If you though that the London Assembly's AGM was a debate and a series of votes to decide who best to be the chairs and deputy chairs of our various committee, think again.
Before the elections I had a number of conversations with the leaders of other groups in the Assembly about a more proportional allocation of posts in the Assembly. I thought that there was a recognition that the old way of doing things wasn't healthy and reduced the effectiveness of our scrutiny. Clearly those talks took place before the Labour, Lib Dems and Greens knew how many members they would have.
Once they realised they had the numbers to steam roll their way through the Assembly those grown up discussions were chucked out. It has been revealed that rather than continue with proper cross party talks the Conservative group found out that a back room deal had been done which excluded our members from playing their full part in the work of the London Assembly.
A copy of their agreement can be read in full here and as you can see it sets everything out for the next four years. I can't really see the point in the next thee AGMs, the decisions have already been made.
I draw your attention to the final lines which state: "Therefore the Labour group will support resources being
allocated to the smaller groups that provide adequate and appropriate resources
to support Group management and overheads". What this says is that in return for joining the stitch up the Lib Dems and Greens can count on the votes of the Labour group in the allocation of funding. Don't be surprised to see the Lib Dems and Greens do rather well out of the budget allocation vote in a week or so's time.
Are the Labour group buying votes with your money? We will be referring this to the GLA Monitoring Officer to let him decide, but it smells pretty dirty to me.
PCC register 'would deter mavericks'
25 minutes ago
Posts
3 comments:
Yes, of course doing a deal with the Libdems in order to maintain a grip on power is something the Tories would eschew, would they not? They would never, for example, offer a deal to the treacherous Libdems for a load of cushy ministerial posts, in exchange for participation in a coalition government ...
Congratulations on your new post at LFEPA, and I am sure all Londoners hope, post Coleman, that your appointment is the mark of a new era in the management of out emergency services, with rather less confrontation - and fewer lunches & taxi fares at our expense!
James it all seems quite reasonable to me.
3 quotes from it:
"It includes a number of positions for the Conservative Group"
"Ensuring the Mayor is fully held to account with the non-mayoral parties taking the lead."
"We hope that the Conservative Group will nominate a Deputy Chair for the final two years"
Would you not agree that the Mayor will be best scrutinised/challenged by parties/people who have a different viewpoint?
Regarding funding, your party does hold the Mayor's office, with that significant say on appointments etc.
Either way, well done on being re-elected. I do hope that we'll see significant progress on road safety/cycling issues in the next 4 years particularly given all of the parties represented on the Assembly signed up to London Cycling Campaign's Love London Go Dutch pre-election pledge.
One thing which fortunately it now seems that there is cross-party agreement on.
Jon,
Thank you for you kind congratulations.
With regard to your points. Where the agreement says "It includes a number of positions for the Conservative Group" it is worth noting that we were no involved in these negotiations and were presented with this as a fete accompli.
"Ensuring the Mayor is fully held to account with the non-mayoral parties taking the lead." I have no problem with them taking the lead, it is the fact that we are completely excluded I have a problem with.
"We hope that the Conservative Group will nominate a Deputy Chair for the final two years" again, not a negotiated position, Deputy Chair is a meaningless position, it is mainly a post to prepare the next year’s Chair for the post. It is offered as just enough to not make the whole stitch up look completely farcical.
You asked "Would you not agree that the Mayor will be best scrutinised/challenged by parties/people who have a different viewpoint?", yes and the Conservatives on the Assembly have a range of views on things which have differed to the Mayor's and we have not been shy in expressing them. If you subscribe to the idea that a Conservative AM cannot scrutinise a Conservative Mayor would you be happy for none of us to turn up to work for the next four years as that is the natural extension of your argument?
We would provide a different but equally valid form of scrutiny.
"Regarding funding, your party does hold the Mayor's office, with that significant say on appointments etc." The two a separate, the group funding is for our scrutiny role and to service the needs of our electorate. The Labour/Lib Dem/Green stitch up denies our local voters part of their voice here at City Hall.
Post a Comment