Semantics, ego, and Lipshutz

The Leader online has just posted this comment by Lipshutz following the defeat of his motion to amend the councillor code of conduct. He took the Leader to task and wrote -

"I refer to the report inrelation to Council rejecting amendment to the Code of Conduct. Your report is erroneous. Unlike State and Federal governments, there is no Government or Opposition at Council but rather 9 Councillors working together. Accordingly there was no “crossing the floor” as reported. With the exceptionof Cr Staikos who is aligned with the ALP all other Councillors are wholly independent. The motion was not defeated and never came to a vote. Inasmuch as the Code of Conduct seeks to regulate the behaviour of all Councillors it will not work unless all Councillors accept it. Given that not all Councillors supported the amendment I accordingly withdrew it."


When will this bloke call a spade a spade? Lipshutz wishes to haggle over the phrase 'crossing the floor'. Technically he may be right, but in reality this is precisely what happened! One has only to check the voting record in this council to be aware of the fact that in 9 cases out of ten, there is in operation the 'gang of six' - votes are invariably recorded as six to 3. Regardless of the fact that Lipshutz would like to camouflage his defeat with sleight of hand semantics, the 'reality' clearly indicates that his cohorts did 'cross the floor'. It boiled down to simple arithmetic. Lipshutz withdrew the motion because he did NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS. Instead of 'facing the music', this 'hero of the community', whimped it and withdrew. Wordplay cannot disguise this fact.