The decision by Labour and Liberal Democrat Glasgow Councillors this week that there will be no inquiry into the numerous mysterious strands of the Stephen Purcell affair is disappointing but not surprising.
The Council leader interviewed by police about a drugs-related blackmail plot, fellow council members wishing to describe Purcell has having a "chemical dependency", a system of patronage and cronyism via these ALEOs that no other Scottish council saw fit to create, councillors setting their own financial rewards on these bodies hundreds of thousands of pounds paid over and above the councillor wage and questions over links between Labour politicians and Labour donors.
This is not to mention the more pressing questions that Tory Bear very neatly summarised recently.
Clearly the whole system needs lifted up, shaken around and thoroughly scrutinised. As Nicola Sturgeon put it: "It is time to shine a light - a very bright light - into the murky corridors of Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council"
But who will do that? The system is out of control but there is seemingly noone in place to control it.
As we have seen, Labour councillors are not going to order an investigation into their own affairs.
Audit Scotland won't be investigating anything because there are no specific finance-related allegations.
The Police won't be investigating because no laws appear to have been broken.
That doesn't mean the whole affair isn't very tawdry indeed so the only recourse left is in the ballot box.
At the end of the day, it is up to the people of Glasgow to decide how they wish to be governed so let's just hope they make their voices heard over the next few elections.
The Council leader interviewed by police about a drugs-related blackmail plot, fellow council members wishing to describe Purcell has having a "chemical dependency", a system of patronage and cronyism via these ALEOs that no other Scottish council saw fit to create, councillors setting their own financial rewards on these bodies hundreds of thousands of pounds paid over and above the councillor wage and questions over links between Labour politicians and Labour donors.
This is not to mention the more pressing questions that Tory Bear very neatly summarised recently.
Clearly the whole system needs lifted up, shaken around and thoroughly scrutinised. As Nicola Sturgeon put it: "It is time to shine a light - a very bright light - into the murky corridors of Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council"
But who will do that? The system is out of control but there is seemingly noone in place to control it.
As we have seen, Labour councillors are not going to order an investigation into their own affairs.
Audit Scotland won't be investigating anything because there are no specific finance-related allegations.
The Police won't be investigating because no laws appear to have been broken.
That doesn't mean the whole affair isn't very tawdry indeed so the only recourse left is in the ballot box.
At the end of the day, it is up to the people of Glasgow to decide how they wish to be governed so let's just hope they make their voices heard over the next few elections.
22 comments:
I can't call for a full investigation into the Scottish-Islamic Foundation without calling for one into this.
Absurd.
Tha ballot box on its own won't sort it when the local employers wield the power and influence. Odd is the best description of the Lib Dems decision making.
All aboard the gravy train
Does anyone know who voted how?
If there was to be an investigation into the goings on at GCC then you would find at the end of it that any recommendations made have already been implemented.
There have been *huge* changes at GCC, and there will be more, which address many of the criticisms made as a consequence of the Purcell reignation.
What seems very odd is that this hasn't received much, if any, publicity.
Then surely, Observer, this is a fettish of secrecy and unaccountability?
Who would sort it out if not Glasgow Council itself?
Grey? He's only the leader at Holyrood.
It has to be Gordon Brown---the Great Leader himself. But since he has an election campaign to run he won't WANT any light shining on Glasgow at the moment.
Does anyone think that perhaps...perhaps the message might start to filter through to at least some of the "Ah've always voted Labour" brigade that all is not well in the City under
Labour Party control?
I think this is one reason why Labour will probably lose its majority, if not power, in 2012.
This is shameful and only shows that Labour, given the chance, would abolish accountability, provided it has a majority.
Two points.
1. We don't know what the police may be investigating. They may have said that they are not going to hold an investigation into the specific points raised but it doesn't mean that they are not investigating anything at all. For obvious reasons they don't disclose ongoing investigations.
2. Observer is right in that the model Steven Purcell set up has now been repudiated by the Labour Group. They have done a massive U-turn on aleos and any further privatisation of services and it is odd that no-one has covered this. If I was a paranoid cybernat I would be thinking it is because the opposition councillors have had their way but no-one wants to give them credit. However more realistically I think the press just don't understand local government.
Reading the Herald it would seem the SNP Council Group have some explaining to do themselves to the wider party.
The story reported James Dornan taking nearly £18,000 in additional payments. (previously John Mason was in receipt of these)
Grant Thoms, Craig Mackay, Jennifer Dunn, Iris Gibson, George Roberts, David MacDonald and Kenny McLean are all in receipt of £6,400 in additional payments for these outside companies created by Labour.
Shouldn't the SNP group set an example and give up these additional payments?
WHIT? "No laws broken" my bahookie.
Purcell was, is, for all we know a self confessed class A drug user known to the police, who "advised" him that he had compromised his position as a senior politician in control of millions of pounds of public money and as such he was open to blackmail. These are very serious matters, and had it been me, I would be in court if it were not for the fact that the new Labour Thatcherite machine was protecting me.
.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drugs-law/Class-a-b-c/
Class A
Ecstasy, LSD, heroin, cocaine, crack, magic mushrooms, amphetamines (if prepared for injection). Up to seven years in prison or an unlimited fine or both.
He was known to have broken the law, facing the prospect of 7 years and a heavy fine yet he was allowed is seems to have absconded to some far distant shore to recover, or as I see it dodge the law.
There is skulduggery and cover up on a grand scale taking place here, of such intricacy that would earn the respect of any Mafia Don.
At the very least there ought to be a public enquiry to examine whether Purcell was blackmailed, and the conduct of the council in setting up and operating the ALEOs, and all the associated contracts. Just for starters. Then they can go through SPTs indiscretions.
These allegations are very specific unless of course you are Councillor Mason.
For me, the big story is the sullen silence of much of the 'Scottish' Press.
Cyber Nats 'paranoid' imaginings are revealed as being nothing of the sort.
Not that we're going to hear much about that in McPravda.
Given the media stitch-up, I'm utterly amazed that the SNP have achieved what they have electorally. It's a bloody miracle and makes you wonder what would happen given a balanced media.
McPravda seems still to be smarting from the criticisms of its original deafening silence on the affair. Their new line seems to be 'But of course they were all at it so it was perfectly even-handed for us not to mention it'. Everyone's guilty, so there's no story? Funny news values round at the Herald these days.
Of course no attention is paid to the fact that the SNP voted for an enquiry, while Labour and the Lib Dems blocked it.
I don't think the SNP Group on the Council have any explaining to do to the wider party, because as far as I am aware they all knew that the Councillors had taken the seats on these boards. On the basis that they were better inside the tent than outside it.
I think that was a major mistake, and I am not posting with hindsight. If you are opposed to something then you have to remain opposed, you have to act in both word and deed.
Hopefully lessons will be learned.
''Then surely, Observer, this is a fettish of secrecy and unaccountability''
Yes, that was the regime that Purcell was running. It is being dismantled.
This is a victory in real life for those of us who opposed the faux ''modernisation'' of local authorities. We are more or less getting what we wanted.
But because the papers haven't printed it, it's not the subject of discussion.
This episode has been good in the sense that it has finally revealed the reality of Labour in Scotland as a hideously corrupt organisation which has done enormous damage to our country.
Now EVERYBODY knows it.
Lara
I think Anonymous @ 13.29 raises an interesting point. Not in the sense of any explaining having to be done because there is no explaining to be done but in the fundamental sense of what is a councillor's job? That's something we have not really resolved - indeed we have in some ways made it worse by the level of salary that has been set. Prior to STV and salaried councillors, being a councillor was pretty much a part-time thing. They did surgeries, went to committees and so on but, let's face it, with the exception of the leaders and committe conveners they didn't really have that much to do as council officers took most of the decisions.
Now we have the phenomenon of full-time councillors - the people named by Anonymous are full-time and much more hands-on than their predecessors. Being a councillor and being on the aleos is how they earn a living. So is that what we want? Because if we don't, if we want to go back to the days of councillors not being professional politicians, then we have two big problems. The first is that the wards are simply too big for anybody to cover them effectively without being full-time. The second is that we would get less scrutiny and involvement than we have now. Not only in the sense of strategy and decison-making but even in terms of casework. I have met councillors who don't do any of their own casework - they just pass it on to council staff. I know our councillors in Glasgow don't do that but if they had to go out and get part-time jobs they would probably have to and would therefore lose part of their grip on what was really happening in their wards.
It's a really tricky one to resolve.
What's the u-turn, Observer? The aleos don't seem to be being dismantled. Councillors are still going to be paid for sitting on their boards. Jim Coleman has said that, as soon as they appoint a new permanent leader, "it will literally be business as usual".
So what's the big change? Maybe City Building will be a bit more hesitant to give direct donations to Labour. What else?
The aleos can't be dismantled in present form, because there are financial obstacles preventing that Colin, but they are being brought to heel, and being made to answer to the Chambers, including the most obvious biggie which no one has mentioned yet, the GHA. In the long term the idea is to bring them back in.
The most recent aleo ie regeneration, has been cancelled.
As far as renumeration of Councillors is concermed, the Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee will see to that, as well as having a look at the salaries paid to Council placemen on the aleos.
There will be no more political donations, and from what I am hearing Lesley Quinn's jacket is on a shoogly nail, we'll need to wait and see - perhaps she can justify her existence in City Building and actually do a job.
It depends on your point of view, but from where I am we have got significant results here.
There has been a seismic shift in the Chambers which will benefit the people in Glasgow, and the people who deliver services to them.
It won't deliver a huge boost to the SNP, but then I question whether they deserve that, considering their own conduct over this affair.
Yes, that was the regime that Purcell was running. It is being dismantled.
But we are effectively having to take that on trust, from the same people who created or allowed to develop this un-Christian mess in the first place.
The issue regarding Councillors serving on aleo boards is quite simple. It is a conflict of interest. In serving on the aleo boards, the Councillors are required to support the organisations they are managing.
That is wrong.
There are no ifs or buts about it, unless you support the principle of the aleos you should not be on their boards, as you are not then free to publicly criticise them.
Councillors are elected to represent their constituents. They can't do that if they are tied in to the people who deliver services.
End of.
Now that the SNP seems as if it can be implicated in Labour Party Glasgow City Council shennanigans I expect more corporate news media coverage of the story than hitherto has been the case.
I am sure some key people know more than they are letting in at GCC.
Question is, what will they do with the information, and with an election looming when will it be released.
Post a Comment