"FULL COUNCIL MEETING – FIVE-AND-A-HALF HOURS TO ACHIEVE
WHAT?
Yesterday Bradford Council met. All ninety of us gathered
to, in theory, make decisions about the things that matter to the residents or
Bradford. So what did we do?
The first part of the meeting was fine. We received five
petitions asking for the Council to act on various matters and these were
referred to committees for further consideration. We asked questions of the
leader and received financial and corporate planning documents. From a four pm
start we’d concluded this process by about ten to six.
The meeting however finished over three hours later during
which time we:
1.
Agreed to write letters to the Home Secretary,
the Education Secretary, and the Boundary Commission. In the last case the
letter concerns issues not within the remit of the commission as it simply
criticises the criteria given to that Commission by Parliament and Government.
2.
Rejected proposals to recognise and support e-cigarettes
as an effective smoking cessation method that is used by 20-30,000 Bradfordians
3.
Turned down taking positive action against
dangerous and anti-social driving
4.
Had an hour long debate about education that
resolved nothing at all (except that a majority of Councillors don’t agree with
grammar schools)
5.
Voted down the opportunity for the Executive to
lead on Bradford Council’s response to the flooding in December 2015. Instead
Council decided it was fine for an update to go to a scrutiny committee in six
months time
6.
Agreed the salary packages of two senior
officers
We spent a whole evening failing to act on things that
actually matter to the Bradford public like dangerous driving, smoking deaths
and flooding. Instead the Controlling Labour group preferred to spend time
debating a 1984 mass picket in South Yorkshire, moaning about national
education policy, and moralising about refugees.
It is difficult to justify keeping Councillors in the
meeting for hours when all we do is pass motions instructing the Chief
Executive to write letters to people. Yet this is all the current Labour
leadership seem to want to do. This year we’ve written letters to a host of
government ministers all of which are carefully crafted by officers and all of
which receive carefully word answers that change nothing.
But when it comes to taking real action – doing things as a
Council – the Labour leadership consistently vote down proposals. As a result,
the Council is clear that it isn’t interested in reducing the harm from
smoking, developing a more active road safety strategy and treating the risk of
flood as a priority."
....
1 comment:
I had a discussion with a local GP yesterday who has a particular interest and expertise in asthma and COPD, for which smoking is the biggest cause. I asked him what his view on vaping was, he is very supportive as the evidence shows it genuinely helps people quit smoking. He also stated that the fears around non smokers starting vaping (and maybe moving on to cigarettes) are unfounded so far. Although he did concede that there is a lack of data on long term affects of vaping.
Post a Comment