4 November - A quick first report on this this week’s Council meeting
A number of Twitter exchanges over the past 48 hours suggested that Wednesday’s
Full Council meeting might be an interesting listen. I was unable to go, no
let’s be honest, I forgot all about it, but having waded through it I am somewhat disappointed by it all.
There may have been arguments in Chamber but the distant raised voices were never truly audible.
As that implies, the webcast was marred by a number of gremlins both old and new. It is a long time
since the cameras automatically homed in on speakers and the loss of that facility can make the newly
elected Councillors difficult to identify and on top of that the microphones
failed too often this time - which may have been an occasional blessing.
The new John Watson/Mick Barnbrook replacement, Dimitri from Sidcup asked two
questions. He probably wasted the first one by asking Cabinet Member Peter Craske
how he could afford to spend £90,000 on a couple of second hand Land
Rovers but hadn’t got £20,000 spare for a pedestrian crossing.
Easily dismissed by Councillor Craske saying that they were two different
budgets and one was Mayor Khan’s responsibility anyway. I am not sure that is
the whole truth but Craske reports rarely are.
A question about Children’s Centres caused Cabinet Member Philip Read to drone
on for nine minutes with the usual cuts mean improvements theme. Dimitri was not
impressed by the fact that the savings on Children’s Centres were much the
same as resurfacing a stretch of road. Councillor Read said a lot of people have
appreciated the improved road surfaces and I have to confess that I am one of them.
Councillor Larry Ferguson (Labour, Thamesmead East) asked a question relating to the Government’s fiscal
statement and how it will affect Bexley. As the one made on 23rd September has been
effectively abandoned, Cabinet Member Leaf was able to dodge that one as easily as
his colleague Peter Craske did 15 minutes earlier.
Councillor Baljeet Gill (Labour, Northumberland Heath) asked the Council Leader if she was against racism.
Whatever next? How stupid can these questions become but it was of course the
hook from which it was possible to criticise suspended Councillor John Davey for his Tweet about an ungrateful Nazarin Zaghari-Ratcliffe being sent back to Iran.
The supplementary question was why had the Tory Group not publicly condemned John Davey.
Every time I decide that I can never vote Tory again along comes a Labour clown
to make me think it out again. The Tories threw John Davey out of the party and
referred him to the Code of Conduct Committee.
How public are they supposed to be?
What else were they supposed to do? Get out the stocks and provide eggs and
tomatoes? Baroness Bexley wisely said she would not interfere with the agreed processes.
Councillor Curtois (Conservative, Falconwood & Welling) asked what impact the “Labour backed” bin strike would have on
Bexley’s recycling record. Councillor Craske said it would take a miracle to
maintain the 18 years long record; not that it ever was that long but he likes
to delude himself. (I will resist the temptation to link back to the evidence as
he appeared to be quite upset about it already.)
There was no time for Labour Councillor Anna Day’s (Slade Green & Northend) question about Southeastern slashing train services across the borough.
Labour Leader Stefano Borella then proposed his Motion which might be summarised as tackling the ‘Heat or Eat’ crisis.
Nearly ten minutes of microphone failures ensured that little is known of the
detail except that there was a Conservative amendment.
Their reasoning was that the Government had already provided more help than the six month old Motion was asking for.
Councillors Borella and Francis complained that the Conservative Amendment bore little relationship to Labour’s
original, the only overlap being the words “This Council notes”, but they were over-ruled.
The webcast, both cameras and microphones, failed to show the Labour Group voting but comment from Councillor
Francis made it clear that that they did not support the Amendment.