Arms and fists all up in the air again?

Last night was again the Council's AGM, we wouldn't have bothered to write a post as apparently it was very similar to last years. With councillors awarding themselves different jobs which have already been decided in closed door discussions. The Tories and Lib Dems made their usual plea for a more impartial mayor as it is constitutionally supposed to be an unbiased position, and not the former Labour Deputy Whip as the Council administration got.

Like we said we wouldn't normally bother to write about this, as it is about as regular as the tides in the Thames. However at the very end of the meeting we are led to believe that the often outspoken half of the dynamic duo, Cllr Paul Webbewood managed to lose control of his senses again. By all accounts he got up at the end of the meeting, marched over to the Labour front bench and threatened the Labour Councillor and Chair of Licensing Cllr Ray Walker. Why you may ask? Was it because his local watering hole was refused a late license? No, apparently it because Cllr Ray Walker wouldn't let Tory Councillor Eileen Glover be on the licensing committee.

So let's just go over that again, a Lib Dem Councillor tried to get into a fight with a Labour Councillor over the views of a Tory Councillor. An all-party Royal Rumble!

Some answers on "Green, Blue, Black"

After finally getting our hands on the members questions from last months Council meeting it would like there were only 7,162 properties which did not have there bins emptied because they contained the wrong sort of rubbish in them. But that's not all, as there were also "2,000 green bins, 600 black bags and 400 nappies not collected in error." So at least now we know. These figures were just for the first week of the new rubbish collection plans. So who knows what it is up to now.

If anyone had problems getting though to Cleansweep to complain about the uncollected nappies smelling we the reason would be that there were over 20,665 calls to Cleansweep in January, Decembers was 7,306 for the whole month. So it looks like they were busy.

From what we've heard the only only thing of interest was the presentation by the NHS of the new service (cuts), that are being made to the hospitals that Greenwich people use.

Apparently the only thing of amusement was the Dynamic Duo attempting to justify the motion about nappies, or should that be motions in nappies? Either way one of the Councillors apparently asked them if they would like to collect their child's used nappies, as a sort of Lib Dem trial, to show everyone how it would work, before the Council took a proper decision on it. Well perhaps they wouldn't leave 400 nappy bags uncollected?

It's official; politician's talk s#!t

Having finally got our hands on a copy of this months' Council agenda one of the first things we normally look at is the Motions, mostly because they are on the first page. Something was a little different this time though, namely that all three of the political parties on Greenwich Council decided to put a motion in, normally it is just the Tories and Lib Dems as Labour is able to put on the agenda whatever it likes.

This time the lucky members of the public who decide to give up their evening to go along can look forward to the Tories talking about the London Bubble Theatre's lack of funding, Labour on the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change and finally the Lib Dems talking about used nappies. Yep that's right, in the same meeting as such heavyweight topics as Single Status proposals which could see the council forking out over £20m to council employees and a presentation about local health service cuts the Lib Dems' Dynamic Duo thought that time would best be spent on this;

Motion Signed by Councillors Paul Webbewood and Brian Woodcraft

The Council already encourages reusable nappies as an environmentally friendly alternative to disposables. Council now wishes to follow the example of many other local authorities and provide new mothers with a financial incentive to use reusable nappies. Council asks the Cabinet Member for Greener Greenwich [nb. Cllr Sidhu] to bring forward proposals for a local scheme, based on best practice elsewhere, by the end of the current financial year.

You could argue that depending on the amount of Rusks the nippers have eaten this could be the heavyweight topic they were hoping for, but its unlikely. Alternatively perhaps this is in preparation for the orange bags full of used nappies that haven't been picked up over the last couple of weeks.

Council U-Turn on School Crossing Patrol cuts?

Has the Council performed a U-turn on it's proposals to cut the number of school crossings in the Borough. The other week we asked whether the Council was lying or stating a change in policy after it said there would be no reduction in the number of lollipop ladies in the Borough, and now, in a new response, the Council appears to clarify that position further.

In the original budget cut proposals the intention was to cut back school crossing patrols by 15% to 49. However, in response to a question from one half of the Lib Dem dynamic duo, the Cabinet member for Environment and Community Safety, Cll O'Mara said,

"There are 60 School Crossing Patrol sites across the borough. 12 sites are currently vacant, of which 4 are awaiting patrols to be posted to the sites following recruitment in August 2006. A further recruitment exercise is to be carried out in New Year and it is hoped that the eight vacancies can be recruited then".

At first glance that appears to be a total about-turn on the original "efficiency savings", however, there does appear to be a little bit of spin here.

According to O'Mara's answer, 4 of the 12 vacancies have already been filled and are "awaiting patrols to be posted". However, apparently these were recruited in August, some four months ago. Why such a long wait? Is there four month intensive training for lollipop ladies? Further more, if the other vacancies are to be recruited in the New Year, then on the four month rule basis, we must assume that it will not be until at least May before they are in place.

Call us cynical if you will, but we think that this is one of those answers that the Council hopes no one follows up in four months time. We shall of course post a reminder when the time comes.