Thursday, 1 May 2008

Damp squib

This afternoon's meeting of the Council's Resources Scrutiny Committee, which had as an agenda item the consideration of the consultants' report on the £1.9m overspend on the Eastern Transport Corridor, turned out to be a damp squib. Opposition councillors called for a Task and Finish Review Group to be set up to look at the matter in more detail than was possible this afternoon. With only slight hesitation, the Chair agreed. And there, despite the Conservatives' attempts to debate the report at today's meeting as well, the story ends - for now.
There will now be an all-day meeting next Friday, held in private, at which the report will be discussed.
Perhaps the only item of interest to report is that, in contrast to the Resources Scrutiny meeting about the overspend on the Pedestrian Heart, which the Leader of the Council attended, and proceeded to dominate, at today's meeting the Leader was absent. Cllr Lyonette, the Cabinet Member with responsibiity for transport, did attend. If I was him, I'd be very worried that the Leader chose not to attend.
Ever felt you've been hung out to dry?

3 comments:

Ian G Haszeldine said...

You forgot to mention that your leader Cllr Swainston supported the tory position and a democratic vote was taken which again your Leader Cllr Swainston supported,(even stated that he only had two hour to spare on the whole agenda.)

Labour members turned up ready to debate this matter, the vote supported by your party meant this was not possible. Democratic process.

Also I feel that not allowing this motion would, I would have been accused of blocking debate,

Stop being economical with the facts.

The relevant cabinet Member in attendence is appropriate.

On the positive side it was nice to see you at the meeting even if you have to have your hand held by your agent.

Mike Barker said...

Welcome to the blogosphere, Ian!
My post says "Opposition Councillors": implicit in that is Martin's suport for the Conservatives' position.
The democratic process will, I'm sure, be well served next Friday.
I said you agreed to the motion, but can't see where I have been economical with the facts.
The point about the non-attendance of the Leader was that he DID attend when you debated the Pedestrian Heart overspend, so his absence on this occasion could be taken to indicate an unwillingness to put himself forward in support of his embattled colleague.
Not hand-holding, Ian, merely a co-incidence! I attended as an interested councillor, not a PPC!

Mike Barker said...

By the way, Ian, at last week's meeting, you said that the Task & Finish Review would be held in private. Having checked the Constitution, I can find no requirement for this. If you were happy for last week's meeting to consider this subject in public, then I can't see why you said the T&F should be held in private.