The proposed removal of supplementary questions

[DRiddle]

As most people on this forum are no doubt aware, on March 6th there will be a decision made which may well lead to the removal of supplementary questions which members of the public can submit to councillors following and initial question put in writing in advance.

Given that supplementary questions have been a cornerstone of our democratic process for literally decades, and no previous council has (to my knowledge) even raised this as ever being an issue, I wanted to know why this is even up for discussion?

Surely the key basic principles of any legitimate democracy, centre on the public's right to be a significant part of this democratic process?

Furthermore, all true democracies operate on a system of checks and balances. For example, our English Parliament is kept in check by The House of Lords. The American Political system relies on the balance provided to the Senate, by the House of Representatives.

In Hartlepool, our council has for many decades been largely controlled by a significant majority of councillors who are members of the Labour Party.

Aside from a small band of dedicated independent councillors (of one form or another), there is no meaningful balance provided to the dominance of the Labour Party.

Thus, I would strongly argue that the only true way to help provide some balance within our local democracy is via the public themselves (via the medium of probing public questions).

As was pointed out by Councillor Chairman Stephen Ackers-Belcher in a full council meeting on February 14th, the council itself is a democratically elected chamber. Democratically elected.

Perhaps it is worth remembering that the word 'democracy' originates from the Greek word 'demokratia' which means "Rule of the People".

Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny. Thus the proposed removal of a key part of our democratic process (supplementary questions) is surely a step towards dictatorship or tyranny?

Is any self respecting Hartlepool councillor going to really raise their hand and vote 'for' to a step towards tyranny?

My suggestion would be that if there is anyone , whatever your wider political views, who holds true democracy close to their hearts, that you attend the council meeting and make elected councillors aware that we will not be dragged towards totalitarianism.

[Inspector Knacker]

Br removing supplementary questions, you remove the need for the  councillor to think. They can give some bog standard answer and never have to justify or explain any flaws therein.
A bureacrats delight.

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

Good to see that Cllrs Brash and Hargreaves are all for improving the public's ability to question their representatives, but it looks as if SAB doesn't share their views ....

His distinctly waspish quotes to the Mail state "But we need to be able to conduct the business and sometimes in the past there have been cases where questions have been abused by people. People need to be up front and at times some are politically motivated in a sneaky way to catch people out."

It looks to me as if someone has been mightily upset and taken their ball in ... it's a pity that some of his sidekicks are so, so delicate and sensitive...


http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/a-question-of-how-to-change-1-5458073

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

How can you catch somebody out unless they have something to hide

[DRiddle]

I personally would be interested to know which questions are being referred to by this comment "there have been cases where questions have been abused by people".

I also find it ironic that the word 'abuse', in this sense means, 'misuse' or 'the improper use of something'.

Given some of the stories which have been carried on the main front page of this website in recent months, (none of which have been subject to any libel litigation) it is actually laughable to suggest that 'the improper use of something' is being done by the public.

[steveL]

"Sneaky?" . . . what a Dork  . . . by that does he mean that councillors don't always know what might be asked and would like more time to manufacture an answer.

I look forward to the day when Paxman gives a list of his questions to politicians a full seven days before he asks them.

[mk1]

Do we know which fence Well's is sitting on?

[SRMoore]

I thought there was usually just the one fence?

[DRiddle]

Do we know which fence Well's is sitting on?

Councillor Wells is the public face of the Conservative Party in Hartlepool. The Conservatives by their very history, tradition and essentially one of their key reasons for existing is to provide credible political opposition to other existing political parties, specifically Labour.

The entire political ethos held by a true Conservative is significantly diametrically opposed to that of a Labour Party member. Their overall political views could not be more polarized.

Thus, given that this appears to be broadly a Labour proposal, I have every confidence that Councillor Wells will vote against this and indeed any other significant proposal put forward by Labour.

Right Shane?

[SRMoore]

I would hope so, yes.

[mk1]

I guess that means  Ray hasn't yet told the others which way they will be voting...................

[tankerville]

Fat Chance of that happening.

I'll watch out for a squadron of pigs flying over the Civic Centre on the 6th March.

Labour & Conservative are one and the same with a portion of Independent's thrown in for good measure..

Just see who does vote and who doesn't!

Ray Wells has taken over the mantle from George Morris another Labour 'YES' man. The whole Council is fast becoming a laughing stock, but the joke is on us the taxpayer. and of course those who voted LABOUR.

[steveL]

Are the three Tories still talking to each other, Shane? My understanding is that Wells is pretty much in a party of one these days. Perhaps he's mastered Vera's signature too making his two colleagues now surplus to requirements.

A deal to make him Chair of the Contracts Committee will do the trick, I reckon. Only guessing, of course 

[DRiddle]

"But we need to be able to conduct the business and sometimes in the past there have been cases where questions have been abused by people.

"People need to be up front and at times some are politically motivated in a sneaky way to catch people out."

This quote is one of the most perplexing and oxymoronic i've ever actually read in print.
(He can look the word oxymoronic up on google when he reads this).

"The business?" "The business?" Questions, especially supplementary ones are part of that business. They should not viewed as an irritant that gets in the way of it. There are also strict guidlines already concerning the time allowed to ask the additional questions (one minute for each), as well as a lawyer on hand to explain whether they need to actually answer it.

Even if they do decide to answer it, they can basically say "I'll get back to you in writing" if they don't actually have an answer.

The 60 second time limit, professional advice on hand from a lawyer and the ability to essentially not answer the question there and then, doesn't appear to be enough for our councillors. They require, in addition to this, a weeks notice and pre warning.

Also to assert that some questions are "politically motivated" and to use that as justifiction for banning the immediate additional questions is again a total paradox (he can look that word up too).

Of course some questions put to political figures are politically motivated, that's the nature of this 'thing' we call 'politics'. There is probably no meaningful political question that one could put to a political figure which does not contain some element of political motivation.

To use that particular line of argument is tantamount to saying "I'm a footballer, but you know what? Some other footballers are attempting to kick the ball too, so we propose to ban football, although we're still allowed to call ourselves footballers, in fact it's probably best that we take full control of the ball... because it becomes irritating when other people try to play... but we're still footballers, it's just that no ones allowed to play us".

This proposal represents a new low in Hartlepool Politics. It is debatable as to whether any Councillor who votes for this new proposal can ever actually truely call themselves a politician again.

[SRMoore]

We are all still good friends don't worry Steve.

The Conservative party is committed to opening up local government and increasing public participation in decision making and scrutiny. Me too.