NEWPORT's councillors put the future of the city ahead of party politics on Tuesday evening when they voted in favour of a financing plan that will see the Friars Walk shopping and leisure development open by Christmas 2015.

It was not a unanimous decision, with one councillor - Conservative David Williams - voting against. His decision should be respected, as should all opinions in a democratic debate.

I've made it clear from the moment this newspaper broke the news of the proposed financing plan last week that I was in favour of it.

Of course there are risks attached to the council borrowing up to £90 million and then using the money to provide what is effectively a bridging loan to developers Queensberry to ensure work can start on Friars Walk in the early part of next year.

We have not shied away from them and we have given all sides in the debate an opportunity to air their views in print and online.

Indeed, we have explained how the worst-case scenario (if Friars Walk does not meet its target value, and Queensberry cannot repay the council, and the scheme cannot be sold or re-financed, and there are no tenants) would leave the council with a bill of up to £7 million a year.

The council's leadership did not like us doing that, which is bonkers when you consider the worst-case scenario is explained in the report that was considered by councillors on Tuesday and is available on its own website.

But then the council's leader Bob Bright doesn't like the Argus much at all. That would have been obvious to anyone who attended Tuesday's meeting.

They heard Councillor Bright make a couple of snide, utterly unfounded allegations of political bias against the Argus. His words were basically a thinly-veiled allegation that this newspaper is anti-Labour and somehow attempted to persuade our readers to vote for other parties at last year's city council elections and at the recent Pill by-election.

If Cllr Bright is willing to say the same things beyond the legal protection the council chamber offers him, I will happily take part in a public debate with him on the matter.

But let's set the record straight once and for all. The Argus, under my editorship, favours no political party.

What I have said in this column - and I stand by my words - is that I do not believe Cllr Bright is the right leader for the city. My opinion (and that is all it is) is that the city needs someone more dynamic, more engaged with the public, and more willing to bang the drum for the city in the outside world.

That's not being anti-Labour, because if Cllr Bright were to be replaced as leader it would be by a fellow Labour councillor.

The current administration is democratically elected, but we do not vote for leaders (or indeed prime ministers) in this country. They are chosen by party members.

If Labour believes Cllr Bright is the right man for the job then he'll stay at the helm. If they don't, then he won't.

I doubt if what I think makes any difference to any political party's choice of leader.

But as someone who has lived in this city for almost 25 years I think I have the right to express an opinion.

And as I said earlier, all opinions should be respected in a democratic debate.