If you read our latest story about the infamous Grand Harmony lunch, you’ll have seen this quote from blogger and former city councillor Gina Barber:
“This just goes to show how bitterly divided this council is. I sat on a divided council, we had our differences and words were exchanged, but this is different. The tone is pretty nasty.”
A couple of thoughts come to mind.
First, this council doesn’t seem divided to me. To name the obvious example, they’ve achieved two tax property-tax freezes in a row and are going for a third. That seems to me like a council united enough to get things done. Isn’t that proof it’s an effective council? Unless, of course, you don’t agree with what it’s doing.
Second, am I the only one who wants a divided council? A divided council means councillors can’t agree, which means they have strong differences of opinion. I had always thought a diversity of opinions is an intrinsic good. My greatest fear would be a council that agrees on everything; that sounds like a nightmare scenario to me.
The truth is, the only people who complain about a divided council are the ones whose views aren’t reflected in the decisions made by council.
Maybe what Barber means is this batch of councillors aren’t very polite to one another, but that’s a different issue altogether. Politicians have been bemoaning a lack of civility in politics since just after the Earth cooled and will still doing be doing so when the End Times arrive.