Has 'King John' taken over city?
I SEE from The Sentinel (January 8) that John van de Laarschot has 'officially' been in charge of Stoke-on-Trent City Council for three years.
I'm puzzled by this. We all know that Mr van de Laarschot is in charge of this council, but we didn't know it was official.
I don't recall an election of any kind, so was there a coronation during which he was crowned king?
Is Stoke-on-Trent, in law, a monarchy now?
Is the title 'Leader of the Council' just an honorary title that carries no power with it?
If it is, then what does the part-timer Mohammed Pervez actually do to earn his wages?
Or is it a fact that Mr van de Laarschot's leadership has no legal standing?
Is he not an unelected officer of the council, and an exorbitantly well-paid one at that, whose sole legal and professional responsibility is to carry out council policy?
Isn't policy-making the council's democratic responsibility and no-one else's?
Have Labour's councillors given Mr van de Laarschot the leadership of the council because they know they're not up to the task?
In which case, why don't they all resign, and let him do exactly what he pleases?
He's doing exactly what he pleases anyway.