A BITTER party political row over who leads Worcester City Council was reignited at the latest full council meeting.

Councillor Adrian Gregson lost the leadership last March when he swapped roles with the leader of the Conservatives Councillor Marc Bayliss after a controversial change to the authority’s constitution.

At the latest Guildhall meeting, held last Tuesday, Cllr Gregson attempted to reverse that decision through a motion.

The motion said: “Council resolves that the decision made at the meeting on March 27 namely ‘that in the event of a hung council the leader of the council is drawn from the largest group and the deputy leader of the council is drawn from the second largest group’ be rescinded.”

Introducing the motion Cllr Gregson said: “It was a political decision, it took away the ultimate privilege of council choosing the leader.

“We propose to return the proper way of electing the leader of the council and give the council the right to go back to a majority vote, prevalent across the UK and across all civilised democracies across the world.”

Cllr Gregson added that the motion did not change the current leadership of the authority, and was not a power grab, but was about transparency and fairness.

Leader Councillor Marc Bayliss, responded: “Full council still has the power to elect the leader in fact I was elected by this council.

“The comment this is about not seizing the leadership of this council is frankly laughable.

“”In March, he (Cllr Gregson) said the people will decide in six weeks time.

“And people did decide. His party lost.

“It is quite clear this is an attempt to seize power. This is the loser seeking to become the winner. Win the election - then you will have the right to govern. Please don’t lecture us about democracy.”

Councillor Louis Stephen said: “I support this motion.

“Ideally the leader should have the support of everyone but if that is not possible, they should at least have the support of the majority of councillors.”

In summing up the motion Cllr Gregson said it was “not worth his time” going through the inaccuracies in Cllr Bayliss’ argument. He added members wanted the right to act as a councillor first, and a political person second.

When the vote was taken the motion was very close, being lost by just one vote, 18 votes to 17.