Comment: Applaud this balancing act

In the days following last May's election success, a jubilant Brian Oxley set out his vision for the future of the city.

Sweeping plans for transport, securing the redevelopment of the Brighton Centre, reviewing the King Alfred decision and the controversial school lottery policy, and ensuring council tax rises did not outstrip inflation were among the targets.

Just nine months on, and with many of these plans still at an embryonic stage, it was a shock that Councillor Oxley decided to hand over the reins of power so early.

Council tax was kept to the rate of inflation, at least according to one government measure, and progress has been made on the city's council houses.

But the promised reviews of the King Alfred redevelopment and the school lottery policy did not deliver what many were hoping for - a fundamental change in direction.

And many of his more ambitious plans - introducing underground car parks, investigating options for a monorail, securing the redevelopment of the Brighton Centre - could not have been achieved in a year.

The more controversial elements of transport policy would probably have been rejected under the present committee system, which gives the Greens and Labour a majority on the environment committee.

So with a new "strong leader"

and cabinet system just weeks away, which would have given him the tools to bring in these policies, the timing of his departure is surprising.

Opposition politicians have forwarded the interpretation that he jumped before he was pushed, following a battle within his party.

But even those who thought a coup was in the offing were surprised by the timing and suddenness of the decision, which left many inside and outside his party startled.

Given the persistence of the leadership challenge rumours, it is difficult to imagine that there wasn't even a hint of truth in murmurs that others were eying up the council's top job. But from conversations with a wide of range of officials, there is no evidence that this was an orchestrated putsch.

Moreover, the genuine surprise of so many councillors and the absence of any signals in the run-up to the announcement suggest that this was a personal decision, and not one foisted upon him by his colleagues.

To some, this interpretation may seem naïve, given the back-stabbing nature of politics, but for the moment other viewpoints remain conjecture.

That speculation about his departure remains rife is hardly a surprise given the unusual timing of Coun Oxley's departure.

But it is, perhaps, more interesting to note the crossparty words of praise directed towards the Westbourne councillor.

Words such as "genuine", "straightforward", and "honest" have unusually been sprinkled liberally in reference to a politician.

Political animals are often driven by hunger for prestige and power, and while Coun Oxley was clearly not averse to climbing the rungs, he has been widely recognised as a man of principle.

From meetings with Coun Oxley it was clear he valued collegiality and negotiation.

According to some opposition councillors, this approach was not favoured by all in his party, who wanted a more trenchant leader.

But whether a political bruiser would have achieved more under a hung council is far from clear.

Coun Oxley's stance was typified by his approach to building the new constitution, where opposition councillors were brought in and a commitment made to ensure other voices were heard in the new system.

Given the balance of power on the council it can be argued that this tact was a political necessity.

But in most dealings Coun Oxley appeared to favour negotiation over bulldozing his way through.

This approach ensured a good working relationship with those of all political hues.

Question marks over his assertiveness have been particularly associated with the thorny King Alfred issue and were again raised by those commenting on The Argus website yesterday.

Many believe that the Conservatives, and Brian Oxley in particular, should have dumped the scheme once in power. Some have even gone as far as to say the Conservatives had never really opposed the project and that the administration betrayed their voters.

Certainly, the Tories used the issue to powerful effect during the election campaign. But to my knowledge at no point did any councillor commit to ditching the £290 million project. Instead the promise was to review it once elected. In the end Coun Oxley was faced with a planning application which had pretty much been granted and the potential for a massive compensation payout if he rejected the scheme on a technicality.

Some believe the party, and Coun Oxley, lost their bottle in the face of persuasive arguments from officers, despite the real potential for ditching the redevelopment.

And it is true that a more headstrong and bullish leader may have ploughed ahead with dismissing the Karis plan.

But with the Tory administration in its early days and in the face of a very real risk to millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, a decision to drop the scheme would have been a massive gamble, and potentially reckless.

The hugely controversial issues - King Alfred and school admissions - faced by the Conservatives in the first nine months were inherited from the Labour administration.

And bar a new approach to finance and council tax there have been no sweeping changes of direction since the Tories took power.

We should expect bolder decisions under the "strong leader" and cabinet model.

Whether Coun Oxley has laid the building blocks, both in terms of policy and the decision-making framework, for the Conservatives to implement their vision will become clearer over the next three years.

What do you think of Councillor Oxley's legacy?