Opinion: To Shoot Oneself in One Foot is Careless…

Published on: 10 Oct, 2017
Updated on: 12 Oct, 2017

By Martin Giles

When you have just shot yourself in the foot it shows bewilderingly poor judgement to immediately take aim at the other and squeeze the trigger but that is exactly what Council Leader Paul Spooner seems to have done in recent weeks.

No sooner had he insisted on proceeding to a show trial for GGG’s David Reeve, a decision that has rebounded fiercely in the court of public opinion, than he announces that he and his deputy are off to China to sign a partnership deal that few had even heard of a few weeks ago, let alone debated.

With the complaint, Spooner was always on a hiding to nothing. It was a lose-lose situation. If the complaint was upheld he would end up looking vindictive and overbearing, a Goliath who managed to beat a David. Big deal. If the complaint had not been upheld, never likely given that most of the judges were other Tory councillors and allies, it would have looked even worse.

And did anyone other than Spooner, and his deputy Matt Furniss, really evaluate the PR aspect of the China link proposal? How could they possibly not see that many would find the link to Dongying about as acceptable as a ton of rhino horn at an animal rights rally? Only arrogance could have allowed them to decide that the proposal needed no real debate, they could just go ahead and book the tickets.

Sadly, to a degree they are right. Most of the voters pay no heed to what goes on at Millmead and will remain oblivious while the Tory rank and file, enough of them anyway, are almost bound to ignore the doubts that they must have and go along with the Executive view in both cases.

The punishment meted out to Cllr Reeve is likely to be confirmed – although no one seems to know what will happen if he continues to refuse the ridiculous re-training on councillor codes of practice (there are probably no councillors that know the codes of conduct better that he does after his preparation for the hearing) and enough councillors will be too frightened to go against the party line and vote for the China trip to be scrubbed.

It would not be so bad if the only things at stake were a trade link and a minor complaint against a councillor. But decisions are about to be taken that will shape this borough for the foreseeable future, decisions that will need excellent judgement and foresight.

We could all be forgiven for thinking that the current pre-disposal to self-inflicted political disasters does not bode well.

The complaint hearing involving Cllr Reeve and the proposed China visit are both on the agenda for the full council meeting this evening (October 10, start 7pm) at Millmead. It is expected that the meeting will be webcast.

Responses to Opinion: To Shoot Oneself in One Foot is Careless…

Fiona Samuel-Holmes Reply

October 11, 2017 at 2:09 pm

I wholeheartedly agree. Poor judgement and pure arrogance plus complete disregard for your constituents.

Let’s just hope that people remember this the next time Paul Spooner and Matt Furniss are canvassing for votes.
Kes Heffer Reply

October 11, 2017 at 6:00 pm

Councillors might like to consider whether the diatribe directed by Council Leader Paul Spooner against Cllr David Reeve at last night’s council meeting (webcast 2:37:25-2:42:14) was a ‘failure to treat others with respect’ contrary to paragraph 2 (1) of the GBC Code of Conduct.

More importantly, the notes to last night’s meeting laid out, under paragraph 5.2 on page 45, the direct costs of the Hearings Sub-Committee, which totalled £15,386.40, but restricted mention of the internal costs of officers’ time spent on this process to, ‘The overall investigation and action taken to achieve a resolution have been managed within the existing staff resources of the council, as part of relevant officers’ responsible duties.’

Surely GBC officers must have been given a cost code for this process against which to allocate their time spent on it? If so, it should be an easy matter to total the amount? Such time is still use of council taxes, and, given that officers might otherwise have been employed on more useful activities, the residents of the borough have a right to know its extent.

Or is this another “confidential” fact which the majority party who instigated the hearings process do not wish to be public knowledge?