Thoughts
on the debate in Full Council
2nd October 2008
The
following motion was on the agenda to be debated in Full Council on 2nd
October 2008, moved by
Councillor Terry Follows
and seconded by Councillor Alan Rigby:
“This City
Council has no confidence in SERCO or the recent building schools
for the future consultation exercise and calls upon the City Council
to:
(i) instruct
the Executive to reconsider all the building schools for the
future proposals and in particular give a commitment to keep open
Trentham
High School.
(ii) instruct the Executive to consider, despite the potential
financial
costs, termination of the SERCO contract and awarding a new contract
for the
remainder of the period of Government intervention.
(iii) instruct the Executive to reconsider the proposed site (Park
Hall) for
the Academy planned to replace Edensor High School, in the light of the
representations made by parents and others”.
This motion had no
earthly chance of being passed for one simple reason. Termination of
the Serco contract would cost the Council around £2 million. The
Government would consider this to be a total waste of taxpayers money,
and all the Councillors would be liable for the two million.
An amendment was
therefore tabled, moved by Councillor Kent-Baguley and seconded by
Councillor Salih:
This
City Council has no confidence in the Executive's recent Building
Schools for the Future consultation exercise and calls upon the City
Council to:
i)
Condem the Executive's decision to divert debate and decision of the
Building Schools for the Future proposals from Full Council and in
particular condemns the Executive's plan to close Trentham High School.
ii)
Delete the whole of ii)
iii)
Instruct the Executive to reconsider the proposed site (Park Hall) for
the Academy planned to replace Edensor High School, in the light of
representations made by parents and others and further condemns the
Executive's decision to impose 5 Academies without any public debate.
A
ten minute recess was called and the various political parties
retired to be instructed on the party line (which, as it turned out,
was
the same for the Labour Party, the CIA and the Lib Dems. Suprise,
suprise!)
Debate
on the amendment followed. In one particular attack on opponents of
Academies, directed at Councillors Kent-Baguley and Salih, Councillor
Roger Ibbs, Portfolio holder for Childrens and Young Peoples' Services,
let slip the following (quoted verbatim):
" ...
you would turn away £200 million if you even have
to have one Academy".
Mr Ibbs has confirmed our suspicions -
BSF funding for Stoke-on-Trent is dependent on Academies being part of the programme.
Government coercion - pure and simple!
A named vote was called. Several Councillors had absented themselves, no doubt to avoid having to vote against the Party Line.
The amendment was defeated by 26 votes to 25. Voting was, of course, the Lab/CIA/Lib Dem unholy alliance against the rest. The outcome of the recorded vote on the amendment was as follows:-
Councillors Baddely (BNP), Batkin (BNP), M. Bell (City Independents), Burgess (BNP), Coleman (BNP), Conteh (City Independents), Dale (City Independents), J. Davis (City Independents), Follows (City Independents), Hall (City Independents), James (City Independents), A. Joynson (Non-Aligned), P. Joynson (Non-Aligned), Kent-Baguley (Potteries Alliance), Marfleet (BNP), Mitchell (City Independents), Naylor (City Independents), Pyatt (City Independents), Rigby (City Independents), Salih (Non-Aligned), Sandland (BNP), Simmonds (BNP), A.Walker (BNP), E. Walker (BNP) and Webb (Libertarian).
Against the amendment (26):
Elected Mayor (Meredith, Lab), Lord Mayor (Capey, City Independents), Councillors B. Ali (Lab), Z. Ali (LibDem), Barnes (Lab), J. Bell (Lab), Bowers (LibDem), Brian (CIA), Clarke (LibDem), M. Davis (Lab), Edwards (Lab), Garner (Lab), Gratton (Lab), Ibbs (CIA), Iqbal (Lab), Irving (CIA), Knapper (Lab), Lyth (CIA), Matloob (Lab), Najmi (Lab), Pervez (Lab), Powell-Beckett (CIA), Reynolds (Lab), Shotton (Lab), Tolley (Lab) and Wanger (CIA).
Absent (10):
Councillors Beeston (City Independents), Billington (LibDem), Bridges (City Independents), Conway (Lab), Daniels (CIA), Knight (Potteries Alliance), Matthews (CIA), Ryan (CIA), Sutton (LibDem), and Ward (City Independents).
If the Lord Mayor had voted with the rest of the City Independents, the amendment would have been carried. Pressures of the Office?
One very strange ocurrence: the Elected Mayor, as a "sixty-first Councillor" has a vote in the Chamber. Suprisingly, he did not excuse himself from this vote. Unsurprisingly, he voted against the amendment - in other words, he voted not to censure himself. The amendment was lost by one vote - that of the Elected Mayor.
Ethical? Most certainly not!
Yet another example of the total democratic deficit that exists in Stoke-on-Trent.
Debate then began on the original motion, which, of course, had no chance of success because no (sane) Councillor is going to vote themselves into a debt of £32,786.89
