Cessnock Mayor Daniel Watton has taken to Facebook in an unusually aggressive post, calling out his predecessor, Jay Suvaal, for what he described as “misinformation and political game-playing.” The post, which quickly caught the attention of locals, painted a picture of a council plagued by division, with Watton positioning himself as the voice of reason against Suvaal’s alleged political maneuvering.
Watton’s criticisms came after Suvaal attempted to introduce an urgent motion regarding political signage across the LGA, which Watton ruled as not urgent. According to Watton, Suvaal became “visibly agitated” by the ruling and then sought to move a dissent motion—only to be informed he could not. However, footage from the meeting suggests that Suvaal’s reaction was far from dramatic. Rather than engaging in any unruly behavior, he simply flicked through documents at his desk, seemingly unfazed. If Watton was hoping for a public meltdown from his predecessor, he was left disappointed.
Watton’s Facebook tirade also accused Suvaal of attempting to highlight potential political affiliations of independent councillors, such as Cr. Quintin King, who previously ran for One Nation in the last federal election. Watton appeared frustrated by suggestions that the Independents have links to other parties, stating, “These rumours serve no purpose other than to stir up division and distrust.” However, is it really unfair to scrutinize the political backgrounds of local representatives? Given that political allegiances can influence decision-making, it’s hardly surprising that Suvaal would raise the question.
The tone of Watton’s post suggests a leader eager to distance himself from political squabbles—yet, ironically, he’s engaging in the very behavior he condemns. While he calls for councillors to focus on “roads, infrastructure, services, and community outcomes,” his lengthy Facebook rant does little to advance those priorities. Instead, it fuels the kind of personal back-and-forth that turns local politics into a spectacle rather than a service to the community.
Instead of calling for unity while simultaneously taking public shots at Suvaal, Watton might find better results in letting his actions speak louder than his social media posts. Meanwhile, Suvaal’s strategy seems to be one of quiet persistence. While Watton uses public platforms to take jabs at his predecessor, Suvaal is pushing motions—urgent or not—within council chambers. If Suvaal is indeed playing politics, he’s doing so in a way that keeps Watton on the defensive.
What’s clear is that Cessnock’s council remains divided, with party politics—whether acknowledged or denied—continuing to shape its interactions. Watton insists on moving past political games, but his own rhetoric suggests that tensions aren’t easing anytime soon. If both leaders are truly committed to progress, then they need to prove it through their governance, not through social media spats. Otherwise, Cessnock residents may be left wondering whether their representatives are more interested in settling personal scores than delivering real results.
