3 November (Part 2) - The day that democracy died
Last night’s Bexley Council meeting was a very silly one. Probably not a
strong enough word as you will soon see. There were no questions from members of the
public because all those I am aware of were thrown out as being unacceptable. The Mayor
can do what she likes, and that will be the theme of this blog.
Some useful information came out of the meeting - not a lot - and BiB will cover
that later. In the mean time the silly bits. Not just the silly bits, but more
importantly the utterly disgraceful bits.
The Chief Executive’s instructions that a map of the seating area must appear in
the Agenda had been overlooked but the barrier was there as normal but had gone
further than ever before. For the first time It forbade public access to the water
dispenser. Not that it mattered much, there were only four members of the public
present and three of them left within the first hour complaining that they
couldn’t hear a thing despite two of them prominently sporting hearing aids.
That left just me struggling to hear what was going on. With the Labour members’
backs facing me I missed quite a lot of what they said.
There was of course
no Press Desk because as the Chief Executive has correctly
pointed out the law only says common sense should be applied to provision of a
table and she does not possess an abundance of that commodity.
It was my turn to be silly
too. The law says that I may take photographs during
Council meetings without putting any restrictions on the equipment used. So I
took along a 450mm lens instead of the usual 200 to see if I could hold it
steady in the comparatively dim light.
It’s cruel but I can now see every pimple. The Chief Executive removed the gloves when she
decided to be spiteful. Two can play that game.
This was the first Council meeting to be held under
the new Constitution. There
may have been an element of testing its limits.
The fun and games began when the Labour group put forward a motion that Bexley
Council should pay the London Living Wage (LLW) to its staff, anathema to the nastier
elements of the nasty party of course. It was Councillor Amaning’s (Labour,
Lesnes Abbey) motion but in her absence was moved by her ward colleague Councillor Hackett.
The Motion included incentives to be offered to local business that followed suit.
Councillor Hackett reeled off a list of 15 London Councils that already paid the
LLW. I’m not sure it helped his case that they were all Labour controlled.
Councillor
Sybil Camsey (Conservative, Brampton) was the first to condemn the idea. She moved that the Motion should
not be considered but that the idea should be floated by Cabinet Member Don
Massey in private instead. The ruse was seconded by Councillor David Leaf (Conservative, Longlands),
another member of the disreputable wing of Bexley Councillors. They received 100%
support from the blue sheep.
Councillor Brenda Langstead wanted Bexley Council to adopt the standards for
care services recommended by the public services union UNISON. Referring back to
an earlier meeting at which Councillor Sharon Massey said she would be
unwilling to be a Councillor for the Living Wage, Brenda said care workers did not even
reach that pay level.
Bexley Council as you might imagine did not approve of anything that may have
come from a union and Councillor James Hunt put forward an alternative. It spoke
only of providing a “high quality and
value for money” service. We know what Bexley’s idea of value for money care
services is because former Cabinet Member for Adult Care told us. Under him Bexley was paying
the smallest care rate of any south London council.
Despite Labour objections that Councillor Hunt's suggestion was so far away from
the original motion that it was no substitute, the Mayor told them politely to
shut up. In contrast she was almost subservient to Councillor Hunt “thanking”
and “begging” him to continue.
Part of Councillor Hunt’s objection to the Motion was that as it had been held
over from the July meeting, the level of pay quoted was no longer up to date.
Pathetic or what? Councillor Hackett had covered that point in his opening remarks.
Councillor
Daniel Francis (Labour, Belvedere) brought up another point of order but the Mayor told him to shut
up too, less politely this time. Councillor Hunt went on to say that UNISON’s
Charter was national and not specific to Bexley the logic of which is that it
shouldn’t apply anywhere. He said the Charter was a “publicity stunt” and
continued to speak over his allotted time without rebuke from the Mayor.
Councillor John Fuller seconded Hunt’s so called amendment based on the fact it
would increase costs and the number of users would therefore decrease. He said that
all the worst payers were Labour boroughs and Bexley is now half way up the
London league table. Taylor’s malign influence is a thing of the past.
The Mayor took it upon herself to extend the discussions and allowed Councillor
Leaf to speak again. He rambled on about the Labour party to such an extent
that the Mayor asked him to get back on track. He rambled again and Councillor
Stefano Borella (Labour, North End) asked the Mayor to adhere to the Council’s agreed Constitutional
timetable. She refused claiming she had the discretion to override the
Constitution. “Thank you very much, it is my ruling.”
Councillor Lyn Smith (UKIP, Blackfen & Lamorbey)) spoke up for family carers who get paid next to nothing.
The
responsible Cabinet Member Brad Smith spoke in favour of James Hunt’s
amendment saying that “Bexley is far better than UNISON’s Charter”.
Councillor Seán Newman (Labour, Belvdere) said something which I didn’t quite catch - back to
recorder - but whatever it was Councillor Sybil Camsey thought it worthy of
personal criticism. It must have been something about the Mayor breaking the
Constitutional rules because she said that the Mayor has the authority to drive
a coach and horses through the Constitution. I have broken off and wasted best
part of an hour reading it but the nearest I got to it was that the Mayor could
interpret the rules how she wished (Paragraph 34.3). Surely that doesn't mean
she can change them wholesale?
Logically if the Mayor can adapt the Constitution as she thinks fit… well there
lies chaos - and before long that is what we got.
Councillor Newman tried again but the Mayor began to lose her temper as she told
him imperiously “I have ruled”. I was expecting ‘We are not amused’ next. Councillor
Newman formally moved a point of order but the
Mayor ignored him and asked for the vote to be taken. When Councillor Newman
spoke again he was accused of being disrespectful. “What about the rules?” he said.
The Mayor announced that “the Motion is carried”. She meant the Conservative
substitute one, not the real thing.
Before the next Agenda item could be taken, Councillor Daniel Francis also
queried the Mayor’s interpretation of the rules. What sort of interpretation
does a number like 30 minutes require? He was “seeking guidance on the issue
that one Member of the Council can overrule all other 62 Members on any
procedural rule”. The Mayor said feedback could be given after the meeting but
her decision was final. Councillor Francis asked for “feedback now”.
Councillor Newman asked where the Constitution gave the Mayor the right to use
her discretion on procedural rules. Clue: the answer is nowhere.
The Mayor moved on to the Leader’s Report. Ironically she introduced the
Item by saying it would run to 30 minutes - unless she changed her mind as she had done earlier.
The useful stuff reported by the Leader will appear in a later blog, this one is for covering Bexley
Council’s difficulty in understanding the concept of a Constitutional Democracy. In a final swipe
at the Labour group she reminded them that they were part of the Constitutional
Review Committee which approved the Constitution. Only a minority component of
course, with no power to reverse Tory ambitions.
When the allotted 30 minutes of the Leader’s Report was close to being used up
and no one from Labour had managed to get a word in edgeways, Councillor Borella asked
for an extension as permitted by Constitution Rule 22.1 subsection l. His
request was denied. Instead the Leader was asked to sum up.
Councillor Newman pointed out that Rule 25.1 did not allow discussion to go over
30 minutes. The Mayor told him to “kindly sit down”. She was breaking the Rules
and according to her she was entitled to do so.
Councillor Newman said he had a right to be heard immediately (Rule 30.5).
Councillor Francis said Rule 32.2 (if I heard him correctly) was being broken too.
The
Mayor decided to take advice from
the man who doesn’t appear to be a
solicitor. His advice could not be heard but the Mayor decided to press on anyway.
Councillor Francis came up with another Rule number that was being trampled on.
The Mayor told him to sit down too and ruled that the summing up could fall
outside the 30 minute discussion.
Councillors Newman and Francis both mentioned rule 25.1 again which
clearly states that the debate and the Leader’s contribution to it must not exceed 30
minutes. The Mayor was in blatant breach of the Constitution. The Mayor said
she was going to speak over them because they were both “appallingly rude” and irony is not her strong point.
Councillor Sharon Massey interjected “here, here”.
It was “my ruling and I will repeat it as often as you want” said the Mayor who
was quite clearly in the wrong.
To
dig her out of her hole Council Leader Teresa O’Neill proposed that
Councillors Newman and Francis should be banned from speaking and the Tories voted
100% to kill democracy rather than accept that the Mayor hadn’t a clue about
what was written in the Constitution. Failed headmistress Sybil Camsey had seconded it.
Councillor Danny Hackett uttered the two words "Madam Mayor" for which she
pronounced him “rude” too.
The meeting moved on to the next item.
The Mayor continued in the same belligerent manner.
It should be noted that most Conservative Members said absolutely nothing during
this unseemly episode. Only those named above. But the whips are obviously very effective.