Greater scrutiny ? Everybody with a perspective on UK local government immediately recoils from the word. It was introduced when the old local council 'committee system' was overthrown by the 'cabinet system'. For those who don't know, prior to being allowed 'cabinet' government, the bulk of local authorities' decisions not delegated to council officers were taken by all-party committees, so that back-bench councillors - who would sit on several such committees - had a fair crack at genuine involvement. This system wasn't without its flaws; but back-bench involvement was much diminished when it was replaced by 'cabinet', where all decisions are taken by a majority-party clique (and a well-paid clique at that). The sop thrown to back-benchers was 'scrutiny' - powerless question-time sessions in which cabinet members have to explain themselves. (The same thing happens in those few areas with executive mayors, when it is the Mayoral coterie that offers itself up for interrogation.)
The consequence of this is that non-cabinet councillors, which includes most of even the ruling party's number, get no closer to decision-making than asking the odd question of an actual decision-maker once a quarter. They secretly hate it, even though (like parliamentary select committees) they try to puff themselves up and make it sound important - Keith Vaz in Toytown.
Now of course Westminster backbenchers already have this system: the Standing Committees that (despite the name) are convened specifically to go through each piece of draft legislation, line by line. They are allowed to propose amendments, too, if they dare: but are ruthlessly whipped and have barely any meaningful autonomous impact, mostly serving to give the government a bit of breathing-space to introduce its own amendments (via compliant back-benchers) as the inevitable nonsenses in a hastily-drafted Bill become apparent.
So for Mili to offer Greater Scrutiny as his solution to the WLQ is a mighty insult to all concerned, and one that any politico feels all too keenly. Is that the best you've got ? A really tangible expression of pure political panic, of existential angst. In the season of last-before-election Party Conferences, he needs above all to be declaring glorious, dividing-line policies. And what's he got ? A 'constitutional convention'; the minimum wage; a promise his wife will be out on the campaign trail; and scrutiny.
And maybe - just maybe - atone for their grotesque mis-step on Boundary Changes. Because this is an existential crisis for the Tories, too.