PLC Coalition politicise mayoralty

There were disgraceful scenes in the Council chamber this evening as Labour Councillors joined with Plaid Cymru and some Tories to scupper the chances of Ioan Richard becoming Lord Mayor.

Members of the PLC Coalition ignored a protocol they had all voted for only weeks before to settle a personal score against the Mawr Councillor.

Attempts to occupy the moral high ground were effectively abandoned when Tory Leader, Rene Kinzett, stood up and admitted that he and the other opposition parties had tried to do a deal behind closed doors.

As Councillor Peter Black pointed out, he was effectively seeking to bring party politics into the mayoralty. Was this really what it was all about - trying to secure better sinecures in return for supporting a particular candidate? No wonder the Administration refused to go along with such a grubby deal.

Update: I have been forwarded a lengthy. self-justifying e-mail from Councillor Kinzett to all Councillors in which surely he protests too much about this post. What he fails to mention is that he demanded of the Council Leader that in return for the support of his group for Ioan Richard, he wanted the Administration to back Lady Pennard as the Deputy.

This was unanimously rejected by the Adminstration Group, including the Leader. Despite claims by Kinzett that Chris Holley cannot command the support of his group, the evidence demonstrates the contrary view to be correct. Keep digging Rene.

The Silence of the Bland...

OK, I know I've asked this before, but I'd really like one of the Plaid/Lab/Con Coalition across at Inside Leg to address themselves to three questions that arise out of their shambolic performance over Scrutiny Chairs.

Firstly, now that we all know that the letter inviting them to take up Scrutiny Chairs sent in June 2004 is real, why did they not do so?

Secondly, why not just ask if the offer was still open? Was it that the PLC Coalition needed to win a victory - however unnessary - in order to look like an Opposition? If so, it's really not working that well.

Thirdly, why does the Labour element of the Coalition now believe that it is so important that Scrutiny should be in the hands of the Opposition? They never did when they were in power, so what can possibly have changed their minds?

Fourthly, will they turn up? They never bothered much before.

Is all well with the PLC Coalition?

I only ask after what I am told by members and onlookers from all sides about last night's Council meeting to set the budget and council tax for next year. It would be a shame if such a principled bunch began to fall out - though I predict it won't happen until they've voted their placemen and women as Chairs and Vice-Chairs to the committees they were too inefficient to be able to capture on the last two occasions. (But will Rob Stewart actually turn up to Regeneration Scrutiny when he's Chair? I'm told that he's only ever attended one meeting...)

First, despite the fact that Plaid Cymru's amendments had been agreed to beforehand, it seems that David Phillips was still trying to renegotitate them with Darren 'Baby Face' Price as he was proposing. No wonder Phillips is facing a leadership challenge.

Then Labour voted against the amended motion, thus opposing both the transfer of an extra £500K for improving facilities for disabled people, and the installation of a sprinkler system in the new Penyrheol School. Not that the last one is much of a surprise really, as when the school burned down the last time, Labour rebuilt it without a sprinkler system. At least they're consistent.

Rene 'Dear Leader' Kinzett's New Model Tories proposed a 2% council tax increase to be paid for by either running reserves down to a dangerous and possibly illegal level, or presumably by £1.4m cuts in services. They didn't have the guts to explain what they would cut, though new convert Margaret Smith rather let the cat out of the bag by giving away details of the Tories' scheme to do away with Council water coolers. Is this the best they can do?

It's time for the Three Amigos to devote one of their regular meetings to putting the PLC Coalition back on track. What they need is a single leader..a Great Leader perhaps? I'm waiting for the 'Dear Leader' to defect to Labour myself...he could then join the two Labour insiders who are out to replace the hapless Phillips.

Not a Coalition - honest!

All the constituent parts of the PLC Coalition loudly deny that they are in fact a Coalition. It's like the Pope denying he's a Catholic if you ask me.

As I've said before, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. In that context, I'm told that Rene 'Dear Leader' Kinzett, David Phillips, and Darren 'Baby Face' Price have taken to seeing Chris Holley together to talk about the Budget.

If there is no PLC Coalition, why do they need to do so? Such a visit only makes sense if they are working together, but don't trust each other that much...

PLC Coalition follow the cash...sorry... principles.

Well, I hear that the PLC Coalition's principled cash-grab went off almost without a hitch last Thursday.

My spies tell me that procedural chaos was only narrowly averted by Rene 'Dear Leader' Kinzett rushing about telling various of his Coalition members what to do. It seems that the most amusing sight was watching Labour politicians voting Tory, Tory politicians voting Labour, and Plaid voting for both of them. Still, it is heartening to see the different members of the Coalition learning to cooperate - when will we get their first joint policy statements, I wonder?

Now they'll be able to show us that all their yada yada about 'the importance they attach to scrutiny' was genuine by actually turning up for the meetings. The Labour element of the coalition never bothered much before. Perhaps the 'Dear Leader' and 'Baby Face' should have a word with their friend David Phillips?

Still no answer from Coalition leaders to the big questions , like why they are suddenly so convinced of the necessity of their running scrutiny when they either turned it down, (Plaid) or didn't bother to answer the offer letter (Labour) back in 2004. Neither did either party ever ask officially if the offer could be repeated. Almost makes you think that the whole rigmarole that we have gone through in the last weeks was a charade...

Another thing, why do Labour now feel it is so vital for the opposition to run scrutiny? They certainly didn't feel the same way when they were in charge prior to 2004. Then, the Masters of the Universe did not allow the opposition to have any Scrutiny Chairs...though to be fair, they did offer Vice -Chair positions, which some opposition councillors took up at the time.

Funny though, when the Assembly said that Scrutiny Vice-Chairs could get an allowance, Labour snatched them all back, and re-distributed them to their own councillors. A coincidence, I'm sure.

It all goes to reinforce the growing impression that Labour are in it for the cash, Kinzett's New Model Tories for revenge, and Plaid - well, who knows? By the way, is it true that the 'Dear Leader' now has two Chairs? If so, will he give up one of his two allowances?

A special responsibility

I am grateful to an anonymous e-mail, which was forwarded onto this site, for providing this information.

Throughout the present dispute over chairmanships on the Council one of the constant refrains of the opposition is that the present Administration is only in it for the money. That is far from the truth. Still it is a bit rich given the history of special responsibility allowances in Swansea.

In considering this we need to remember that Councillors' Allowances are set by the Government. In Swansea the Special Responsibility Allowances were set locally in accordance with that guidance, just like every other Council.

In the last full financial year of Swansea's ruling Labour regime, from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2003, before they lost control - the total spent on Special Responsibility Allowancess was £460,356.34 per. Two years on, for the second full financial year of the Swansea Administration between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2006, the total claimed in Special Responsibility Allowances was £375,282.25 per annum. A significant drop of nearly 20%, despite claims by Ray 'Ranter' Welsby that we have increased them by the same proportion.

The reason for this is that the Swansea Administration agreed to pay one fifth of their allowances into the street cleansing budget right from the start. The question now is will the Tory, Plaid Cymru, Labour Coalition do the same, or will the cost to taxpayers rocket back up to the previous figure?

Coalition Cooperation in Action

I notice that over at Inside Leg, the PLC Coalition (formerly New Labour) spin-site, much is made of 'things that needed to be taken apart' in yesterday's Environment Scrutiny committee. Having made enquiries, perhaps I could 'take apart' the voting for the Chair and Vice-Chair as a service to Plaid, Labour, and Conservative voters who think that these three are still separate entities?

Labour's June Burtonshaw is now Chair, and was voted in by a combination of Labour councillors, Darren 'Baby Face' Price of Plaid Cymru, and re-cycled Tory, Margaret Smith. Then Smith retained the Vice-Chair's post with the support of Labour and Plaid.

So there you have it. The Plaid-Lab-Con Coalition in action. Good to see them getting on so well together. Incidentally, surely it is about time that the PLC came clean and told us who actually leads their Coalition? They must do away with this sham of pretending to have three separate leaders.

Electoral Pact anybody?

Of course, there is one reason why Plaid and the Conservatives wouldn't be too worried about Labour getting £100,000 to campaign with in the local elections in 2008... perhaps they have an electoral pact?

It wouldn't do to have PLC Coalition members fighting each other, would it!

Grabbing the money

Surprisingly, a quick poll of Councillors has revealed that the only people who really care about the special responsibility allowances are those in the Plaid, Labour, Conservative Alliance.

So far the resistance to the PLC takeover has been largely motivated by sheer bloody-mindedness on the part of the Adminstration group. This is especially so when one considers that of the four who relinguished their post yesterday, one does not claim his Special Responsibility Allowance at all.

Still, whilst the Inside Outers continue to gloat, we can rest assured that they continue to neglect their real job of scrutinising the Administration. And if it takes an election for Chair and Vice Chair to get them to turn up for meetings then what is the harm in doing it every month.

Meanwhile, the question on everybody's lips is 'would David Phillips acknowledge the facts if he tripped over them?'