Full Council part two of three

Labour also moved a motion asking for more scrutiny of the chief executives proposals to change the management structure at the Council. Firstly, this is a decision of the Chief executive. Full Council will set the budget, the plan and the vision for the borough.

Full Council (albeit a Tory majority) decides whether services should be scrapped, improved, shared, kept inhouse or contracted out. It is then up to the chief Executive to decide how best to deliver the decisions of the Council. If we want to get involved in the day to day running of every tiny detail, there does not seem any point employing a Chief Executive!

 I also imagine the public are not very interested in this. For many the most important funtion of the Council is emptying the bin. However it is many years since the Council emptied a bin.......we pay a private company to do it. As long as they empty the bin on the agreed day, in the agreed way, the majority will not know (or care) who actually did it. So I wasn't sure it needed a motion.


But It puzzled me that Labour where bemoaning the lack of scrutiny of the proposals. Every year the Chief Executive is scrutinised by group leaders as part of his appraisal process. However one group refuses to be involved in this........ yes that's right - The Labour Group!


The other part of Labours motion dealt with alternative models of running a council. Using Labour Lambeths 'co-operative model' as an example.


Now Labour are quick to dismiss the big society (which I understand). Instead of the big society approach of hoping voluntary and community groups will undertake the services the Council no longer wants to fund. The idea of a co-operative seems to be, that in order to save money, voluntary and Community groups take over Council services. It sounds much the same as the 'big society' with a different badge. A point made by professor Travers, an expert on London politics - "


"Nationally the Conservatives have used the idea of the 'big society' and Lambeth's plan does seem virtually the same thing to me."

It seems one of the main problems Labour have with the Chief executive's proposals, is they oppose the new planned role of Commissioing Manager.  By coincidence, in March this year, Labour Lambeth were advertising for a commissioning Manager. To work under the two Assistant Directors of Commissioning, who report to the Director of Commissioning!

So Labour's motion wanted more scrutiny of a person they refuse to scrutinise. To oppose the same outsourcing they want the Council to consider and don't want to end up like the Council they want us to copy!

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry - so I abstained

Labour seem to be a muddled band! (Ed Muddledband?)