Green councillors have criticised Labour for asking “self-congratulatory questions” during one of the brief sessions open to opposition councillors to hold the cabinet and council to account.
Thirty minutes are allocated for questions to the Labour administration at meetings of the full council.
Green councillor Kerry Pickett has raised what she believes to be an abuse of the constitution with Brighton and Hove City Council’s chief executive Jess Gibbons and monitoring officer Elizabeth Culbert.
Councillor Pickett asked how the order of oral questions was decided because, she said, some councillors were rarely given a chance to have their voices heard.
In response, she was told that the leader of the opposition was given first priority, followed by the leaders of other opposition political groups and then other groups in diminishing order.
Councillors have a minute to ask their question and a cabinet member has no more than three minutes to reply.
At the last meeting of the full council, on Thursday 10 July, 18 questions were submitted but only 10 were answered at the meeting including two from Labour councillors who are not cabinet members.
The Green leader of the opposition Steve Davis did not have a question so the first one was asked by Conservative leader Alistair McNair, followed by Brighton and Hove Independent leader Bridget Fishleigh.
Councillor Pickett said: “For residents watching full council, it must seem that this is a real moment for opposition councillors to hold the Labour administration to account, scrutinising policy and asking critical questions.
“However, the reality is that, technically, the party with most members gets to ask the most questions.
“The administration is undemocratically using this time for Labour councillors to ask self-congratulatory questions when the time should be used for oppositional scrutiny.
“Opposition parties should be asking questions and it is not the moment for the administration to be patting themselves on the back.
“Councillor (Bella) Sankey already gets a full 10 minutes to do that at the start of the meeting.
“Additionally, opposition councillors were not afforded the same rights to time that some Labour councillors were given.
“Some questions exceeded the one-minute timeframe and responses also ran on in unprecedented length.
“Cynically, it might be suggested that this could be a form of filibustering to stop the opposition asking difficult questions.
“The administration needs to stop wasting time and show some respect for opposition councillors who are only carrying out their political duty.”
Labour said: “It’s disappointing though not surprising to see the Greens objecting to Labour councillors doing their job in standing up for their residents and representing them at full council.
“Every councillor has a democratic right and a responsibility to raise issues on behalf of their community. The council’s constitution protects that right for a reason.
“Questions at full council are a key part of open, transparent local democracy.
“This isn’t about party politics. It’s about getting results for local people. Labour is here to represent residents and deliver for the city.”
If it was “about getting results for local people,” why not just answer all of the questions and then “party politics” cannot be argued?
Anyone who has been to a recent council meeting or watched one online will see that shutting down questions is EXACTLY what Labour do.
Cabinet members frequently swerve answering questions from opposition councillors directly, but allow loads of time for pre-prepared statements from their own councillors to be read out, where they do a whole load of back-slapping and trumped up self-congratulatory talk. It really is painful to watch and erodes trust in them as an administration in my view.
I guess Labour backbenchers are too terrified to do anything but tow the party line, or else they may find themselves at the wrong end of one of Bella Sankey’s steely glares of disapproval.
The endless gaslighting and public question plants to ask questions, so Labour can congratulate itself, whilst using up valuable public question time is unacceptable. If this council were truly serving the public, they would have no need to play these games. If they were doing a good job serving the city, public praise would flow in their direction from authentic resident and community sources. Having to play all these games to put on a show is in reality a measure of how badly Labour are letting down their electorate. The fact they recently tried to dispense with supplementary questions, hoping no one would notice is another measure that democracy is doomed with them.
Elaine, once again you’re resorting to sweeping generalisations and conspiracy-style framing instead of engaging with reality. If a question reflects well on the administration, that doesn’t make it a “plant”; it just means not everyone agrees with your perpetual doom narrative.
Accusing people of “gaslighting” because their views differ from yours is not only lazy, it undermines serious political debate. You claim to want democracy, yet you dismiss anyone who doesn’t fit your exact framing as inauthentic.
And as for supplementary questions, let’s deal in facts. Those were never removed. There was a temporary proposal explored for time management at full council, which didn’t go ahead. Maybe if you spent less time flinging accusations and more time reading actual minutes, you’d know that.
The 30 minutes given for oral questions should come from the opposition councillors and not from Labour who have the ear of their cabinet outside the full council. However, as we can all see and witness (first hand in my case) it is filibusterring by the administration and restricting debate.
Dogwhistling aside, I actually agree that oral questions should include more time for opposition voices. Robust scrutiny requires space for challenge; democracy works best when it’s tested.
That said, it’s not as one-sided as you suggest. Filibustering can happen across the chamber, and time is often lost to theatrics and grandstanding, not just cabinet replies. And let’s not forget that written questions and scrutiny processes remain available to all councillors, and aren’t subjected to a time limit, which you know well. You also know that cross-party councillors are capable of working together when they aren’t trying to draw lines in the sand all the time. I’d suggest that’s a personal reflection on your style, more than anything.
If the real aim is to improve debate, then perhaps a cross-party agreement on time management or structured supplementaries would be more constructive than just blaming one side.
Our labour party council are doing whatever they want with no regard for anyone, but so did the greens.