What is the point of the Executive?

Ian Greenwood’s performance at Tuesday’s Executive meeting in attempting to shout me down and denying me the opportunity to raise a point of order about the proposed closure of Manningham baths forces one to ask: what, exactly, is the point of the Executive? If, as he says, the decision on the baths – and, presumably, on all the other cuts recommended in the proposed budget – has already been taken, then it appears to be just a rubber stamp.

But the absence of People’s Coalition members from the public benches raises another question: what is the point of the Coalition, if it cannot muster attendance as the cuts bureaucracy rumbles on to automatic endorsement at tomorrow night’s full Council meeting?

Possibly they feel, with some reason, that the answer to my first question is that attendance at this rubber-stamp body serves no useful purpose. Of course, this is what the Labour cabal would like to happen. But, logically, we could go further: since there’s unlikely to be any meaningful opposition to the proposed cuts, is there any point in our turning up at the full Council, either?

I do not take this view. Of course, in the last analysis, we need to take opposition on to the streets, making it clear to Labour councillors that their very presence in the Council chamber itself will be at risk next May if they do not show some political muscle. Already opposition to library closures is growing, and this grassroots movement needs to be bolstered by the active support of People’s Coalition members. There is a dangerous tendency in the localities for opposition to focus on the possibility of local volunteers taking over the role of the local authority in running the libraries threatened with closure. This option should not be rejected. At the last People’s Coalition conference, I urged a two-pronged reaction to the attacks on social services: opposing cuts but also putting in place autonomous alternatives when the cuts are being bulldozed through.

But, basically, the danger of majoring at this early stage on the possible role of volunteers' filling the gap when the Council abdicates its responsibilities is to endorse the big lie of David Cameron’s Big Society scam.

What was notable at yesterday’s Executive was the absence of trade union representation on the floor of the chamber, since issues raised, like the need for an Equal Opportunities Assessment, were dealt with in the huge amounts of documentation distributed to all those present. There were also summaries of trade union representations (though, for some reason, these were marked “private and confidential”; I do not feel bound by this embargo, and I have hard copy versions available to any trade union reps who wish to consult them, if only to see if their views have been summarised accurately).

We must not allow our opposition to be worn down by the bureaucratic red tape, whose only function, it seems to me, is to render the proceedings opaque and unaccountable to the electorate while, at the same time, piously proclaiming their adherence to democratic principles. We should not surrender the pass to them so readily.

We are working for the fullest possible local representation on the big TUC demo in London on March 26, and this is correct. But the defeat of the cuts strategy will not be achieved by walking through Westminster under the benign eyes of the authorities. A much more important point of struggle will be two days earlier, at the full Council.


(Note: Please see author's correction in the comment, below.)

For the benefit of those who do not know what I’ve been on about in all the foregoing, I shall summarise the issues I attempted to raise on the Executive, and how I dealt with the chair’s diktat.

1.     As I have already reported, the budget recommendations include a proposal to close Manningham pool, at an estimated saving of £119,000. These recommendations were distributed after the last meeting of the Executive, on Friday, February 18, had been adjourned until Tuesday, February 22, and were therefore never discussed, in general or in detail.

2.                 On Monday, I emailed Ian Greenwood, and the three Manningham councillors, as follows:

As a Manningham resident and regular user of Manningham Pool, I seek an opportunity to address the executive on the question of its closure.

I am concerned at the fact that a number of elderly swimmers (myself among them) use the pool every Tuesday morning and there is clearly an important health issue at stake if this facility is withdrawn.

I am concerned that there has been no consultation with local people about this proposal and I plan to raise this at the Parochial Church Council of St Paul's Church, Manningham, of which I am an elected member, suggesting that we should approach other churches in the area through the Manningham and Girlington council of churches, to make a joint approach to the council on this matter.

I should emphasise that, at this stage, I speak for no one but myself as an individual. I am a supporter of Bradford People's Coalition Against the Cuts, but I hold no office in that organisation and do not speak for them on  this or any other matter.

Nevertheless, I feel that as a concerned local elector I should have an opportunity to question the thinking behind the proposed closure.

3.                 Ian Greenwood replied as follows:

The decision to recommend closure was taken last week so it is not before the committee today.  It is not appropriate therefore for anyone to address the committee.  We recognise that consultation has been limited because of the provisions of the Section 188 notices.  There will be a consultation exercise after full Council takes a view on Thursday.

4.                 In view of his statement that the decision had already been taken, I rose at the beginning of yesterday’s Executive to raise the following point of order:

"Before you continue your meeting, chair, I wish to raise a procedural point of order.

"Yesterday I advised you that I wished to address this meeting in opposition to the proposal to close Manningham Baths because of the impact of closure upon the health of elderly clients who regularly use the baths for the senior session every Tuesday morning.

"Today you have advised me that there would be no point in my addressing this meeting because the matter has already been decided.

"What therefore is the point of this Executive? Is it merely a rubber stamp for decisions taken by some cabal outside the democratic process? And how can such a decision be taken without consultation with the people concerned?"

Unfortunately, instead of hearing me out politely and ruling on the matter, he attempted to shout me down and called upon security staff to remove me from the chamber. They came and turned off the microphone and laid hands on me to remove me physically, but I continued my brief point of order then sat down. I was asked by one guard if I would now “behave”, but I did not reply to this.

5.                 Immediately after the meeting, I emailed Ian Greenwood as follows:

“I'm sorry, I could not hear your ruling today because you were shouting me down when I was attempting to raise a procedural point of order.

"You say that 'There will be a consultation exercise after full Council takes a view on Thursday.'

"How will this function? Would I be allowed to speak on Thursday?"

At the time of writing I have received no reply to this request. Meanwhile, I am preparing a local petition on the issue, and will be raising the matter at every opportunity, including a lobby of local councillors’ surgeries.