The proposed removal of supplementary questions

[mk1]

.

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

But we were asking about Ray................

[DRiddle]

Shane, you're a committed Christian right? Matthew 27.3 would be some people's thinking depending on how things pan out i'd imagine.

[SRMoore]

.

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

But we were asking about Ray................

Ask Ray then.

Mr Riddle - Interesting choice. Could well be true.

[DRiddle]

Currently, I see this as a 21-13 vote in favour of gagging the public.

[steveL]

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.

Yea OK, Shane. I will file that response in the same folder as "It's disappointing for the Conservative Party but we must remain true to our principles, true to our course, and that way we can win people back."

Maybe you could ask Ray if he still has George in his phone book because every time George rings him it comes up with 'number not available.'

[Vincent]

Just to be the devils advocate - the whole idea of asking the council supplementary questions is to clear up any confusion that a member of the audience has and not to put a specific councillor on the spot and under pressure, Yes, he or she has the right to say "I will get back to you" but why put that pressure on in the first place?
The meeting agenda is available before the meeting and anyone can either email or write to the council or councillor for clarification.
Invariably the council meets to agree the agenda and not to debate in it in public.
This forum does a great job in putting out the views of individuals but the idea of an open and unlimited discussion with the council or councillor in the council chamber during a planned meeting is a nonsense
The Localism Act is devolving greater powers to neighbourhoods and give local communities more control, that's were we should put our efforts to change what we don't like, not meekly asking for clarification of something we can't change

[SRMoore]

The cast iron guarantee you are talking about was a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and would have been given had Brown called a general election before signing it. Brown didn't call an election and signed the treaty regardless.

So tell me, should call me Dave still have held a referendum on signing the Lisbon treaty in 2010 after it's already been signed?

But hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good soundbite? Right?

[Vincent]

IF the Liberal Democrats had been elected their aspiration may have been fulfilled but they where NOT elected.

When the Coalition was formed priorities were agreed and pulling this country out of the massive hole Labour left us in was the one thing we had to do.

The country cannot afford free university fees in the current climate - simple

All our efforts must be cutting costs and generating income from whatever source

[DRiddle]

Invariably the council meets to agree the agenda and not to debate in it in public.
This forum does a great job in putting out the views of individuals but the idea of an open and unlimited discussion with the council or councillor in the council chamber during a planned meeting is a nonsense
The Localism Act is devolving greater powers to neighbourhoods and give local communities more control, that's were we should put our efforts to change what we don't like, not meekly asking for clarification of something we can't change

This is utter rubbish. No one said it was about debate in public. No one said it should be an open and unlimited discussion. The questions have to be asked within two minutes in total and there is always the option of a one word answer i.e "yes" or "no" as well as the option to reply in writing. Furthermore, no member of the public has the ability to instigate a debate in a full council meeting. We are not allowed to speak (other than to ask the questions).

Half the issues with certain public questions leading to lengthy debates in recent months have come due to the COUNCILLORS debating the issue raised, no one else.

If this is about limiting the length of debates surrounding additional questions, the simple thing for the councillors to do is not debate, and just allow the person asked to answer the question.

[SRMoore]

Don't worry I'm not getting paranoid, Stephen. I simply despair when ridiculous statements like the 'cast iron Dave' are made by people who know better.

[Vincent]

Invariably the council meets to agree the agenda and not to debate in it in public.
This forum does a great job in putting out the views of individuals but the idea of an open and unlimited discussion with the council or councillor in the council chamber during a planned meeting is a nonsense
The Localism Act is devolving greater powers to neighbourhoods and give local communities more control, that's were we should put our efforts to change what we don't like, not meekly asking for clarification of something we can't change

This is utter rubbish. No one said it was about debate in public. No one said it should be an open and unlimited discussion. The questions have to be asked within two minutes in total and there is always the option of a one word answer i.e "yes" or "no" as well as the option to reply in writing. Furthermore, no member of the public has the ability to instigate a debate in a full council meeting. We are not allowed to speak (other than to ask the questions).

Half the issues with certain public questions leading to lengthy debates in recent months have come due to the COUNCILLORS debating the issue raised, no one else.

If this is about limiting the length of debates surrounding additional questions, the simple thing for the councillors to do is not debate, and just allow the person asked to answer the question.

Two minutes to ask a question is an awfully long time and your question certainly caused a debate (well done by the way)

If Councillor Hall had answered your question with a simple "no", would you have been happy,have you wrote to him for clarification??

[DRiddle]

If Councillor Hall had answered your question with a simple "no", would you have been happy,have you wrote to him for clarification??

My question was to the Mayor. In addition, if I had recieved a one word answer to any question I asked and I wasn't satisfied with the answer, do you know what I would have done?.................I'd have used my supplementary question(s).

Hence why I believe keeping them is so important.

[steveL]

The time allowed to ask a question is strictly limited as is the time allowed to ask any supplementary questions. The total time allowed for public questions as an agenda item is a maximum of 30 minutes. If it goes on any longer than this then it is because the Chairman has allowed it to do so.

There is no debate on the part of the questioner - he asks his question and that is it. If the answer provided falls short then the questioner has the chance to ask two supplementary questions on the same subject - he is not allowed to take part in any debate. Members of the public who have not submitted question 7 days beforehand are not allowed to speak at all.

What has happened of late is that Councillors themselves have gone off into debate and the Charman has failed to control this. This will not be solved by restricting the right of the public to ask questions.

[mk1]

I hear the fat*ty Belchers want to introduce an opening statement for each councill meeting where the thick one can  list his latest 'fantastic' fund raising successes whilst wearing a Niramax tee-shirt!

[testing times]

This should be seen in the context of Mr Hall's reaction to having his decions questioned. If Labour still go ahead with this then they deserve everyone's contempt.