The consensus emerging from this week’s Swansea Council meeting at which earlier statements by two senior members allegedly in favour of ‘compulsory sterilisation’ were discussed at length is that it merely enabled a number of self-selecting individuals to confirm that their own parents should have been similarly restricted.
Much has been said in the past few weeks about the bizarre opinions offered up by Wendy Fitzgerald and Alan Robinson, but say what you like about the pair - and we often do – at least they took the matter of a failing children’s social services department seriously enough to be two of the eighteen councillors (out of a possible 72) who actually turned up to the now infamous member’s seminar. So much for all the reassuring soundbites about corporate parenting, improved scrutiny, etc, etc issued just a few months ago.
Whatever the intended outcome of the debate it was largely nullified by the disappearance of the two recalcitrant councillors, who hoofed it before the main event, and the prevailing windbag effect which was equally apparent during a spot of outrage of Vicky Pollard dimensions when Lib Dem Peter Black and tory leader Rene Kinzett were challenged about Twittering in the chamber. Predictably, the equally irrelevant issue of micro-blogging has now become the story and subsequent cause for comment.
But let’s get a grip. Neither Black or Kinzett have ever claimed to be anything like full-time councillors and are upfront about the other careers and priorities that they pursue outside Swansea. Both need to compensate for their absences either through gimmicks or else something eye-catching in PR terms. Neither is picky about the medium used or the opportunity to be exploited and that’s what makes them good politicians – and also slightly sad bastards with low attention thresholds.
But even we have to draw the line at Black’s iffy argument that Twitter is an extension of democratic engagement; not to mention his outright fib that public question time is an innovation recently introduced by the Lib Dems – or has he forgotten that Lis Davies was slagging off administrations from the gallery yonks before he and his mob slid into office?
There have admittedly been some changes in approach but none of them for the better. Cabinet members, for example, no longer table progress reports on major projects to council meetings so that questions can be asked of them. Working groups and unaccountable arms-length companies have sprung up to obfuscate responsibilities and help the executive to dodge any bullets. And later this week, the cabinet will be asked to form policy on flexible retirements for staff (a type of decision normally the exclusive domain of full council). A further agenda item will seek additional powers for the executive along similar lines – something which has no doubt already been given the nod by a compliant administration during an earlier ‘briefing’ held behind closed doors.
On this basis, if Twittering is the only evidence that Black can offer up of the openness and transparency promised by his crowd five years ago then not only is he taking the piss; he is not doing it particularly well. By comparison, the council’s management team are far more accomplished.
Much has been said in the past few weeks about the bizarre opinions offered up by Wendy Fitzgerald and Alan Robinson, but say what you like about the pair - and we often do – at least they took the matter of a failing children’s social services department seriously enough to be two of the eighteen councillors (out of a possible 72) who actually turned up to the now infamous member’s seminar. So much for all the reassuring soundbites about corporate parenting, improved scrutiny, etc, etc issued just a few months ago.
Whatever the intended outcome of the debate it was largely nullified by the disappearance of the two recalcitrant councillors, who hoofed it before the main event, and the prevailing windbag effect which was equally apparent during a spot of outrage of Vicky Pollard dimensions when Lib Dem Peter Black and tory leader Rene Kinzett were challenged about Twittering in the chamber. Predictably, the equally irrelevant issue of micro-blogging has now become the story and subsequent cause for comment.
But let’s get a grip. Neither Black or Kinzett have ever claimed to be anything like full-time councillors and are upfront about the other careers and priorities that they pursue outside Swansea. Both need to compensate for their absences either through gimmicks or else something eye-catching in PR terms. Neither is picky about the medium used or the opportunity to be exploited and that’s what makes them good politicians – and also slightly sad bastards with low attention thresholds.
But even we have to draw the line at Black’s iffy argument that Twitter is an extension of democratic engagement; not to mention his outright fib that public question time is an innovation recently introduced by the Lib Dems – or has he forgotten that Lis Davies was slagging off administrations from the gallery yonks before he and his mob slid into office?
There have admittedly been some changes in approach but none of them for the better. Cabinet members, for example, no longer table progress reports on major projects to council meetings so that questions can be asked of them. Working groups and unaccountable arms-length companies have sprung up to obfuscate responsibilities and help the executive to dodge any bullets. And later this week, the cabinet will be asked to form policy on flexible retirements for staff (a type of decision normally the exclusive domain of full council). A further agenda item will seek additional powers for the executive along similar lines – something which has no doubt already been given the nod by a compliant administration during an earlier ‘briefing’ held behind closed doors.On this basis, if Twittering is the only evidence that Black can offer up of the openness and transparency promised by his crowd five years ago then not only is he taking the piss; he is not doing it particularly well. By comparison, the council’s management team are far more accomplished.
8 Comments:
Fair comment, I misremembered on the public question time. It was not a deliberate fib as you claim. However, by the same token you cannot claim that arms length companies and working groups are the invention of this administration either. They were around long before the Liberal Democrats assumed the leadership of the Council and are not so easily got rid.
The only arms-length body that we are aware existed prior to 2004 was the waste disposal company (LAWDAC) and which the council was compelled to set up by govt. legislation. But we also admit to only having limited information so there may have been others. Our view however remains that the trend in Swansea has been towards a far less open and transparent form of local governance and whilst we are unsure if the Open Swansea Working Group is still active, the fact that its past proceedings were held entirely in private session is simply another case in point.
There is no difference between a real-time tweet on something said in a council meeting and a leaflet pushed through a letter box a few weeks later. You might even argue that the tweet is better for the environment by saving on paper, printing, etc.
I believe, though I am open to correction, that arms length companies were set up prior to June 2004 for the Liberty Stadium and the National Pool.
Oh and the Waterfront Museum as well. That was established as an arms length company prior to 2004.
Thanks for the information. As we understand it, the list you provide is one of managing bodies formed between the council and various funding partners or significant stakeholders, i.e. Swansea University at the National Pool, Museum of Wales at the Waterfront Museum and the Swans and Ospreys at Liberty. Perhaps you can advise as to what financial partnership underpins the trust recently set up to run LC and who seem to be able to change their members without public advert.
Ah you referred to Arms Length Companies in your post not Trusts. Yes the LC Trust is a different type of body altogether but there is a service level agreement between the Council and it that can be scrutinised just as there is Neath Port Talbot as I understand it. The principle is largely the same though - setting up an external body that can enjoy advantages not available to the Council alone.
OK, this is getting boring. The LC is run by Bay Leisure Ltd, a not-for-profit company, and we do not appreciate the use of semantics. If you think that the arrangement is satisfactory, despite no mention of the LC in any current scrutiny plans, then that is a matter for you. We have noted, as will have others, that you have not addressed any of the other points in the original post.
Post a Comment