But regardless of the subject matter, what lurked below the surface of the argument was the larger conflict between the two major parties. Is there room for this in local government? Do people living in Busby, or heading out to shop at Chipping Norton or getting on a train at Warwick Farm really care about the parties that their councillors belong to and are they really interested in the petty squabbles they seem intent on getting in to? I think not. I think our councillors need to stop their bickering, compose themselves and avoid going down a path to unproductive stand-offs that are standard in other council areas. Liverpool deserves better than that! And I'm sure that the councillors that Liverpudlians were wise enough to elect should be able to set their differences aside and work together for the betterment of the area.

Most councillors have expressed how much they disapprove of the idea that council could act as a stepping stone to higher levels of politics. But of course we all know how often things happen this way and there's not that much wrong with it. Two of our local members, Paul Lynch and Alison Megarrity were previously councillors and now both hold state parliament seats. Ambition is not such a bad

thing on its own, but I think councillors should focus on local issues while at council and worry about their wider political careers in their own time, outside of their primary responsibility, to the council and to the Liverpool community.

In a way it's good that our pollies go through different stages of government because they got some practice in procedure and setting policy, but at the council level political manoeuvrings can actually be counter-productive. Councillors are voting along party lines on almost every issue and bickering with members of other parties, and it has slowed down the decision making process several times.

Several decisions have been made and then had rescission motions placed against them, with a lot of discussion and debate holding up proceedings before they've finally gone through. But at the end of the day the Liberals, the Liverpool Community Independents Team members and Gary Lucas have banded together to vote on most issues and when they do, they go through because that gives them a majority of six votes, over Labor's five.

But it does become unclear whether councillors are voting for what's best for the area or whether they're sticking to party set voting. Some councillors still seem to be confused about what the process of the meetings is and what specifically they are voting for in every situation. Gary Lucas has asked on several occasions: ``what are we voting on here'', after an issue was followed by several amendments and lengthy discussion. It can be confusing, but I hope that the councillors aren't just following on with others when they are confused, but still taking time to consider what exactly they're voting for!

They've got to remember: these issues are important, the decisions councillors are making at every meeting affect our daily lives, they may be of a smaller scale than those of the State and Federal Parliaments but mistakes can have huge repercussions as the Oasis and Orange Grove controversies have taught us. Will councillors get so carried away with making jibes at each other and moving up the party structure that they will lose sight of the importance of the job they are doing for the community? I sincerely hope not!

The other factor to watch will be how long Mayor Wendy Waller will let the squabbling go on. So far she has said that she plans to fulfil the role of a chairwoman, watching over the meeting and controlling proceedings, rather than attempting to set the agenda or get involved in debate.

``That is the role I've chosen to take from the beginning,'' Ms Waller said recently.

``Because I think that it's important that the proceedings are seen to be running smoothly and that we follow all the regulations completely.

``If there is something that I am really passionate about or I think it's important for me to say something, I will, I've mostly been doing this through mayoral minutes, but apart from that I think my role is to guide the councillors through the decision making process, because they are still quite new to the job.''

But while watching the council meetings I have seen Ms Waller slowly getting to the end of her tether when councillors have been particularly over the top with their attacks. She warned Cr Hadchiti and Cr McGolrick during their aforementioned spat that similar antics will not be tolerated and has spoken to Cr Lucas about his outbursts several times (perhaps that is why he's settled down a bit).

``I will not allow the council chambers to become a circus,'' Ms Waller has said.

``I aim to make sure that all of our meetings are civil and productive and I will not let them be hijacked by anyone.

``And if any councillors decide to make things difficult, there will be repercussions.

``I have the power to expel them from the chambers and I will happily do that if they go overboard and the meeting will go on without them.''

So obviously Ms Waller plans to keep them well in line, which is very positive to hear and all we can really hope for. And I think she will do it if the need arises because she is very wary of public opinion of the council and does not want it to be seen as going back to the bad old days, so she will encourage statesman-like behaviour in the councillors as much as she can.

When councillors walk into the chambers they are representatives for their community, for the people in their ward that voted for them, not for a party. They should be thinking about what's the best way to help Liverpudlians and improve the area instead of worrying about their political prospects or day dreaming about becoming prime minister one day. And if they try to work together peacefully they may get things done much more easily and effectively instead of spending hours in petty arguments and not doing what they promised the voters at last year's election.