Hartlepool First - The political party who claim to want to put all petty squabling and personal attacks aside in the interest of Hartlepool, have yet again shown their hypocricy.
After finally realising he faces a humiliating defeat to the Labour party in Fens and Rossmere, Geoff Lilley is now spending his time (with the help of SteveL) producing and delivering a leaflet around the park area of Rural West, solely attacking Cllr Wells.
The leaflet, which has a picture of a cuckoo on it, tries to discredit Cllr Wells by stating he has voted the same way as the local Labour party 29 times out of 29! YES you read it correct folks, not 25 as they originally claimed on here, 29 so as to lie a little and make it sound more.
I would suggest that these two individuals spend more time campaigning in their own wards rather than wasting party funds and valuable time going on a personal vendetta. After all, remember how that went in Greatham last year Geoff? It brought your voters out in support of you. Shall we expect Cllr Wells to now get an even larger majority thanks to Hartlepool First? Let's hope so!
Doesn't the extra 4 from 25 to 29 simply suggest that there have been 4 more votes since this topic was first mentioned on here? At least no one can say he's not consistent. ;D
I think if people vote for a Tory, or someone from any other party for that matter, and they're lucky enough to win then those people are entitled to HAVE a Tory - someone who votes 29 times out of 29 with Labour may as well be in Labour.
So Ray should vote against everything put forward by a Labour Councillor, even when it is valid and appropriate to the issue in hand.
I am sure that that would confirm his credentials, but it wouldn't necessarily be the right thing to do.
Hartlepool First expound that politics should be removed from local decision making and that the overriding driver should be local determination.
When this happens, they then spend money and time trying to re-insert the political divisions.
Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
But Hey Ho - Bring It on.
Quote from: marky on May 01, 2012, 04: PM
Doesn't the extra 4 from 25 to 29 simply suggest that there have been 4 more votes since this topic was first mentioned on here? At least no one can say he's not consistent. ;D
I think if people vote for a Tory, or someone from any other party for that matter, and they're lucky enough to win then those people are entitled to HAVE a Tory - someone who votes 29 times out of 29 with Labour may as well be in Labour.
I thought that the "25 out of 25" was a blatant lie which they were trying to pass off as "spin"? And that although he had voted the same as them 25 times it wasn't all 25 votes that he'd cast in council or even 25 consecutive votes, just that 25 of his votes out of however many had happened to be the same as those cast by the Labour group?
DK, I'm still waiting for them to publish a full list of all 25 votes. Lilley managed about 8 once after many hours of trawling minutes of council meetings he didn't attend.
Marky, No. They haven't 'just found another 4 hiding' somewhere.
Even if it was 25, how do they know that it's Wells voting with labour? Maybe labour have voted with Wells a few times. If the Lilly's ever turned up to council meetings other than full council when they know that the Mail will be present then they would know that Wells has helped shape many proposed votes.
Though turning up for those meetings may mean doing a bit of work.
Quote from: The Shadow on May 01, 2012, 04: PM
DK, I'm still waiting for them to publish a full list of all 25 votes. Lilley managed about 8 once after many hours of trawling minutes of council meetings he didn't attend.
So it's even more bollocks than what I originally thought!
Like I've asked on another thread, is there a law against telling lies in election material?
You're a bit slow off the mark, Ray. Loved the Winnie the Pooh PJs, BTW.
Actually, Marky, we're up to 30 now but the leaflets were printed too early to include the last one.
. . . and no, it's not a case of Labour agreeing with Wells; Wells doesn't propose anything and simply votes on Labour proposals put before him.
If I remember rightly, the Greatham leaflet last year was reputedly written by a semi-literate Labour councillor (anonymously, of course) and accused Lilley of woman bashing or something similar. Not easy to equate that with a leaflet with Lilleys name on the bottom simply informing people of the voting record of their cuckoo councillor which, incidentally, is fully detailed on the council website.
The pratt behind the Greatham nonsense used second-class stamps pinched from one of the 'voluntary sector' organisations - there's probably a grant application in to cover the loss at this very moment.
Ray Wells and the Tory's voting record, 29 out of 29 votes with the Labour Group. He has never voted against the Labour Party in a recorded vote
22 03 2012
Vote adoption of LDO unanimous
Vote empty property purchase scheme unanimous bar E Wright
01 03 2012
Vote for report to be submitted re Jacksons landing project unanimous
Vote to accept police and fire precept only Turner and P Thompson voted against
23 02 2012
Vote to make Richardson send letter on no confidence unanimous
Vote re monies for transport for English Martyrs School bus, unanimous
Vote 'that a further £125,000 of the Job Evaluation Appeal Reserve be utilised to
maintain non-statutory denominational home to school transport and the
remainder of the reserve be transferred to the General Fund' unanimous
Vote with other 4 torys to support Labours amendment to the budget
Vote Council resolves that any variation from the current Budget and Policy Framework and Financial Procedure rules must be considered and determined by full Council. Unanimous
09 -2- 2012
Voted to support Labours amendment to budget to include out sourceing Rev and Benefits and ICT, and £50K for Mad Dogs white goods scheme, all 4 torys supported the Labour Groups amendment.
Vote on Core Strategy all 4 torys voted for
Vote local development frame word unanimous
Vote any budget out turn to be placed in the general fund, torys voted with Labour, indys and mayor voted against.
8 -12-2011
Vote Review of polling stations unanimous
Vote closure of Falcan road unanimous
Vote revision to local development scheme unanimous
Vote notice of motion re nation use of ceasarians in childbirth no votes against
Vote on pct's and GP's being able to issue long term sick notes, 4 tory votes 4 other abstaintions.
Vote deferral of referendum unanimous
27 10 2011
Vote on Youth Justice Strategy bill unanimous
08 09 2011
Vote of no confidence in NT&H NHS trust unanimous vote,
Vote on appointment to standards Committee unanimous vote.
25 08 2011
Loynes, Morris and Wells vote with all others except J Marshal, extraordinary meeting re Bailey to be acting CE.
04 -8 2011
Vote to support Health Scrutiny forum in review and support of retaining Hospital services, Wells (4 torys) unanimous.
Vote on the 'hear n Hartlepool' petition (kicked into touch) all 4 tory's voted with the Labour group.
Vote on the minerals strategy unanimous
Vote giving HBC permission to proceed with Jackson's landing 4 tory votes for indys against
10 02 2011
Voted with all other Councillors, vote to accept the Mid Term budget
24 02 2011
Voted that 'This Council therefore urges our own MP Iain Wright and his fellow MPs for Middlesbrough, Stockton on Tees, Darlington, Redcar and Easington
not to support an increase in the EU budget. Wells votes with the rest of HB Council
That's 10 Steve. Want to keep going?
As I said earlier. Don't you think your time is better spent campaigning in the wards you are standing in? Talking to and listening to the concerns of the residents you hope to represent?
Obviously not! Well you have shown that HF is all about petty political point scoring and NOT about putting Hartlepool First after all. What a surprise.
Hartlepool Independents - Putting Personal Vendettas First
u
I cant see the problem showing the residents how the person in question has voted
I understand that when leaflets were being delivered around the Park Ward on the Hospital Closure the person posting them was threatened by Cllr Ray Wells.
Has anyone delivering election leaflets had the same reponse?
Reponse?... Response
I havent had any problems.
As an observer:
I see a panic striken attempt to try and rescue Well's from the results of his inactivity.
Given the strength of the reaction here (by Ray Well's Shadow) I would say this is the area where he knows he is weakest. When you lash out like this then you must really be in trouble.
Dangerman that might not be true, this is how I understand it to have been.
R.W. wife was given grief at the school while picking her kid/kids up about it..R.W. was rightly pis*ed about it, as you or I would be.
Shadow and DK I agree with the voting bit.. he might have voted 29 out of 29..or so..but how many votes in total has he voted..it's not 29..they are cherry picked that and that seems somewhat unfair in my view but politics is a dirty business, so that is that.
I could be wrong, if I am please show me how/where.
from what I understand the votes are all the recorded votes taken.
Well it would be to you for two reasons..
1, You won't get the chance to vote on anything anytime soon ..
2, You got jogged on by the Tories hence why you are P.H.F.
Nothing personal, I hope you make town M.P. one day, if that is your desire, if your any good that is..only time will tell but making enemies is not always the best way about going about it i have learned in life..to late for to learn new tricks but your young so there is hope..
I never made these leaflets. But i do totally agree with them.
Of course you would.. your under P.H.F. banner now and not the Tory banner.
What else would we expect?
It's a dirty buisness init.
MK1, I haven't lashed out at all my little lefty friend. I have simply highlighted the hypocricy of HF.
If they wish to waste their time, effort and members money on a personal vendetta in a ward they haven't a cat in hells chance of winning, then I'm happy to let them crack on.
P.S. Are you putting out similar leaflets in wards where you really want to give labour a bloody nose and get a seat? Like Manor? Victoria? Fens and Rossmere? No? Didn't think so.
So much for really wanting to 'rid this town of labour'.
I think P.H.F. is doing the right thing..bit little, bit to late..but hey..better late then never and all that..
Should have been doing this round the town months ago..nut nuts.
They would have had a chance.
By the way, I think you will find Ray Wells has golden bollox around West Park at present. P.H.F. and if you don't know, well you have a surprise coming.
There is no way the people there and not voting for him so really it's somewhat of an own goal for P.H.F. maybe..
Notice how i use the word maybe to give me a get out of jail card if may 3rd results don't go his way..lol
I'm learning.
oh Dear. No Ray, you're counting the dates not the votes and there are 11 dates not 10 - do try and keep up.
Before February 2011, votes were not routinely recorded (i.e. who voted what) so we only have since then to go by. Since February 2011, when recorded votes for all votes at full council meetings were introduced, there have been 29 votes altogether and the way Wells voted in those 29 is detailed above.
No cherry-picking - just a straight forward list.
Fair enough Stevel.. but why I do think there is a rabbit off here.
Quote from: The Shadow on May 01, 2012, 06: PM
If they wish to waste their time, effort and members money on a personal vendetta in a ward they haven't a cat in hells chance of winning, then I'm happy to let them crack on.
If I was in a ward where no one else but me had a
'cats in Wells hells chance' then I surely would not waste my time complaining about anything my challengers said or did.
The Lady doth protest too much, methinks.............
Quote: "So much for really wanting to 'rid this town of labour'."
With your voting record, Ray, I'd say there wasn't much difference.
Don't forget to remove the poster versions you intend to put on bus stops during election day.
Wouldn't want a headline about how HBC had to waste tax payers money removing guerrila fly posting by HF now would we?
Steve, your a little boy trying to play poker with the people way out of your league.
I'd seriously suggest you take SA advice and put your time and effort into winning you votes in Headland and Harbour. You are going to need every one! X
I think Steve is one of the dark horse worth £1 at the bookies and I don't bet at all..
Fred being the other one that might just have a hope in hell and I hope they will get there too..the bubble will burst then in my view.
Quote from: The Shadow on May 01, 2012, 06: PM
Wouldn't want a headline about how HBC had to waste tax payers money removing guerrila fly posting by HF now would we?
Couldn't you use some of the
bung grant money you and all the other unemployables voted yourselves recently?
Quote from: The Shadow on May 01, 2012, 06: PM
Steve, your a little boy trying to play poker with the people way out of your league.
Telling slip, you really are rattled!
Re the recorded vote issue. Doesn't 'unanimous' mean that everyone voted the same way? Wouldn't that include Lib Dems and Independent Councillors too? Or am I being simplistic?
Quote: "Fair enough Stevel.. but why I do think there is a rabbit off here."
it's all about cuckoo Councillors, something you know lots about.
Ray Wells is one of very few Tory Councillors who got mentioned in despatches on the Labour website.
http://www.labournorth.com/embarrassment-for-government-as-tory-councillors-condemn-vat-ris
Fair enough Stevel.. but why I do think there is a rabbit off here.
I have a theory about this - admittedly it's only a theory. A Labour man gathers a fair bit of money behind him - enough to move into the poshest area of town. He's sussed that being a Councillor would give him considerable influence and that such a thing might come in very handy.
But what to do? There's no chance of getting elected as a Labour Councillor in such a posh area - so - hey presto! This is the Park area and if you stuck a blue rossette on Lenin he'd still get elected.
Quote from: steveL on May 01, 2012, 07: PM
Quote: "Fair enough Stevel.. but why I do think there is a rabbit off here."
it's all about cuckoo Councillors, something you know lots about.
Hang on mate, you will have to break that down for me, as that has gone over my head totally.
Ray Wells is one of very few Tory Councillors who got mentioned in despatches on the Labour website.
What did it say!! was it good? bad? what!! don't tell half a story mate, we want the facts.
Fair enough Stevel.. but why I do think there is a rabbit off here.
I have a theory about this - admittedly it's only a theory. A Labour man gathers a fair bit of money behind him - enough to move into the poshest area of town. He's sussed that being a Councillor would give him considerable influence and that such a thing might come in very handy.
Well you what, you might have a point, but if you ask his voting public what they think, it isn't that I am told.
But what to do? There's no chance of getting elected as a Labour Councillor in such a posh area - so - hey presto! This is the Park area and if you stuck a blue rossette on Lenin he'd still get elected.
It's a dirty business mate... P.H.F. have no clout.
Question is Steve...What can you do about it..afterall you not voted in yet and if you are you won't be firmed up..so what can you do about it..Sweet F.A. but you don't have to like it mate.
You would have been better getting into bed with him politically and having it with the obvious Labour.
Quote:"Steve, your a little boy trying to play poker with the people way out of your league."
Now come on you two, a little boy or a failed middle-aged journalist - make your mind up.
Money can buy lots of things, Ray - but not the truth - and as you don't seem to have grasped it yet - HF is all about ridding this town who think they are in a different league to the rest of the people.
@llta
sorry missed the link off
http://www.labournorth.com/embarrassment-for-government-as-tory-councillors-condemn-vat-ris
........ cuckoo councillors in that you've got another one in your ward
Quote: You would have been better getting into bed with him politically and having it with the obvious Labour.
I ain't a Tory - never voted Tory in my life and never could.
I'm aware of the school incident and your right in what you say I would be quite hacked off, but I was refering to Ian Campbell delivering leaflets.
He was threatened by Cllr Wells not to deliver any more in the Park Ward or anywhere else.
Ian told me first hand what occured I have to take his word he had nothing to gain by telling me a lie.
The truth hurts but a smack in the mouth hurts more. So it's easier to give in.
I am sorry fella I didn't know that..
Hang on a minute though..Ray Wells threatening anyone..are we talking about the same Ray Well, the little, skinny fella hangs about the fountain hoping for rain as the council won't let him have any water in his foutain..afterall why should the council his a wells..
Quote from: observer on May 01, 2012, 07: PM
Re the recorded vote issue. Doesn't 'unanimous' mean that everyone voted the same way? Wouldn't that include Lib Dems and Independent Councillors too? Or am I being simplistic?
Yes it does. A lot of votes are fairly neutral and will get general support. Can't say about the Lib-Dems but few Independents can boast the same level of consistency as Mr Wells in supporting Labour.
In particular, the budget that had been worked on for 9 months by the Cabinet and Council Officers was voted down by Labour with the help of Mr Well's Tories and a few wimps that were the Labour members of the Cabinet who decided to change their mind. Peter Jackson was deselected from the Throston ward just to get the message across.
Labour want the ICT and Benefits function to remain in the hands of its UNISON backers and also a slice of the £4m in savings that the council had made last year to spend on a variety of its own pet projects like the one to supply free or cheap white electrical goods and furniture to asylum seekers and single mums setting up home.
The Credit Union already provides cheap loans for this purpose and does a pretty good job but Marjorie James doesn't get on with the Credit Union after it refused to allow her onto its board. Wells voted for that too.
The idea to outsource ICT and Benefits would have saved over £10m over 7 years but it required upfront costs such as those needed to renew software licences etc of several hundred thousands - big money, but not when compared to the £10m+ savings. Essentially, if there was several hundred thousand up for grabs then Labour wanted a slice of it.
Planning ahead doesn't come naturally to Labour who prefer the buy-now-pay-later approach.
Quote from: dangerman on May 01, 2012, 07: PM
He was threatened by Cllr Wells not to deliver any more in the Park Ward or anywhere else.
Thats the trouble with wide boys.
The history of dodgy deals means they have a little Coterie who do their dirty work for them.
Reminds me of Chey and the way she used to threaten people with a visit from her old debt collection associates........
Is that how it works MK1!!
Dirty business this politics..I would fit right in there...lol.
Quote from: dangerman on May 01, 2012, 07: PM
The truth hurts but a smack in the mouth hurts more. So it's easier to give in.
I will let you in on a little secret.
It rarely hurts much the day you get it. The next day it will be a pain but if someone smacks you then strike back instead of curling up in a ball and hoping they don't hit anything vital. Your natural defence mechanism dopes you up and you can function quite well even with serious wounds.
Steve. HF isn't about ridding this town of labour or anyone else. It was and is a vehicle for getting a few sitting and previous councillors re elected who would stand no chance unless they rebrand themselves again.
Now to your theory... If that was Rays game it's been a bloody long game.
Ray joined Hartlepool Conservative Association in 1989 and became one of the youngest branch chairmen ever in 1994, getting him an invite to Number 10.
So you are now seriously suggesting that he has really been hiding his labour colours for uww 23 years just so that he could one day move to the park and become a councillor?
Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, things that are voted on in full council are discussed at great length beforehand in cross party talks so that everybody taking part gets to have a say in it?
The problem with HF and more specifically the Lilleys, is that they refuse to attend meetings where such things are discussed. In doing so they have no say and more importantly they do not represent the people they were voted to speak up for.
Instead they prefer to ignore these meetings, turn up for full council meetings where they will have the public and press to play to, then proceed to score political points and voting the opposite way.
That isn't giving effective representation to the people who elected them and it is certainly no way to move this town forward.
Quote from: steveL on May 01, 2012, 07: PM
@llta
sorry missed the link off
http://www.labournorth.com/embarrassment-for-government-as-tory-councillors-condemn-vat-ris
........ cuckoo councillors in that you've got another one in your ward
In my ward..I have no idea what you mean ..am I having a thick day..
Quote: You would have been better getting into bed with him politically and having it with the obvious Labour.
I ain't a Tory - never voted Tory in my life and never could.
No I didn't mean become a Tory Stevel... ;D ;D ;D \i meant P.H.F. stricking up a few friendship with the other parties to give it to Labour.
There are a few Indies that I think are waiting to see what happens on Thursday but who would fit into the HF fold quite well, I have some time for Edna whose heart is in the right place even though her head is often somewhere else. George Morris is a waste of space and should really be confined to a Werther's Original ad... I quite like Chris McKenna but he rarely speaks.
The saddest thing and something of a mystery to me is the good guys on the Labour side who have chosen to doff their caps to the mighty Marj rather than be the people they once aspired to be.
So not a lot of choice really....oh and incidentally, there are 19 HF candidates in all and the idea that 15 of us are naive enough to be taken in by two meglamaniac despots is a bit laughable. I think you'd find that it's the 15 who, realising their own newbie status, are using the four more experienced guys to their own advantage.
Quote from: steveL on May 01, 2012, 09: PM
There are a few Indies that I think are waiting to see what happens on Thursday but who would fit into the HF fold quite well, I have some time for Edna whose heart is in the right place even though her head is often somewhere else.
That's a good start to get her onside!
George Morris is a waste of space and should really be confined to a Werther's Original ad... I quite like Chris McKenna but he rarely speaks.
Mmm I don't suppose that will help either Steve.
The saddest thing and something of a mystery to me is the good guys on the Labour side who have chosen to doff their caps to the mighty Marj rather than be the people they once aspired to be.
That's corruption of one form or other for you, it's so unpredictable.
So not a lot of choice really....oh and incidentally, there are 19 HF candidates in all and the idea that 15 of us are naive enough to be taken in by two meglamaniac despots is a bit laughable.
13 of them keep it real..lol..It's like watching lambs walking to the butchers along York Rd..bless em..
I think you'd find that it's the 15 who, realising their own newbie status, are using the four more experienced guys to their own advantage.
;D
It's good for S.A. and G.L. and a couple of you might have half a chance but the rest are proper f**c*** and won't realise until about midnight Thursday..
Quote from: steveL on May 01, 2012, 05: PM
Ray Wells and the Tory's voting record, 29 out of 29 votes with the Labour Group. He has never voted against the Labour Party in a recorded vote
I AM HAVING TO SEND THIS POST IN SECTIONS AS ADMIN HAS INDICATED IT IS TOO LONG
PART ONE
Unlike others who have jumped in on one side or the other, I have bothered to look at the Council website and gone through the minutes referred to.
Where Cllrs Alison and Geoff Lilley or indeed Cllr Gibbon, have voted for the same thing as Ray Wells which includes all the unanimous votes of Council I have discounted them.
Even stretching it to the max, I can only find FIVE occasions where Ray Wells has voted in a different direction to the three named Councillors. Which is what this is about more than how often he votes with Labour.
Also unlike Steve Latimer and others, I have given you a flavour of the issue rather than just the headline title.
I will apologise now for the length of this post, but TRUTH WILL OUT - Despite those who would try to crush it for THEIR OWN GAIN.
22 03 2012
Vote adoption of LDO unanimous
(i) Adoption of Local Development Orders relating to Enterprise Zones
Those in favour:
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Griffin, Hall, Hill, James, Lauderdale, A Lilley, G Lilley, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shaw, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, Turner, Wells,Wilcox and Wright
Cllr. Gibbon was not present at the meeting
Vote empty property purchase scheme unanimous bar E Wright
Those in favour:
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Griffin, Hall, Hill, James, Lauderdale, A Lilley, G Lilley, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shaw, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, Turner, Wells and Wilcox
Those against: Councillor Wright
Cllr. Gibbon was not present at the meeting
01 03 2012
Vote for report to be submitted re Jacksons landing project unanimous
Those in favour:
The Mayor, Stuart Drummond and Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells, Wilcox and Wright
Vote to accept police and fire precept only Turner and P Thompson voted against
There is no vote to accept the fire and police precept, the vote is to set the Council Tax which includes these amounts of money, the council has no authority to reject them
It was moved and seconded that:-
'The amount of Council Tax be approved including the Cleveland Police Authority and Cleveland Fire Authority precepts, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the relevant inclusion of amounts of Council Tax for each category of dwelling.
Those in favour:
The Mayor, Stuart Drummond and Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, Wells, Wilcox and Wright
Those against: Councillors P Thompson and Turner
STILL VOTING AGAINST ENGLISH MARTYRS!!!!!
PART TWO
23 02 2012
Vote to make Richardson send letter on no confidence unanimous
Those in favour:
The Mayor, Stuart Drummond and Councillors C Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hill, Ingham, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shaw, Shields, Sirs,
Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells, Wilcox and Wright
Vote re monies for transport for English Martyrs School bus, unanimous
Those in favour:
The Mayor, Stuart Drummond and Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Gibbon, Hill, Ingham, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shaw,Shields, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells, Wilcox and Wright
Vote 'that a further £125,000 of the Job Evaluation Appeal Reserve be utilised to maintain non-statutory denominational home to school transport and the remainder of the reserve be transferred to the General Fund' unanimous
(***) Those in favour of the recommendation: The Mayor, Stuart Drummond
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hill, Ingham, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness,
A Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shaw, Shields, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells, Wilcox and Wright
Vote with other 4 torys to support Labours amendment to the budget
Those in favour:
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Griffin, Ingham, James, Lawton, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shaw, Shields, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, P Thompson, Turner, Wells, Wilcox and Wright
Those against the recommendation: The Mayor, Stuart Drummond
Councillors Fleming, Gibbon, Hill, Lauderdale, A Lilley, G Lilley and H Thompson
(***) This is called duplicity in my book. They voted in front of children, teachers and parents of English Martyrs for them to regain their free transport at a cost of £125,000 and then voted to not accept the budget they had just amended.
Vote Council resolves that any variation from the current Budget and Policy Framework and Financial Procedure rules must be considered and determined by full Council. Unanimous
Those in favour of the recommendation:
The Mayor, Stuart Drummond and Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cranney, Cook, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hill, Ingham, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shaw, Shields, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells, Wilcox and Wright
Those against the recommendation: Councillor A Lilley
I THINK SHE MADE A MISTAKE, BUT YOU NEVER KNOW!!!!
This just reinforces the decision of Council that if the Mayor wants access to extra cash he has to come to Council and ask for it – so they can say NO
PART THREE
09 -2- 2012
Voted to support Labours amendment to budget to include out sourcing Rev and Benefits and ICT, and £50K for Mad Dogs white goods scheme, all 4 torys supported the Labour Groups amendment.
CORRECTION TO ABOVE – The amendment to the budget OPPOSED the outsourcing of Revenues and Benefits as part of the ICT contract.
Those in favour of the recommendation:
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Ingham, James, Lawton, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, Wells (1) and Wilcox.
Those against the recommendation: The Mayor, Stuart Drummond
Councillors Gibbon, Hill, Lauderdale, A E Lilley, G Lilley, H Thompson
Vote on Core Strategy all 4 torys voted for
It was moved and seconded that:-
(i) The draft core Strategy Publication Document be approved, for consultation purposes.
Those in favour – The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors: C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Ingham, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Payne, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells (2) and Wilcox.
Those against the recommendation:
Councillor Gibbon, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Preece and Wright
Why anyone would vote against consultation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vote local development frame word unanimous
Those in favour – The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors: C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Gibbon, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Ingham, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells, Wilcox and Wright.
PART FOUR
09 -2- 2012
Vote any budget out turn to be placed in the general fund, torys voted with Labour, indys and mayor voted against.
The following Motion had been received:
"This Council resolves to amend Section 4 of the Council's Constitution and record within their annual Budget and Policy Framework that any favourable outturn must be allocated to the Council's General Fund. This will ensure that any further allocation of the said monies is subject to Full
Council approval"
Those in favour:-
Councillors: C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barlday, Cook,Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, |ngham, James, Lawton, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Preece,
Ricarhdson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, P Thompson, Turner, Wells (3) and Wilcox.
Those against:- The Mayor, Stuart Drummond
Councillors Gibbon, Hill, Lauderdale, A E Lilley, G Lilley and H Thompson
Those abstaining:
Councilllors: Hall, Hargreaves, Jackson, Payne, Simmons and Wright
In previous years the positive outturn (this is money not budgeted for and was worth 4 million this year) has been used by the Mayor for things like – tarting up Church Square, the Tall Ships etc. So of course he wasn't happy when Council took away his slush fund so that if he wants to spend money on these sorts of items he will have to come and ask so Council can say NO.
The REAL QUESTION IS: Why did A Lilley, G Lilley and Gibbon want the Mayor to keep his SLUSH FUND ????????????????
8 -12-2011
Vote Review of polling stations unanimous
Those in favour – The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors: Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wilcox.
Vote closure of Falcan road unanimous (It is Falcon Road)
Those in favour – The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors: Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wilcox.
PART FIVE
8 -12-2011
Vote revision to local development scheme unanimous
Those in favour – The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors: Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness,
A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wilcox.
Vote notice of motion re nation use of ceasarians in childbirth no votes against
The Motion was in fact:
Hartlepool Borough Council is alarmed by the recent intimation by Government that the NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) rules governing the use of Caesarean Section during
Child-birth may be relaxed, so allowing for elective Caesarean being available on the NHS.
Those in favour –
Councillors: Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest,
Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wilcox.
Those against the recommendation:
None.
Those abstaining:
The Mayor, Stuart Drummond.
Councillors A Lilley, G Lilley and Preece.
Vote on pct's and GP's being able to issue long term sick notes, 4 tory votes 4 other abstaintions.
Motion:
This Council is concerned by the conflicting decisions being made by Government.
At a time when Government is pushing ahead with the replacement of Primary Care Trusts (PCT's) as commissioners of local health care, they also believe that a G.P. should no longer be able to sign a sick note. Such diverse decision making has the potential to undermine G.P.'s and leave patients confused and distrustful of the health provision being afforded them.
Those in favour –
Councillors: Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas,
H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wilcox
Those abstaining:
The Mayor, Stuart Drummond.
A Lilley and G. Lilley were present at the meeting but did not vote.
PART SIX
8 -12-2011
Vote deferral of referendum unanimous
125. PETITION FOR A REFERENDUM
At the meeting on 27th October, 2011, Council had received a report confirming the receipt of a petition requesting amongst other matters, a "Mayoral Referendum". That petition as received on 21st October, 2011, contained approximately 3,600 signatures and the Council was required to receive and proceed to verify such petitions as to their validity within a period of one month from receipt.
The Council's Chief Solicitor had given notification to the "petition organiser" and the Secretary of State on 18th November, 2011, that the petition was deemed to be invalid. In accordance with the requirement under The Local Authorities (Referendum) (Petitions and Directions) (England) Regulations, 2000, public notice of this determination was also given in an edition of the Hartlepool Mail. Correspondence was also sent to all Borough Councillors outlining the reasons behind this determination. Through the verification of this petition, it transpired that 2,815 signatories were from individuals who appeared on the published register of electors (the petition organiser did volunteer an additional 66 signatories, 45 of them were registered electors) and in consequence the verification number, which applies for the Borough, namely 3,457 was not met. Whilst there was an expression of discontentment within this petition, the aims and objectives did not provide a clear indication as to the constitutional change required to constitute a valid petition for the purposes of
Regulation 9.
However, the more fundamental reason of why this petition should be determined as being invalid is that where a local authority is operating a Mayor and Cabinet Executive, as Hartlepool Borough Council does, there is no scope within Part II of these Regulations for local authority electors
to effect a "constitutional change" to comply with Regulation 9(2) in the form of the Executive by such a petition. The only change in the form of an Executive that was permitted under Part II of these Regulations was a change to an Executive involving an Elected Mayor and Cabinet. There was no other form of Executive that a petition under Part II of these Regulations could seek to promote. As there was no other form of Executive to which the Council could change that could satisfy the requirements of Regulation 9, such a petition was necessarily invalid.
The Department for Communities and Local Government appeared to accept this interpretation of these Regulations although the Secretary of State had power to issue a direction for the local authority to hold a referendum, this power would only be exercised in wholly exceptional circumstances
Members were reminded that any change to the Council's governance arrangements would need to be endorsed through a referendum. Further, there was a moratorium of 10 years on holding a referendum from one held previously, a position that was not altered under the Localism Act, 2011.
Should the Secretary of State ever direct the Council to hold a referendum or should the Council resolve to so hold, a referendum should generally be held within a period of six months from such direction or resolution and there would be a combination of polls, should the referendum coincide with an ordinary or other election. A local authority in proceeding towards a referendum must undertake reasonable consultation and would be required, amongst other matters, to agree upon its "fallback" proposals at least two months prior to any referendum.
At the present time, the only alternative form of Executive arrangement from that of Mayor and Cabinet, was the "Leader and Cabinet" model. It was noted, that whilst the 2000 Regulations had limited application in relation to a petition seeking a referendum as outlined, this was not the case where the Secretary of State directed a referendum to be held or where the Council so resolves. The Localism Act, 2011, which received Royal Assent on 15th November, also introduced a further model of governance namely that of a "committee system" and the power of the Secretary of State to introduce other "prescribed arrangements". Amending Regulations were scheduled to be introduced early in 2012 and until that time, the Council would be unable to meaningfully and lawfully consult on these "new" models of governance. If Members wished to resolve to move towards a referendum, the timing of the same would be crucial.
It was also open to the Council to engage in informal consultations and this could be a preparatory step before any formal resolution to move towards a referendum is taken.
The options therefore available to Council were as follows;
(i) That the Council resolve to hold a referendum, which would need to be held within a period of six months from the passing of that resolution, which currently would limit consultations to the present Executive form of governance, namely Mayor and Cabinet and that relating to the Leader and Cabinet model.
(ii) That the Council defers consideration to the holding of a referendum until the introduction of amending Regulations introduced under the Localism Act, 2011, which will provide for additional forms of governance to be considered and upon which the Council would then be able to engage in lawful consultation.
Notwithstanding the above 'options', Council may wish to proceed with informal consultations to seek a view as to how the Council should be governed and the results of such informal consultations be taken into account in any subsequent referendum process. Members debated issues raised by the report.
Following discussion, option (ii) was moved and seconded.
RESOLVED – That consideration to the holding of a referendum be deferred until the introduction of amending Regulations introduced under the Localism Act, 2011.
Those in favour –
The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors: Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wilcox.
PART SEVEN
27 10 2011
Vote on Youth Justice Strategy bill unanimous
Those in favour – The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors: C Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick , Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A Lilley, G Lilley, Maness, A Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Shaw, Shields, Tempest, Thomas, P Thompson, Wilcox, Wright.
08 09 2011
Vote of no confidence in NT&H NHS trust unanimous vote,
Those in favour – The Mayor Stuart Drummond,
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Brash, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Griffin, Hall, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, McKenna, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shaw, Shields, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wright.
Cllr Gibbon was absent from the above meeting
Vote on appointment to standards Committee unanimous vote.
There was no vote, Council were asked to approve the appointment of: Reverend John Lund
As there was no dissent, it was taken as the unanimous agreement of all present which included:
A Lilley, G Lilley and Gibbon
WHY WOULD ANYBODY VOTE AGAINST A VICAR???????
25 08 2011
Loynes, Morris and Wells vote with all others except J Marshal, extraordinary meeting re Bailey to be acting CE.
Those in favour of the recommendation:
The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Gibbon, Hall, Hill, Jackson, Lawton, Loynes, A Marshall, J W Marshall, Morris, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, Turner, Wells, Wilcox and Wright
Those abstaining: Councillor J Marshall
A Lilley & G Lilley were both absent from the above meeting
RAY WELLS WAS PART OF THE APPOINTMENTS PANEL that interviewed Nicola Bailey and offered her the job – so of course he would vote for the decision to be endorsed by Full Council
PART 8
04 -8 2011
Vote to support Health Scrutiny forum in review and support of retaining Hospital services, Wells (4 torys) unanimous.
Those in favour of the recommendation:
Councillors Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells, Wilcox and Wright
Vote on the 'hear n Hartlepool' petition (kicked into touch) all 4 tory's voted with the Labour group.
Most Councillors were already aware of the issues around options available and the moratorium on a referendum being held as they were discussing it in other meetings, like Constitution Committee, General Purposes Committee and the Working Group of Council – All meetings that Geoff and Alison don't attend.
The famous petition – Most people spouting about it have never read it, so here it is!
'Many residents are suffering, distressed and alarmed by the state of affairs within the council evidenced by good and bad publicity, leaks from within the council, media coverage and generally, the word on the street. Enough is Enough!
We: "Hear 'n' Hartlepool" are asking Full Council to support a public inquiry into HBC Executive and Management so that informed choices can be made into action and accountability as previous research is known to have flaws and so may be invalid.
Please embrace this opportunity to empower local people in making a local impact!'
WHAT IT ASKS FOR IS NOT A REFERENDUM BUT A PUBLIC INQUIRY
Here is an example of the costs of a Public Inquiry:
Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry.
Inquiry expenditure between April 2011 and February 2012: £11,751,750
So of course the Council weren't going to support it!!
Those in favour of the recommendation to take no action:
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Fenwick, Fleet, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Payne, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells (4) and Wilcox
Those against the recommendation:
Aiken, Fleming, Gibbon, A E Lilley, G Lilley, J Marshall, Preece and Wright
04 -8 2011
Vote to support Health Scrutiny forum in review and support of retaining Hospital services, Wells (4 torys) unanimous.
Those in favour of the recommendation:
Councillors Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells, Wilcox and Wright
Vote on the minerals strategy unanimous
Those in favour:
Councillors Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wilcox
Vote giving HBC permission to proceed with Jackson's landing 4 tory votes for indys against
Those in favour:
Councillors Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells (5) and Wilcox
Those against the recommendation:
Councillors Gibbon, A E Lilley, G Lilley, J Marshall and Wright.
10 02 2011
Voted with all other Councillors, vote to accept the Mid Term budget
Those in favour:
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Atkinson, Barclay, Barker, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fleet, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, James, Laffey, Lauderdale, Lawton, G Lilley, London, Maness, A Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Shaw, Simmons, Thomas, H. Thompson,
P. Thompson, Turner, Wells, Worthy and Wright.
A Lilley was absent from the above meeting
24 02 2011
Voted that 'This Council therefore urges our own MP Iain Wright and his fellow MPs for Middlesbrough, Stockton on Tees, Darlington, Redcar and Easington
not to support an increase in the EU budget. Wells votes with the rest of HB Council
Those in favour:
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Atkinson, Barclay, Barker, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fleet, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Ingham, Jackson, James, Laffey, Lauderdale, Lawton, A E Lilley, G Lilley, London, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, Dr. Morris, Payne, Plant, Preece, Richardson, Rogan, Shaw, Simmons, Sutheran, Thomas, P Thompson, Turner, Wells, and Wright.
SO THERE YOU HAVE IT.
Ray Wells voted with the Lilley's on most occasions and with the rest of council against them 5 times.
BUT WHY LET THE TRUTH GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD LEAFLET?
We'll see but I think you're missing the point. Whatever happens on Thursday HF isn't going away. Within a matter of weeks of its first meeting in January HF had the Tories producing a bright, glossy and expensive leaflet aimed solely at attacking it without mentioning Labour once.
Why would that be?
Can it be that they think the members of HF are such a threat or is it that they are worried that the cosy cartel with Labour and the Lib-Dems is about to fall apart because the people have had enough of it?
It's not HF they are worried about - it's the people finding their voice.
Within a matter of weeks of your first meeting? Ohh do behave. I've heard the Independent trap leaflet was an afterthought, designed and printed after the main election leaflets had been done.
Steve, HF is nothing new. The only difference between this incarnation and the rest is that it has Hartlepool in the name to hopefully pull a few extra votes.
Quote from: steveL on May 02, 2012, 12: AM
We'll see but I think you're missing the point. Whatever happens on Thursday HF isn't going away.
I have not missed the point at all and agree to a point with you fully. but down the line the buttom will be pushed, when you all start falling out. Labour seem to do well as they are united. even if we don't like it..they even have spares with the Indy's just incase..what you got, a dream this time round. next time you get a good run at it and things will move on from there if you all stay together as one, but I don't think that is possible..so as for missing the point I think not my friend..
Within a matter of weeks of its first meeting in January HF had the Tories producing a bright, glossy and expensive leaflet aimed solely at attacking it without mentioning Labour once.
And..ain't going to get you votes so why worry about it now..do all that later.
Why would that be?
Search me, maybe they fancied doing it I suppose..
Can it be that they think the members of HF are such a threat or is it that they are worried that the cosy cartel with Labour and the Lib-Dems is about to fall apart because the people have had enough of it?
But you ain't..sorry mate..but you ain't..
It's not HF they are worried about - it's the people finding their voice.
Yes..lets hope so.
Good Luck Thursday to you and Fred, nothing would make me smile more Thursday night than you two getting in.
I mean I don't agree with alot of what you say these days since you gone all Lily on us but after May 3rd I hope your a councillor Steve..lol..how that will p**s Labour off.. ;D
Quote from: steveL on May 01, 2012, 07: PM
@llta
........ cuckoo councillors in that you've got another one in your ward
Maybe it would help if I actually understood what the cuckoo bit meant.!!
Help me out here Steve
Cockoos lay their eggs in the nest of another bird which then incubates and rears it as one of their own.
oh and Labour aren't united; far from it. You do as you're told or you're out - like the Cabinet members who were threatened with deselection from standing in the election. Peter Jackson was deselected from running in his own ward to let the rest of the Labour cabinet members know that they would be too if they didn't walk away from their own budget plans and Jane Shaw was also deselected and is now standing as an Indie.
You doff your cap to the mighty Marj these days - or you're out.
That's interesting.
Eight lengthy posts which seemed to have involved a lot of copy/pasting which must have taken hours of a person's time. The question is: who else but Mr Wells himself would bother?
More to the point-who would bother to read it all?
It`s bad enough reading through the crap leaflets posted through my front door.
As a rabbit, my attention span is too short.
Maybe its not your turn to borrow the braincell, Rabbit.
At least one person has read the full content, Admin, as my posts are being monitored as you know.
So despite the length of the post, which could not be avoided if the true picture is to be seen by others.
The insistence that Ray Wells is a Labour stooge is inaccurate as the evidence shows.
Read it or not, the facts will come out, if you need to tell lies in order to be elected, you will sooner or later be shot out by those who believed you.
Quote from: Straight Talking on May 02, 2012, 03: PM
Read it or not, the facts will come out, if you need to tell lies in order to be elected, you will sooner or later be shot out by those who believed you.
I don't know about that Labour have got away with it for a lifetime..
Where's my B.L.T.?
It is suggested that Wells voted with Labour 29 times, is it presumed that Labour would vote through 29 issues that are detrimental to the town or did Wells just decide the reasons were good enough to vote with them ? Will HF vote against Labour on principle regardless of the recommendation ?
I have already provided the evidence on this website that the accusation is untrue.
But just so it is clear, Geoff Lilley, the accuser and Ray Wells the accused, voted 21 times in the same direction as every other councillor present at the meetings of full council.
On 2 occasions Ray Wells voted in the same direction as every other councillor present at the meetings of full council.
Geoff Lilley was absent on 2 occasions and failed to vote on a 3rd.
Ray Wells voted differently to Geoff Lilley but in line with rest of Council on 5 occasions.
OR, GEOFF LILLEY VOTED IN LINE WITH LABOUR COUNCILLORS ON 21 OUT OF 29 OCCASIONS
In reference to the titile of this topic, it's blatantly obvious who's 'rattled'. ::)
S.T.
One problem with your detailed copying and pasting of the Voting, is that it is hard to make sense of, because your own comments are mixed in with the text.
It would have been clearer if you could have used a different font for your comments.
I cannot draw any particular conclusion from it all, except perhaps that in most cases individual councillors do not vote according to their party banner (unlike the House of Commons). The Labour "lot" may invariably do so, but the others (Conservative, Lib.Dems etc) would not as a point of principle always vote against the Labour majority.
It seems as though it is the majority of the town electorate that is fixated in their devotion to the Labour Party, rather than the Labour councillors themselves. It is obvious that it is easier in general to become a Hartlepool councillor by using the Labour Party flag, whether or not these candidates hold complete allegiance to it.
As an afterthought, it could be useful after today, when the dust settles, if:
ALL COUNCIL MOTIONS with the voting results are shown on this site immediately following the vote, so that we can all see if there is a Party Political pattern to this. If we do finish up with some new Hartlepool First Counciillors, we will be able to see their voting patterns. And probably some discussion on it!
No it was all the council votes at full council meetings since Feb 2011 when they started to record the votes. There have been 29 such votes since then and he's voted with Labour every time.
A lot of the votes are general administrative votes which every councilly votes for but when the issues are more controversial then you would expect a split vote and you would probably expect this to happen most frequently between the two traditionally opposing parties: the Tories and Labour.
For example: contract out the revenue and benefits would save over £10m over years but would require hindreds of thousands to set it up. This is precisely the sort of efficiency saving Cameron is suggesting whereas Labour want to hold on to those UNISON jobs and keep them in the Civic.
So you would expect Wells and his colleagues to be on one sode of the argument and the Labout lot on the other.
Guess what happened?
Is it where they were going to have to pay over a million pounds, as a company had 18 months of a contract left to run, or was that something else?
Correct LLTA. A get out payment of over 1m would have had to be paid to get out of the current contract. Ray stated on the evening before full council that the conservative group supported the amendment on R&B because they would prefer to see the current contract out and then put R&Bs out to tender.
If the current bidders could give such a good deal now, they can offer it next year too.
quote "A lot of the votes are general administrative votes which every counciller votes for but when the issues are more controversial then you would expect a split vote and you would probably expect this to happen most frequently between the two traditionally opposing parties: the Tories and Labour."
So the claim that 29 votes out of 29 etc were a bit of political spin then?
Correct perhaps (already debated at length) but a typical political manipulation of the facts/
Still, that`s normal for politics.
I think that is fair comment Rabbit.
The point is that when an issue is split on traditional party lines then Mr Wells still votes with Labour
Steve 21 times G.L. voted the same way so what's that all about then.
Quote from: rabbit on May 03, 2012, 10: PM
quote "A lot of the votes are general administrative votes which every counciller votes for but when the issues are more controversial then you would expect a split vote and you would probably expect this to happen most frequently between the two traditionally opposing parties: the Tories and Labour."
So the claim that 29 votes out of 29 etc were a bit of political spin then?
Correct perhaps (already debated at length) but a typical political manipulation of the facts/
Still, that`s normal for politics.
I agree with you, but the point that should also be noted, is: The political manipulation is being done by those who have tried to argue that politics should be taken out of local government decision making - bit like the pot calling the kettle b*ack a*se as my mother would say.