Pembroke Dock Web Project Forum

It has been rather a good week for those of us eager to draw attention to the undemocratic nature of the local government Cabinet system.
Top of the bill is the universally unpopular decision to impose charges on the council's car parks.
Of course, none of us like paying for things that we have always enjoyed for free, but this case raises issues that go well beyond narrow self-interest - not the least of which is the adverse effects such charges will have on struggling retail centres such as Fishguard, Pembroke Dock and Milford Haven.
As an occasional shopper in the last of these I can say from experience that free and convenient parking outside Tesco's front door is an important consideration when deciding where to replenish my supplies of Merlot.
Cllr David Wildman (Burton) reportedly told the Cabinet that he didn't believe charges would affect the local economy, which only goes to show that being considered a suitable person to control the council's £300 million budget does not require even the most rudimentary grasp of basic economics.
Council Leader John Davies said the council was not there to be "popular".
While it is true that governments at all levels have to promote unpopular policies, which they believe to be in the public interest, they usually make some effort to persuade the electorate of the benefits flowing from their decisions.
In this case we have Cllr Jamie Adams blithely telling us that parking charges provided an important opportunity "to do something very special for our town centres".
Like closing them down completely?
Not that it is difficult for the Cabinet to make unpopular decisions in respect of the county's towns because eight out of the ten members (nine out of ten if you include Ken Rowlands (Johnston)) represent rural seats.
Cllr Michael Williams once described the Independent Political Group as a coalition of farmers, Freemasons and the far right, though in fairness it should be pointed out that since he said that some years ago there has been a dramatic decline in the number of Freemasons in positions of power.
The only cabinet member with an urban constituency is Cllr Sian James (Fishguard) who spoke out strongly against the imposition of charges in her home town.
Whether it is constitutionally proper for Cabinet members to use their positions to promote their own electoral interests is a moot point.
What is not in doubt, however, is that Cllr James is bound by the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility which means she has either to back the policy or resign.
So, unless her letter is in the post, she is now obliged to support this policy and the fact that she is "very frustrated" by the decision is neither here nor there.
That, I'm afraid, is the price you pay for your sixteen grand a year Special Responsibility Allowance.
Another interesting constitutional point arises from comments in the Mercury attributed to council chairman Anne Hughes.
Cllr Hughes told the paper: "As chairman I will ensure there is a recorded vote".
This would seem to indicate that the matter will be coming before full council though it has always been my understanding that, unless called-in by the relevant scrutiny committee, Cabinet decisions take full effect three days after the meeting at which they are made.
I have written to Cllr Hughes seeking clarification and will report further in due course.
In any case, neither the chairman, nor anyone else, can "ensure" a recorded vote because, according to the constitution, that requires a request by a member prior to the vote being taken". . . supported by ten other members who signify their support by rising in their places (if they are able) . . ."