has not materially changed – the Lead Member for Childrens Services shows disrespect to the Scrutiny committee by “revising” his decision and then voluntarily submitting it to Scrutiny again. It does not need to be submitted to Scrutiny again – they gave their opinion and agreed with residents.
Going back to Cllr Merry’s original comments “First of all you argued that the new member for pendlebury should be denied the opportunity to vote..” – I believe you are referring to Cllr Ferguson who was not entitled to vote at that particular Scrutiny meeting, in fact if it was not for Cllr Lindley’s persistence, it’s likely the Chair would have allowed him to vote.
At the original Scrutiny, I was sat behind Cllr Warmisham who allowed this “debate” (over who was allowed to vote) to go on for several minutes before the Lead Member for Childrens Services finally spoke up and confirmed that Cllr Ferguson was not entitled to vote. Did he hope that Cllr Lindley would give up if he waited long enough?
“Norman Middleton tactics handbook….” – not sure who this might be, no relation to me that’s for sure.
The Scrutiny asked the Lead Member to reconsider his decision *AND* importantly stated that if he “was not minded to change his decision” it should be referred to full council. It seems the Lead Member does not want the matter referred to full council – why would that be?
Lastly, John, would you like to explain your comment “By the way it was Richard not me who called you Normans attack puppy” please…
7:23 am on July 7th, 2009
Unlike some of your more discerning colleagues you seem to swallow Normans line without question. The policy of following the tories is at least causing concern elsewhere and maybe you should think before endorseing him as you do. It was hard not to feel sympathy for Steve Cooke trying to clean up the mess caused by Normans stubben refusal to give up 1 scruitiny place to Cllr Ainsworth . Now you have to give up 2.
John has made a different decision and submitted it to scruitny if they refer it to council it will be debated there. You on the other hand want to deny them a chance to consider it I call that undemocratic
9:40 am on July 7th, 2009
No John, your the colleague is the one engaging in undemocratic processes – Scrutiny HAVE ALREADY considered it, the fact that you did not like what they decided and “want to try again” is neither here nor there.
It shows a disrespect for the whole scrutiny process. I think Cllr Cooke described it best, above: “sticking two fingers up to democracy”
With regard to the Tories, my dislike for their policies and leader is well known on this site and elsewhere (in fact everywhere else), *GULP* I agreed with one small thing and suddenly I’m a closet Conservative? I don’t think so John!
I note that at Wednesday’s Children, Young People and Family Scrutiny there is due to be a short presentation about the role of Scrutiny – the powerpoint slides are available to view on the council’s website (as part of the agenda items).
Slide number 3 describes the four principles of effective scrutiny, they being:
Challenge: To provide critical friend challenge to executives, external authorities and agencies
Engagement: To reflect the voice and concerns of the public and its communities
Leadership: to support community leadership and effective representation
Performance improvement: To make an impact on the delivery of public services
Is this a joke? Are these just for show? We will see on Wednesday afternoon just how “effective” the Children, Young People and Family Scrutiny is. I fear you many need to triple the propaganda in next months In Life magazine to try and counter the damning Advertiser and M.E.N. reports that I expect to read.
So let’s stay on-topic with further replies, as you seem willing to defend your Lead Member’s decision in this matter, do you honestly believe you and Cllr Warmisham have acted in an honourable and democratic manner in this particular instance?
3:10 pm on July 7th, 2009
To the best of my knowledge Iain does ‘hold the copyright’ on “attack puppy.” [And Ray Mashiter's disruption of Cameron outside Salford Lads Club was an attack puppy job embarrassing to behold.]
Getting back to the point:
I’m appalled that Labour are having a second bite of the cherry to get past scrutiny and avoid full council! The scrutinised decision has not materially changed – it should go to full council.
3:32 pm on July 7th, 2009
if scruitny agrees with your view tthen no doubt it will refer it to council. IT IS NOT THE SAME DECISION and indeed is not technically subject to call in. If I was the undemocratic ogre you prefer to think of me as I would have sheltered behind that rather than refer it to the scruitny ctte.
3:47 pm on July 7th, 2009
Well I’d like to see you and JW take it to full council and make the case there – and before that I’d like to see you convincingly allay the concerns of the local residents who will be immediately affected in a public meeting. People like to deal with their politicians face-to-face; your democratic credentials would be somewhat enhanced if you’d meet the public. I know the public feel this whole affair has been rushed and badly handled and that their concerns have been disregarded.
7:16 pm on July 7th, 2009
Scrutiny or Council, it makes no difference. A Labour majority in both means the decision will go the way Labour intends it to go. Miracles do happen and a scrutiny committee may call in a decision, unfortunately they do not occur twice and in my time in council I have yet to witness descent in the ranks from the sheep in the Labour ‘backbenches’ in full council.
I raised a point in Council once, ‘what is good leadership?, a steady hand or admitting when you are wrong and taking advice’. This decision seems to fall into the third way, i.e dress it up and hope no one notices.
8:18 pm on July 7th, 2009
Dissent!
[Sorry to be a spelling pedant but couldn't resist on this occasion! Feel free to pull me up on something sometime.]
8:49 pm on July 7th, 2009
Microsoft word spellchecker be my downfall I am afraid, I have got lazy in my old age. Also my grammar is not to hot. I had hoped such poor English would be forgiven in the blogging world.
9:16 pm on July 7th, 2009
[Feel guilty for mentioning it now.]
Forget Microsoft spellchecker… just borrow your dad’s dictionary!
9:43 pm on July 7th, 2009
I do grimace sometimes when I read articles (be they blog posts or the printed variety) that contain spelling errors or bad grammar. However far too often those that do not necessarily have a good a command of the English language as the rest of us are derided, when the point of the actual message is a good one.
We should all strive to improve our level of English; writing a blog is a great way to do that!
So I will bite my tongue and ignore all those spelling errors etc. (I may even introduce a few of my own – on purpose you understand) and listen to the actual argument, rather than critique the writing style. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
Unfortunately the above literary diversion has not removed the image of an “undemocratic ogre” I now have implanted in my brain – thanks Cllr Merry!
Anyway, IT IS THE SAME DECISION.
See what I did there? Clever eh? I’ll pat myself on the back now that I managed to get us subtly back on topic. I won’t hold my breath it stays there!
7:18 am on July 8th, 2009
Me no good command English?
7:25 am on July 8th, 2009
I have since the original decision was made met the residents and although no doubt can be accused of a lot of things I don’t think ducking my critics can be one of them.
12:00 pm on July 8th, 2009
Yes I read the minutes of that meeting, John. They do make interesting reading, I especially like the first paragraph of the minutes which state “CM confirmed that the council are not trying to rush this decision through; however, due to the unsuitability of the property YOS currently occupy, they are under pressure to resolve the matter as soon as possible. The council have a recess in August and would like the matter resolving before this.”
So, if those minutes accurately describe the conversation, right after saying the council wasn’t rushing the decision through – they admitted they were! Astonishing!
If anyone else wants to see the minutes from that meeting, as I said I have a copy. Quite frankly they are gold and I wish I’d been a fly on the wall at that one