I've seen the video starring Paddy Brown in which he offers his reasons for not being willing to work with the coalition and take up chairs and positions of authority within the broader council.
Paddy says it's because he won't be part of a coalition which involves the Tories.
It comes across as a principled position as he blames the Tory's for the significant cuts the council is facing up to.
I understand the principle.
However, is there more to this seemingly principled stance?
My understanding is/was in a situation in which a council is under 'no overall control', Labours national executives do not ALLOW their councillors to take committee chairs without specific permission to do so.
So here's how I see it.
Paddy knows his councillors are not allowed to take the chairs under party rules.
But he knows that would look really bad in a town crying out for decent councillors (of whatever political persuasion) to step up to the plate. It would very much look like his councillors were putting the rules of party before the needs of the town.
So instead, he offers up the argument that they won't work with the tories.
Which is ironic given they've spent the last 6 years doing precisely that.
People on this forum have always argued Labour councillors in Hartlepool under Akers-Belcher put themselves first, the party second and the needs of the residents third.
Whilst I don't think Paddy Brown is putting himself first, it does appear the party is still coming before the needs of the residents.
have to agree young fella
After reading the comments he made, you get the distinct impression they were all held hostage by the Dear Leader and his cohorts, either that or they were all held under mass hypnosis!
I'm amazed the way they all seemed to grow a pair after the cabal road out on the horse they rode in on. That's why I can't take this window dressing seriously.
Stockholm Syndrome?
Quote from: Lucy Lass-Tick on May 16, 2019, 10: PM
Stockholm Syndrome?
i hear you but its not quite the way my mind is working at the moment
i smell a rat in all of this
Quote from: Lucy Lass-Tick on May 16, 2019, 10: PM
Stockholm Syndrome?
More like R Sole syndrome! The New Kids in Town have a chance to prove that they are 'worthy' of being Hartlepool councillors and serving the good folk of this town BUT what do they do when the hand of cooperation is extended to them? :o Nothing changes with Labour, does it!
To clarify, if Labour still essentially control a council in NOC, either by minority governance or through a coalition, then they obviously take committee chairs and exercise authority and share in key decision making.
BUT when they don't have essentially control in a NOC council and don't have the leadership the default position is "Go on then, crack on, we're the opposition now".
I am 100% sure that the HIU/Tory coalition want Brenda Harrison as chair of children's services and Stephen Thomas as chair of Health and Well Being.
At present, those chairs could go to Anne Marshall and god knows who.
Now ask yourself this. What's better for the children of the town?
Is it children's services being led by an ex-teacher with some 30+ years working with children, who has actually done the role already for over a year? Or let the chair go to Mad Dog's bitter mate from ASDA?
Saying "We won't work with Tories" isn't going to cut it when chunks of the electorate know you did PRECISELY that for 6 years.
The council NEEDS someone as good as Brenda in that chair.
Any decision other than allowing her to take it does not reflect well on Labour.
The message I'm getting here is are the new wave really that different from their recently departed masters?
Co-operation seemed the blatantly obvious way forward, but looks to me as though it is being substituted by sulking and mischief. Sounds familiar, just like the familiar dim peacocks script, just this time it's done by their rather less flamboyant underlings, but the song remains the same it would appear.
I was actually hopeful for a couple of days when they appeared with their grand proclamation, but it had obvious strings attached. Such a pity it wasn't applied during their Masters reign, did they have it prepared to be boldly pulled out when the Leader and his flock left? A sort of Manchurian candidate moment?
Quote from: Johnny Bongo on May 16, 2019, 11: PM
Quote from: Lucy Lass-Tick on May 16, 2019, 10: PM
Stockholm Syndrome?
More like R Sole syndrome! The New Kids in Town have a chance to prove that they are 'worthy' of being Hartlepool councillors and serving the good folk of this town BUT what do they do when the hand of cooperation is extended to them? :o Nothing changes with Labour, does it!
Unfortunately not, I have often mentioned that there are good labour councillors who for whatever reason failed to challenge the SCABAL, under CABS leadership it was a Me Me Me leadership group, it now appears it's going to be a Party Party group.
All of the blather about things need to change, as council we want what's best for the town and its residents, we want to follow The Hartlepool Model etc etc etc, then the labour default position kicked in, they are unwilling to act in the best interests of the town, the party first mentality is so ingrained in them things will never change.
Over on the Facebook page it is being reported that Marshall has been nominated for Child Services chair whilst CAB has been nominated for Regeneration chair, with both nominations being supported by Moore. It now appears that with Labour not taking any chairs and the Coalition not appearing to be keen to take any chairs we could be heading down a serious path.
The same post is reporting that Neighbourhood Services chair is to go Tennant. I guess we can expect the Planning Chair to go to a Conservative member of the coalition.
If we are to prevent the SLP from gaining positions of power the Coalition members need to step up to the plate and prevent them. Obviously the Facebook post may not be reporting the whole story and coalition councillors are standing for these positions and if that's the case I do hope they are successful.
Maybe what the town needs is a Constitution change allowing more suitable people to take these chairs - Officers of the different departments of the Council would be better qualified to carry out these roles in conjunction with the members. We are already seeing that the Labour group are being political to the point of causing more problems in the town and they are trying to destroy the coalition in the process. The SLP are just a party of convenience and self servance.
If we do end up with SLP councillors in chairs, then the chairs of Finance & Policy and Audit & Governance need to be resolute to prevent this rear guard action. Unfortunately I do not have a good feeling about all of this, but I huess we'll find out next week.
If the Labour group quarantine themselves from the rest of the council, they can stand aside and watch the cabal gain a temporary foothold.
The result would be the return of the cabal, not a popular move voter wise and resulting in a probable assumption by the electorate that the cabal have joined forces with the new coalition.
The Labour Party have given out their grand moral proclamation prior to this, so they can step forward to be the new 'cabal free' alternative when the elections come around next year. They are laying the foundations and their ex leaders are inadvertently their trump card.
The petulance appears to have a purpose with a 'nowt to do with me guv' master plan.
Quote from: Inspector Knacker on May 17, 2019, 09: AM
If the Labour group quarantine themselves from the rest of the council, they can stand aside and watch the cabal gain a temporary foothold.
The result would be the return of the cabal, not a popular move voter wise and resulting in a probable assumption by the electorate that the cabal have joined forces with the new coalition.
The Labour Party have given out their grand moral proclamation prior to this, so they can step forward to be the new 'cabal free' alternative when the elections come around next year. They are laying the foundations and their ex leaders are inadvertently their trump card.
The petulance appears to have a purpose with a 'nowt to do with me guv' master plan.
Nail, head & hit springs to mind here.
The narrative that Labour are now SCABAL free doesn't wash with me. 40% of their current councils backed CAB every single time on every single issue and more importantly offered literally ZERO objection to allowance rises and various other calamitous decisions.
Labour will not win the trust back of floating voters in Hartlepool until the dregs of the SCABAL are fully removed from their party.
I actually don't know how Carl Richardson has the audacity to sit there offering himself up as part of the 'new solution'.
It's a joke.
P.S Anne Marshall will not become chair of children's service. I'd be very surprised if the coalition are daft enough to allow a socialist labour councillor to head a committee.
The tell tale sign of any relationship between the SCABAL and the coalition will be demonstrated by who becomes chair of regeneration.
If that person is CAB, the coalition may well be wiped out next May.
It looks to me, based on what I've learned in this thread, that the scabs have left the labour party basically to ensure that they can still be eligible to sit as chairs in the various lucrative extra posts that are available for councillors.....
Is the meeting Tuesday evening open to the public ?
If labour doesn't take these seats they are being very foolish !! They should be seen to challenge the SCABS at every opportunity!! Especially now the Teddy Boy and co have started a new venture with the dynamic director and mike young!!! If they don't , nothing will change ..new labour same tories!!
If Shane gives CAB a Chair then it is a monumental error and fatal to any hopes they have of establishing the brand locally -Farage's soon to be announced UKIP Mk II. It might play well nationally though so that is why it is being negotiated.
We should get realistic and recognise all the factors in play. Tennant is just another Doc pothole. Here to establish a name as a stepping stone to greater thing as he has no genuine interest in Hartlepool. Indeed he might be 'moving on' in a matter of weeks. He was all over his best mate Farage when he was visiting The Marina and they are so close Tennant would be an applicant if Farage's advertises for a new mistress. I guess it looks good if the new Party can boast it will work together for what is best and can ignore petty political rivalry in the name of the public good. Hartlepool is being used as a sounding-board by Farage loyalists and anyone who believed that changing your name to 'Independent' suddenly erases your political history and makes you an actual independent is naive. Tapping into disaffected Labour Leavers and getting a 'hard Brexit' is the ultimate driver here and its just business as usual for the professional political schemers who run every Party-people you deride as 'the Elite' if they are opposition political schemers..
Whichever way I look at this the only conclusion I can come to is that Labour are fully prepared to sit back and bollox to the town and its problems.....No wonder people are sick to death of the s***e that passes for politics both locally and nationally.
The SCABAL ripped the a**e out of the town under CABS Leadership but we need to remember that it wasn't just SCABAL members that made up the ruling group..... Unless i'm mistaken it was a labour 'ruling group', the least we should expect of the Corbyn Pixies is that they take an active part in repairing the damage done to both the council and the town by the Labour Group.
Labour should be going through a period of redemption not resentment
Quote from: DRiddle on May 17, 2019, 10: AM
The narrative that Labour are now SCABAL free doesn't wash with me. 40% of their current councils backed CAB every single time on every single issue and more importantly offered literally ZERO objection to allowance rises and various other calamitous decisions
It doesn't have to wash with any of us, it just has to get the disillusioned Labour voters back on board by declaring their ditching of the cabal has made everything nice and loverly in the Party. It has to give them the appearance of starting afresh and change.
Sadly for them they ditched no one, they stood to attention till the cabal walked out. They then peered round the door to make sure the cabal had gone, summoned up their collective courage and dashed out to declare their independence. Piffle.
The rumours have been flying for a few days now and no direct denial or even a comment. I think we had better brace ourselves.............
Who's telling the truth then? Will Labour refuse committee chairs on the basis they won't involve themselves with the HIU/Tory coalition? Or is the reality, as I stated days ago, they CAN'T without agreement from further up the chain within Labour?
Before CAB has even technically been removed as leader this week seems to have been a monumental c**k up from all sides involved.
https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Labour%20Party%20Rule%20Book%202018%20Ch%2013%20Clause%20X.pdf?token=AWxj2_oRGoTr-ggLKD6hw2ZiDKOYr740WIBvRJX0dzscOoWKWE0AOJf_7nnWvQOIcQLllsXIkALrkO24KwCKHR_AbnlG-et3dH-t_dDjScWLuJdP2weEcpfFFk5TXl78MBipdU3K_WZbJzoQ2xyAKdg_
Quote from: DRiddle on May 19, 2019, 12: PM
Who's telling the truth then?
I don't think 'truth' is even a factor here. Labour know the brand is tarnished. They have accepted they will spend time in the wilderness and are now just engaged in general mud-slinging because they have nothing to lose. Their name is siht and no one believes a word they say. They are already covered in merde so they are just seeing how much they can transfer to those they are attacking. Its not Labour trying to be positive but a planned and concerted effort to confuse, conflate and confound. Quite simply an crude attempt to tarnish Shane and the opposition.
Paddy comes across as a bit shifty in his video blitz. He struggles reading from a prepared script and there are a large number of cuts that indicate Machiavelli was not happy with his delivery and it took several tries before he sounded as if he half-meant what the script told him he believed. I think his mejaa consultant (Machiavelli?) needs to insert a few 'noddies' next time!
Jonathan J F Brash is working extremely hard to convince everyone that it really is the 'Opposition' that are at fault but throwing crap at them only alienates Joe Public, I have lost count of the number of posters who have said "I won't vote labour" and a the porky pies are one of the main reasons.
They still haven't grasped the root cause of the problem they are faced with......Voters don't trust them and it isn't solely down to the SCABAL, the rumours and counters rumours they are currently peddling are certainly increasing that mistrust.
Quote from: fred c on May 19, 2019, 05: PM
Jonathan J F Brash is working extremely hard to convince everyone that it really is the 'Opposition' that are at fault but throwing crap at them only alienates Joe Public,.
He has been chosen (probably by himself) as the public face of the 'new' New Labour. As he was defenestrated by CAB a few years back he is the
ONLY
Labour insider who can say he 'always' (well always from the time CAB decided it was time to dump him) opposed the Cabal. They know that it would be a complete waste of time for Carl (or insert name of any random Labour councillor in the last 7 years) to start claiming he/she were always opposed to CAB. It is a mark as to how low the Labour brand has sunk that Jonathan James Frederick Brash is their most credible mouthpiece.
Can't help noticing how the Jonathan James Frederick Brash Facebook Posts are as verbose as his old council speeches!
They had their chance to turn a new page and restore some lost ground. It was there, on a plate' then the genetic clever dick gene kicked in and their crude attempt to go for a quick return to where they think they belong. When it comes to Machiavellian tactics they're out of their depth. These were the people who let a pantomime cast run them. They'd be better off showing some humility and starting afresh after they've retired the old dinasours.
The latest twist in this saga is Paddy Brown proposing, in exchange for their support of Shane Moore for Leader and dissolving the conservative coaltion, the following chairs
Mayor - Lauderdale
Finance & Policy - Moore (default position of Leader)
Audit & Governance - Black
Licensing - Smith
Planning - Hall
Neighbourhood Service - Hunter
Regeneration - Brown
Child Services - Harrison
Adult Social Care - Thomas
That makes 4 Labour, 1 HIU & 4 Independent - that's not very politically balanced is it. It would appear that new Labour Talk the Talk but don't Walk the Walk
Ged Hall has been a puppet in the past, I wouldn't have any confidence in him chairing planning.
Quote from: jeffh on May 20, 2019, 10: AM
Mayor - Lauderdale
Finance & Policy - Moore (default position of Leader)
Audit & Governance - Black
Licensing - Smith
Planning - Hall
Neighbourhood Service - Hunter
Regeneration - Brown
Child Services - Harrison
Adult Social Care - Thomas
That makes 4 Labour, 1 HIU & 4 Independent - that's not very politically balanced is it. It would appear that new Labour Talk the Talk but don't Walk the Walk
Don't forget they want 4 vice chairs or deputy positions also.
Further to jeffh analysis it's interesting to note that Putting Seaton First have all three Cllrs in Chairs (2) and Dep Chairs (1) positions.
Labour have 10 Cllrs and 8 positions. 4 Chairs 4 Dep Chairs
Independent Union have 8 Cllrs but only 3 positions, 1 Chair, 2 Dep Chairs.
It is hardly proportional unless Labour can't do their maths, which is probably why Labour are so cavalier in how they spend CT monies?
The figures above begs the question; have Putting Seaton First entered into a coalition with Labour?
Quote from: Hartlepudlion on May 20, 2019, 01: PM
Further to jeffh analysis it's interesting to note that Putting Seaton First have all three Cllrs in Chairs (2) and Dep Chairs (1) positions.
Labour have 10 Cllrs and 8 positions. 4 Chairs 4 Dep Chairs
Independent Union have 8 Cllrs but only 3 positions, 1 Chair, 2 Dep Chairs.
It is hardly proportional unless Labour can't do their maths, which is probably why Labour are so cavalier in how they spend CT monies?
The figures above begs the question; have Putting Seaton First entered into a coalition with Labour?
Maybe Labour want them to - a cunning plan?
I wonder if IU would want anything else. Its highly likely Tennant will be off to the European parliament soon so he will be out of the equation. Maybe the rest would be happy with places on committees rather than chairs or deputy chairs.
Although it seems that Labour are deperate to keep the Tories away from planning. Wonder why that is. ;D
John Lauderdale for Ceremonial Mayor was obviously on the cards but I'm curious about the proposal for Deputy. I know Amy Prince is well thought of in Labour circles but she has just been elected and hasn't had chance to prove herself yet. I would have though it was more appropriate that the Deputy Mayor position be given to someone who has proven themselves to be a decent Councillor over a number of years.