| Topic: | Re:Re:Proposed closure of Wandsworth Museum | |
| Posted by: | James Dixon | |
| Date/Time: | 11/03/07 23:20:00 |
| It is interesting to compare the overall way in which Wandsworth Council runs its affairs, with Bexley Council, both having enormous Conservative majorities. I think Wandsworth has 51 Conservatives, and 9 Labour. Bexley has 54 Conservatives, and again 9 Labour. But whilst the balance here has not changed for a very long time, that in Bexley is new –as of last May, up to which time Labour was in power. A friend is a Conservative Bexley Councillor, and we discussed the comparative positions last week. 3 interesting points emerged in the context of the current Museum issue: [1] Composition of committees. The general rule apparently is that the make-up of committees should be proportionate to the overall numbers in the Council. However, Bexley feels that it is not appropriate to have just one opposition member in any committee, because it is virtually impossible from a practical point of view to act alone in these circumstances; Labour has therefore been given the option of having 2 members on every committee, whilst capping Conservative numbers at 12. Looking at their website [which is better than Wandsworth’s, as you can see at a glance which party every Councillor is from] it would seem that Labour simply has not got the manpower to put up 2 members in every instance. Wandsworth seem to have 2 Labour on every committee, which is good, for the sake of good government, but crucially in the Finance Sub-Committee, there are only 4 members overall, with just one Labour. Given this is the key area where the initial decision to make cuts would have been made, is just one opposition representative sufficient, however good his calibre? [2] ‘Brightside’. Bexley’s equivalent is published quarterly, and the Conservative Chief Whip contacts the Labour Chief Whip every time with regard to proposed content. Earlier comments in this thread have pointed to the unacceptable level of self-satisfaction in ‘Brightside’, and whilst I personally read it regularly, I do think there is a high ‘squirm factor’. It is apparently illegal to say anything like ‘We Conservatives have been doing a wizard job on dustbin-emptying’ or whatever, an element of spin certainly oozes in. Could not the opposition have the right to designate, say, 2 pages for issues where things are not so bright, and then leave the editor [who must be a Council official?] to address how the Council is going to resolve the point? And if something is actually going to happen, surely that must be bright? As to the current issue’s copy on the Museum, I am not entirely happy with the precise wording. There’s talk of a ‘shortfall’ of £5 million. The cognoscenti may know what that is about, but there is a risk that the average reader will take that to mean that there is a negative balance on the 2007/8 Budget, and the Council is going to have to draw on reserves, when I think the contrary has been shown earlier. A small point, but these things all add up… [3] Relations with Ken Livingstone. This is an interesting one. Bexley under Labour did not get on with Ken. Bexley under the Conservatives is trying another tack – and they are already reaping some dividends. Ken has chipped into legal fees on a joint battle about an incinerator; and into construction costs of a link road into a freight depot. Contributions had not been expected under either heading, apparently. So what are the chances of getting Ken to contribute to the Museum? Have we even asked? Possibly there is not even an expense heading under which the GLA could contribute? Or perhaps the financial case for closure this year is currently so weak that Ken would simply say….. Anyhow, just thought I would raise the point. |