The Case for an All-Party Strategy Committee
Having tabled a Council question about this, I want to set out some reasons why this Council should set up a Strategy Committee with all theit current members and an additional Tory rep. I disagree with the Tory5-4 proposal as it does make sense for the majority party to have all their lead Councillors on it. I do think the Tories should have a representative with up to 4 substitutes, so they could even have a different person present for a specific item, to represent their view. It would also help our Eleanor Pinfold as she clearly doesn't have the time to do all the meetings and also has some very competent Councillors like Whitham, Crowley, Scully, Kennedy, Russell etc who could cover this piece of work for her.
The reasons I think this 9-1 option is a good idea are:
1. It retains the consensus all three party's established in 1999. Its a pity that people like Graham Tope have reneged on this agreement, when they used to be so anti-single party cabinet.
2. It sets Sutton as both "Excellent" and "unique". Jenny Slark is totally right about this. I hope she stands by her own strong principles and makes the case for it, just as she recently stood up for herself and here fellow ward Councillors in the letters page of the Guardian. If she asks around she will find many other Lib Dem Councillors actually agree with her (that's what they are telling me). Clearly enough for Group Chair(Whip) Sue Stears and Sean Brennan to have to concede a proper debate on the issue at a Group meeting.
3. The fact that we could if we want keep our unique system makes Sean Brennan's comments at full Council quite bizarre, as the Government's legislation does not make a single party cabinet compulsory as this Council maintained a multi-party system for 6 years after the legisaltion was enacted. The offer of two scrutiny chairs was abit of a joke as we all know officers are suggesting we should abolish most scrutiny committees and replace them with SCAG's. If I were in the Tories position, I would be refusing the in effect one-year offer as well!
4. Fundamentally it will lead to better and quicker decision-making as it will ensure the Tories have to set out their stall at Strategy meetings, rather than claim they did not have a chance to explain their position and wait for a full Council.
We currently have the situation where the real Lib Dem Cabinet meets at 10am on a Friday in private and then meets again the following week to have essentially the same thing again in public. If staff were following this bizarre ritual, Councillors would be going mad and demanding Gershon savings!! Why don't we inject a bit of democracy instead, save time and make the Tories act responsibly, by having a multi-party cabinet again.
If you want a face-saver, why not tie it in with the forthcoming review and offer it back in 2007 as part of that.
Just remember the ALDC and Liberator would be proud of you!!
The reasons I think this 9-1 option is a good idea are:
1. It retains the consensus all three party's established in 1999. Its a pity that people like Graham Tope have reneged on this agreement, when they used to be so anti-single party cabinet.
2. It sets Sutton as both "Excellent" and "unique". Jenny Slark is totally right about this. I hope she stands by her own strong principles and makes the case for it, just as she recently stood up for herself and here fellow ward Councillors in the letters page of the Guardian. If she asks around she will find many other Lib Dem Councillors actually agree with her (that's what they are telling me). Clearly enough for Group Chair(Whip) Sue Stears and Sean Brennan to have to concede a proper debate on the issue at a Group meeting.
3. The fact that we could if we want keep our unique system makes Sean Brennan's comments at full Council quite bizarre, as the Government's legislation does not make a single party cabinet compulsory as this Council maintained a multi-party system for 6 years after the legisaltion was enacted. The offer of two scrutiny chairs was abit of a joke as we all know officers are suggesting we should abolish most scrutiny committees and replace them with SCAG's. If I were in the Tories position, I would be refusing the in effect one-year offer as well!
4. Fundamentally it will lead to better and quicker decision-making as it will ensure the Tories have to set out their stall at Strategy meetings, rather than claim they did not have a chance to explain their position and wait for a full Council.
We currently have the situation where the real Lib Dem Cabinet meets at 10am on a Friday in private and then meets again the following week to have essentially the same thing again in public. If staff were following this bizarre ritual, Councillors would be going mad and demanding Gershon savings!! Why don't we inject a bit of democracy instead, save time and make the Tories act responsibly, by having a multi-party cabinet again.
If you want a face-saver, why not tie it in with the forthcoming review and offer it back in 2007 as part of that.
Just remember the ALDC and Liberator would be proud of you!!
posted by Charlie Mansell at 3:14 pm
2 Comments:
I really enjoyed looking at your site, I found it very helpful indeed, keep up the good work.
»
Hey what a great site keep up the work its excellent.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home