A campaigner questioned the legitimacy of Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet only to be told that her criticisms were myths, misrepresentations and conspiracy theories.
Laura King said that the Labour-led council had promised a review of the change from decision-making by committee to the cabinet system but that no review had been announced.
The council’s cabinet makes decisions in public on proposals to spend or save more than £1 million and issues that affect more than two council wards.
But before the changes, opposition councillors spoke against the scrapping of policy-making committees – and a petition called for a referendum.
Today, outside the meeting of the full council at Hove Town Hall, Ms King said: “I want to see if the promises about switching to the cabinet system improving democracy have been kept and, if so, how?
“I am unaware of any review process happening so far – as was promised – unless it has not yet been announced.”
Earlier, to applause from the public gallery, Ms King asked whether the council’s decision-making over the past 18 months was legitimate.
She said that constitutional change had occurred without any referendum to reverse the 2001 public vote which rejected a proposed switch from committees to a directly elected mayor.
Labour council leader Bella Sankey described herself as a “recovering lawyer” as she responded to Ms King’s questions.
She said: “That is not accurate. It’s a complete misrepresentation of the constitution, the law and how local government governance works.
“I would also say, respectfully, this kind of myth-making and essentially sort of conspiracy theory approach really undermines faith in our institutions.
“It undermines democracy and I’m concerned that it may make residents feel as though something bad and illegitimate is happening when it’s not.”
Councillor Sankey said that the constitution had remained under review with regular reports coming to full council meetings for amendments.
The changes included an increase in the number of overview and scrutiny meetings and task and finish groups and an extended deadline for public questions.
An independent review was carried out in April, she said, by the Peer Challenge Team, supported by the Local Government Association.
She said: “The council has made a successful transition from a committee system to a leader and cabinet model, making a significant change in how decisions are made and how strategic direction is exercised.
“The cabinet system has been implemented effectively in a short period of time.
“They (the Peer Challenge Review) stated that the recent move to a leader and cabinet model of governance provides an opportunity for greater strategic clarity, more effective decision making and enhanced political leadership.”
It was not a good look that Ms Sankey could only breach her Councillor Code of conduct with insults to a member of the electorate and not legal answers, despite her lawyer background.
Alternatively Ms Sankey could have offered to provide a written response – verifying the legality of the cabinet council – at a later date after the meeting as is often the response to supplementary questions.
I’d be putting in an official complaint in Ms King’s shoes because this is wholly unacceptable conduct in public office.
I doubt CoC had been breached there. It was blunt and sharp, but not insulting. I think you have to also put it in the context that Laura is a regular.
‘A regular’? So she is committed to the idea of a council that is honest and transparent. That is a good thing.
No, she remains committed to her conspiratorial framing, despite having been informed multiple times before. Something you, in particular, are intimately familiar with.
It’s not an insult, lol it’s the truth. Sometimes in democratic society people may say things that you don’t agree with, that’s life mate. Don’t like it, there is always Russia, I hear they have vacancies for fools.
It appears that our Council Leader and her appointed Number 2 think they are better than everyone else and not accountable to those who foolishly voted for them.
Laura King’s question reflects a concern shared by many residents, not a fringe or “conspiratorial” view. The issue is not whether the council has found a lawful route to introduce a Cabinet system, but whether doing so has hollowed out local democracy in practice. Legality is a minimum standard, not the democratic gold standard that residents were promised.
What has changed over the past 18 months is not simply a governance model, but the culture of decision-making. Power has been centralised, debate displaced from public forums, and scrutiny increasingly treated as an inconvenience to be managed rather than a democratic safeguard. The technocratic defence — that procedures are followed, reports issued, and peer reviews passed — misses the point. Democracy is not a compliance exercise.
Many people supported the committee system precisely because it forced decisions to be tested in public, exposed to challenge by opposition councillors and residents before positions hardened. Under the Cabinet model, scrutiny is formally preserved but substantively weakened, as seen in the growing pattern of deputations being interfered with and blunted, public questions rejected without rule-book reasoning, and complaints dismissed by means of bizarre council-spinning of procedure. All of the recent examples – such as the attempts of Jewish residents to challenge this council – rest on an almost magisterial exercise of ‘discretional’ power by the Mayor. They are not accidents; they are features of a system designed to smooth executive control.
To dismiss this as “myth-making” is itself disingenuous. It avoids engaging with the real question: who gets to shape decisions, and when? Laura King is right to ask whether democratic consent, not just legal authority, still underpins how this council governs. If the Cabinet system is genuinely compatible with people-power, it should welcome that challenge — not close ranks against it.
If you and Laura want to change it then you should try and get elected to the council… and come last!
Yes, you’ve made this snidey point before. What are you, 12 years old?
I am not! But if you like to moan but nobody votes you to listen to you moan ….. you moan alone! Moan…. for thousand of words!
And yet you moan constantly on here..
Adrian. Don’t waste your energy replying to idiots.
Sandra Joseph says she not 12 although her mental capacity to respectful discussion is obviously something she hasnt been taught.
Have you considered the fact that some people have jobs? An alien concept for you I know…but stop a while and wonder what that means?
Adrian have a job? No! He spend his time doing 1000 words when 3 will do…… can he get a job?
Sandra, your ignorance is breathtaking. As Helen rightly comments – I shouldn’t waste my time. But as I’ve worked in education all my life, let me get you educated on this. Local elections are where candidates seek to be voted-in as a ward councillor. As Lev reminds you, most candidates have jobs and most who are elected retain their jobs (councillors do not collect a salary).
You mock Laura and myself in your first comment for coming last in an election as though it were simply a matter of merit. Let me remind you that in 2023 the Labour winner in Kemptown (achieving 1,794 votes), was soon suspended for alleged electoral fraud and later resigned. The candidate was a fake. So – Sandra (write this down please) – in 2023 you could pin a red rosette on a donkey and it would have won over a thousand more votes than my 467. And if you’re planning more snide remarks about me (write this down too), I’ve run 4 times (as an independent) and my vote share increased each time. This year (due to another by-election caused by another Labour resignation) my vote nose-dived largely because after 3 elections in as many years I had no campaign funds and chose to run on a single issue that no other candidate had the guts to mention. I’m proud I did that.
Let us all know if you ever stick your neck above the parapet Sandra – though I think you disapprove of that.
How is the issue not about “whether the council has found a lawful route to introduce a Cabinet system”? If the electorate have not been consulted by use of a Referendum on a citywide-impact decision involving the re-writing of the Council Constitution to suit the new model of governance? In addition this intention was not on the local Labour manifesto at the last local Elections. How then, have the electorate lawfully consented? A council cabinet system is also designed to work in conjunction with an elected Mayor, which Brighton and Hove does not have, so this entire shebang has been fudged, with democracy as the victim. Ms Sankey also had the cheek to charge council taxpayers £80k for imposing this Cabinet on us. https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2024/03/08/labour-prepares-to-ditch-committees-and-switch-to-cabinet/
To be fair Adrian, Laura does have a history of phantasmagorical myth making, and certainly has a chip on her should against the council, allegedly.
She’s doesn’t help herself by accusing the council of illegitimacy when a much more effective question would have been to ask what the challenges and benefits to cabinet have been, and then to challenge on what improvements can be made; good faith always makes for more progressive conversation, agreed?
Labour tried to sneak in removal of committee systems everywhere via their devolution bill but were forced to backtrack a bit after criticism and opposition from other parties: https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/governance-and-structure/reed-moves-to-protect-committee-system-20-11-2025/
As Sian Berry put it regarding Labour’s plans nationally “I believe it is extreme control freakery and overreach from the Government and in no way essential to this Bill. Why impose a leader and cabinet model on all councils, even against their will, along with all these other changes? The Government can see only the benefits and, like a poorly run council, they ignore the critical risks.”
The Labour manifesto committed to clearer leadership and more effective decision-making. The cabinet system is a recognised way of delivering that. You can oppose the choice, but it is hard to argue it sits outside the mandate voters were given.
It’s also worth remembering that devolution was an originally a framework by the Cons in 2014.
The more effective decision-making you’re talking about feels more like a dictatorship in reality with both residents voices and opposition voices being deliberately shut out and silenced by the administration.
I’m sure residents will make it clear how misled they feel by Labour at the next local elections. Just a shame we don’t have them here in May 2026. In lots of places around the country people will have a say then and the bullish way (both Labour in Westminster and at local councils) have acted will mean they suffer huge losses at the ballot box.
Residents don’t like being shut out and silenced. Using coded and unclear language in manifestoes as a way to later hoard power, as per the examples you’ve quoted, will be their comeuppance at the next elections imo.
I understand why it feels that way to some, but you have to separate perception from reality to have a honest conversation. Opposition voices and residents haven’t been shut out in any formal sense. Public questions, petitions, deputations, scrutiny committees, call-in powers and minority reports all still exist and are being used. What has changed is where decisions are made, not whether challenge is permitted.
There’s a reasonable debate to be had on if a cabinet model produces weaker democratic outcomes than the committee system did. I remember the hung system from a few years back that actually didn’t move on much; difficult to tell a narrative based on things that didn’t happen, right? But that’s different from saying residents are being silenced or that power has been unlawfully hoarded, which is not true in any definition, I’d welcome a specific example if you think otherwise.
I’ve said this a few times recently, but manifesto language set ambition and direction. It’s not a line-by-line checklist as it often gets weaponised incorrectly as. Voters endorsed clearer leadership and faster decision-making. Cabinets are a recognised way of delivering that, and used in the majority of councils, even if some people dislike the trade-offs it brings.
But yes, people will vote more emotively than that, you’re absolutely right. My hope is that doesn’t lead to some abhorrent choices that’s just based on vibes.
If they were going to introduce a cabinet system they should have said so.
It’s not illegal (of course) but it is sharp practice to have brought this in without an explicit commitment and whether it’s actually more efficient is very open to question. One hears that all decisions are made in such a centralised manner that it takes ages to get anything decided and done.
Absolutely, Clive, the question itself is a very fair and valid one, and completely right to be asked. For me, it was how the question was framed that did it a disservice. You mention that you feel that decisions take ages to get anything decided in a cabinet, despite that being the core benefit over a committee system.
Reminds me of this satire piece by Splitting Image: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/icHvxp9abWo
Bella Sankey demonstrates her commitment to BHCC democracy by criticising people who complain about BHCC’s lack of democracy. This is the same person who knowingly allows commercial misinformation to stand uncorrected on cabinet minutes, deliberately misleading the public. We close libraries and community events while pouring money into secretive and subsidised corporate contracts. So many local activists have been abused and threatened by this council, just for asking questions. Meanwhile our ‘councillors’ pay themselves twice the national average. It really is time for change.
Changing to a Cabinet system is yet another item which was NOT on the Labour manifesto in the local elections of May 2023, along with closing Primary Schools and Libraries, so it could be said that any residents who voted Labour in that election did so under false premises.
Nor does it appear appear that the electorate have been given the chance to review the new Cabinet system, according to Council Leader Sankey’s response, only those whom it apparently suited to bring in a hasty decision-making mechanism with no opposition under the guise of “streamlining” and the undemocratic exclusion from information and decision-making of many elected Councillors, now rendered unable to fully represent their Wards.
Meantime unanswered questions remain about the 2023 local council election itself but that’s another story.
You are once again confusing endorsement with consent. There is no legal requirement for a referendum or manifesto commitment to adopt a cabinet system. Disagreeing with the decision does not make it unlawful.
I find it difficult to take Laura King seriously when she describes the council as illegitimate. A minimal amount of research would show that this is simply incorrect. That kind of claim undermines otherwise valid concerns.
She used similarly inflammatory language when campaigning against the Floral Clock and on other issues. A deep scepticism of council decision-making is not a problem in itself, but framing it in absolutist terms does her no favours. Laura is experienced enough to know this, so it comes across as disingenuous.
That said, the core question she raised is a reasonable one. It is legitimate to scrutinise a major change in governance and ask whether it has delivered the democratic improvements promised. Listening to the response, the cabinet system has been independently reviewed and found to be functioning effectively in terms of executive clarity and decision-making.
When this issue is examined in good faith, it is an important and worthwhile line of questioning. When it is framed as illegitimacy rather than democratic quality, it weakens the argument rather than strengthening it.
Benjamin.
Please stop the w+lly waving.
Don’t want to have an open, transparent and honest conversation? Would you like to shame, besmirch and ridicule anyone who dare have the temerity to hold you to account or ask questions?
Simple, just thrown in the ‘Conspiracy Theory’ label, it’s a tried an test approach that’s has been implemented by the media and politicians for decades. It never grows old or tires.
I’d respectfully flip that and challenge it by saying when a person makes an argument without substance, an evidence base, or logic, then it naturally gets called out as being conspiracy by definition.
If someone doesn’t like being called out for making a conspiratorial argument, don’t base your argument on conspiracy, right?
All these personal insults and slurs against a member of the electorate brave enough to ask IF a legitimate council is being run since a Cabinet was imposed is in poor taste. To simply say “It’s legal” is a bit like Dorothy clicking her red heels to make it so. Let’s see some cold, hard, legal proof that it’s ok to disregard proper democratic processes in order to mold a council to suit the ends of the dominant party and the naked ambition of its leader.
I’d agree with you on the first point. I don’t think conspiratorial is an insult however. Absolutely was a bit blunt. Makes more sense when you consider Laura regularly phrases questions in an accusatory and inflammatory manner. Still, should just address the substance of the question and bypass the bad faith framing, personally.
Ms King makes a valid point. Democracy is about the will of the people not the convenience of those who misled voters into placing x on a piece of paper. Democracy is dying under a pile of mud slung in the name of conspiracy theory. But those few who are both honest AND wise look back and realise the most so called “conspiracy theories” of the last few years are prophetic. Too much corruption hides behind this mud. Or is it nastier and something smelling of rotten fish?
“A broken clock is right twice a day” is a classic fallacy of confirmation bias. And far more conspiracy theories end up remaining completely devoid from reality. It’s not a particularly good way to shape one’s worldview, in my opinion.
It would seem controlling the narrative is no longer a thing, Benjamin. Time to get over yourself?
Ad hominems are just proof that someone is lacking an argument, James. You can do better than that.
For anyone interested in the Peer Challenge Review Councillor Sankey refers to, it is published on the Local Government Association website (with a level of transparency it would be good to see from the council). It was a relatively light touch four day review involving interviews and covering a broad range of issues, but it does highlight that some of those interviews raised concerns with scrutiny under the cabinet system.
Here is a quote:
‘In contrast, some members outside of the ruling administration did feel a sense of loss of the old committee system and were critical of scrutiny being geared towards the administration. Some felt that their voices were no longer heard effectively and as such there is an opportunity for scrutiny to get more upstream of the cabinet work plan, so that all members can feel a sense of ownership of policy development. Scrutiny has ambitions to move to a more ‘member to member’ conversation and to consider setting up more cross-party task and finish groups. The council should consider how it maximises the contributions of all members for the benefit of the city. As scrutiny matures, consideration should be given to whether further work is needed to ensure opposition parties do not feel excluded from the decision-making process through their inclusion more fully in the overview and scrutiny process.’
If there’s been no Cabinet function review by the electorate BHCC are meant to be there to serve, a Peer Challege Review is akin to marking their own homework and is meaningless.
It is an odd and arrogant assumption that speedy and streamlined decision-making, cutting residents, and even other Councillors, out of the loop is going to result in better or fairer decisions, some irreversible.
It is argument and debate which knock the rough corners off proposals to result in better proposals/outcomes, not myopic haste. For these benefits, Labour needs to allow and welcome opposition. As for better democracy, don’t make me laugh. Task and finish groups are still solely to suit the ruling party and what it wants to do.
Let’s hope Mr Taylor will bring more maturity to the table.
Some strange insults from Bella Sankey, given that at least one set of cabinet minutes contains claims that have been shown to be complete misrepresentations…according to the council’s own data. Bella knows about this, but has ignored any attempts to change the public record so the claims made in cabinet are honest and accurate. It appears she may be projecting here…bullying and gaslighting residents is the only thing this sorry council seems to excel at.