Labour rebellion votes for laziness?
Yet again it seems that leaving the Council Meeting early in order to get a drink in the pub has meant that we missed something of note. It would appear that for one of the first times ever the controlling Labour Group rebelled against its leadership.
According to the rules when a Full Council meeting goes past a certain time they have to have a vote on whether to extend it by ten minutes or so. When the vote came the leader of the Council , Chris Roberts, and his deputy Peter Brooks voted to do so (along with the opposition councillors). Meanwhile the rest of the Labour Group all voted against.
Now some people might say that we have it in for Roberts and Brooks but on this occasion we don't. Unlike their rebellious colleagues these two didn't vote for laziness.
According to the rules when a Full Council meeting goes past a certain time they have to have a vote on whether to extend it by ten minutes or so. When the vote came the leader of the Council , Chris Roberts, and his deputy Peter Brooks voted to do so (along with the opposition councillors). Meanwhile the rest of the Labour Group all voted against.
Now some people might say that we have it in for Roberts and Brooks but on this occasion we don't. Unlike their rebellious colleagues these two didn't vote for laziness.
posted by greenwich.watch at 9:31 am
10 Comments:
Perhaps Peter 'what do I get paid for'Brooks is trying to make up his hours after all the 'missed' meetings!? After all there must be a lot to talk about.
But I agree, at least it showed some committment from those who requested to extend the meeting duration.
Or perhaps that's what they want you to think?
Knowing full well that they have plently of Labour paycheque cashers waiting to vote it down.
What was the result of the vote?
If the leaders knew that enough of their party were going to vote to go home then they could safely vote for an extension, be seen to be wanting to work hard but still be home on time for a cup of tea.
Charlton average: cynical but oh so true...hadn't thought of it that way. I had allowed my cynical, but based on experience, view to be clouded over by a little bit of optimism. And that is dangerous place to be - optimistic with G.Council! Thank you for bringing me back to earth ;)
Well all the Labour group had to do was to have a quick meeting in the bar beforehand and for someone to say "look, we're going to get roasted for this whole airport business. We need to look good. There's more of us than them and they're as useless as us, for which we should be thankful, imagine if they were organised you'd have had to go to those bl**dy airport meetings. Anyway if you lot all vote for us to go home when the bell goes Chris and Peter can vote no. They look good. We get to go down the pub. They get the beers in. Plan?"
So cynical! Shocking!
Is not three and a half hours long enough for any meeting?!!!
I've been in many meetings that last longer than that. They're also about relatively small things compared to running Greenwich.
I don't think that 3 1/2 hours is too long, especially when they haven't had a full meeting for about 4 months.
3.5 hours is a long meeting. But one such meeting in a 4-month period? Seems these proxies of democracy have got it easy!
nothing wrong with healthy cynicism.........
Post a Comment
<< Home