The proposed removal of supplementary questions

[steveL]

Let's not forget SAB's reference to a 'sneaky' public. Sorry to mention it again but I can't quite get over the fact that he actually used the word 

http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/index.php/9-news/168-chairman-criticises-sneaky-public

[john riddle]

Having spent two terms as an elected representative on Hartlepool Council and 4 years as a County Councillor I was disgusted when I read of the moves being made to "gag" the public.
What even disgusted me more than that was an elected member of the council contacting a member of the public's employer - because he asked a question.
I certainly hope that the member in question is suspended pending the outcome of investigations.
Is it possible that local government in Hartlepool has sunk so low to contact a member of the public's employer because they asked legitimate questions.
What was the purpose the councillor contacted the employer?
Was it to get the person dismissed?
Was it to gag him?
What was the purpose?
My message to any councillor who thinks he is above the law is simply this.
"You take on of one of us - and you take on us all ".
Here endeth the first lesson.

[steveL]

Well that answers one question at least, despite Shane's attempts to suggest otherwise, Wells voted with Labour. Straight over to CAB after the meeting he was. I can't lip read too well but I think it went something like "Can I have that Chair of the Contracts Committee Now?"

Fascinating to see the UNISON Orangutangs in the corner applauding a Tory Councillor.

George just did as he was told....

[SRMoore]

Thus, given that this appears to be broadly a Labour proposal, I have every confidence that Councillor Wells will vote against this and indeed any other significant proposal put forward by Labour.

Right Shane?

I would hope so, yes.

"Attempts to suggest otherwise"?

[mk1]

The Conservative party is committed to opening up local government and increasing public participation in decision making and scrutiny. Me too.

So Wells is not a member of the Conservative Party as he plainly is not:
committed to opening up local government and increasing public participation in decision making and scrutiny.

Shane how much longer are you going to allow this tail to wag the dog?

[DRiddle]

Although the general party line is that councillors don't read this website, I think we all know that many do. (Out of vanity and egotism as much as anything I would imagine, in some cases).

Anyway, to those that voted in favour of democracy and maintaining supplementary questions tonight, I would like to publicly thankyou for your noble efforts.

Particularly those who spoke up in reference to an incident of late which I believe was referred to as "abhorrent".

In particular, can I extend my thanks and respect to Councillors Brash and Hargreaves who both had the courage to put their principles before any political career or finanical motivation (via a potential special responsibility allowance).

Ironically, one of Labour's most recent slogans is "Your voice in tough times".

Well, as I look around the town with one of the highest rates of child poverty in the country, one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, areas of the town which are amongst the most socially deprived and which contain some of the highest rates of unemployment in Briatin, I certainly see tough times. .... Do I however see a voice in these tough times? Well, frankly, no.

In fact, quite the opposite. I see the few voices that were willing to speak up for the people of Hartlepool in these tough times gagged.

Silenced.

To argue that the new constitution increases democracy is, frankly, laughable (as was heard via the public gallery when this was claimed). People literally laughed out loud.

As a life long socialist, granted from a third way ideological perspective, (some of you will need to google that) I support the Labour Party in most respects. Coming from the North East, most people do. However, what we witnessed tonight was not Labour politics as Keir Hardie initially intended it. (The fact that some of you won't even know who he is, is in itself laughable).

What we saw tonight belonged in Communist China, North Korea, the old Soviet Union or some such place.

That was not democracy.

One Councillor even had the nerve to look straight at me and spit out the words "stand against us" (if you have a problem). All I would say to that at this stage is do not worry sir. I fully intend to, and, rest assured, when I do, I will be Putting Hartlepool First.

[fred c]

I have often been dumfounded at some of the goings on within the council chamber during "Full Council Meetings" but this evening surpassed everything else i have seen & heard.

The outgoing chairman of the Hartlepool constituency labour party & senior HBC union official, openly applauding the leader of the Tory Group for his backing of the proposal to do away with the supplementary questions for members of the public.

Yes folks, "Democracy" in action in the Borough of Hartlepool, we will see what this latest set back for the ratepayers means for the "Open, Transparent & Accountable Governance" of the town.

It would have been a major surprise if "The Mob" had lost this vote & true to form pressure was obviously brought to bear on the Labour lemmings, the usual suspects spoke & acted as though they had the best interests of the people of the town at the forefront of their thoughts, but as most of us now know, the best interests of the ratepayers comes a long way second best to the well being of some of our elected representatives.

On a postive note, i haven`t always seen eye to eye with Cllrs Brash & Hargreaves, but i have to commend them on their Amendment to the proposal to manipulate parts of the Towns Constitution.

I have no doubt that serious consequences in the "political sense" probably awaits them at some point in the near future but, for what its worth I believe they did the right thing & acted with integrity & the best interests of the people of the town at heart & remind them that there is a political life beyond that of the labour party.

There were several examples of open derision by members of the public at the proclamations from several Labour councillors on their definitions of the local democratic process, if restricting the publics ability to ask probing questions of their elected representatives in an open meeting is considering by them to be democratic then I must be living in North Korea.

[mk1]

Hopefully Shane's absence is because he is involved in a heated exchange with Ray .....................

[fred c]

"Britain is characterized not just by its independence but, above all, by its openness"

David Cameron

It isn`t in the Hartlepool Tory Party.




"You can't defend the indefensible - anything you say sounds self-serving and hypocritical"

Diane Abbott

It certainly does in the Hartlepool Labour Party.

[testing times]

How very depressing but I suppose it was all down to the numbers in the end. As things stand, this is a sign of how things will go for the forseeable future. Like all one-party states, it all ends up with things being run for the benefit of those in power instead of for the benefit of the people.

[mk1]

This site is constantly disparaged by the fat*ty Belchers, lap-dog Ray and their in-house publication The Sheffield Mail. They keep telling all who listen how  the site is an irrelevance and they never bother reading it.
Actions however, speak louder than words.
We have a sitting Councillor (a leader of one of the minor parties) who assumes a false identity and  Joy prints  a completely bogus news item around his lies.. Despite being informed of the subterfuge Joy refuses to retract or modify the  original calumny.
We also have a serving councillor who is engaged in a long running DOS attack on the site itself.
Now they are forced to  re-write the Council rules to protect themselves from public (HTH) scrutiny.
Seems to me the site figures large in the every day actions of the liars, cheats, dog starvers and assorted failed company bosses that presently masquerade as the Labour Group.
As Jim would say, my ar*se they care!

I feel sorry for Shane.
We may concentrate on the Labour Mafia but Wells is  running the Conservative Party purely as a vehicle for him to peddle influence for his mates. The fact those mates are Tory voters in no way detracts from the corruption.

[steveL]

I'd have to agree. Shane is making the same mistake that Brash and Pammy now acknowledge they made in compromising once too often for the sake of the herd. Shane is doing the same through trying to defend something that is blindingly obvious to everyone else. I quite like Shane but he knows that I couldn't vote Tory if they put lighted matches between my fingernails.....but that's the way it's supposed to work ...... being able to respect each others views without necessarily agreeing with them.

If that was the way it worked in the council chamber and everyone was able to express their own personal views and vote accordingly then everything would be fine.

In Brash and Pammy's case, the constraint was just too much for them. They both openly acknowledged last night that the fiasco over allowing themselves to be told that they couldn't support their own budget was a mistake and one they now regret.

Now we have an additional similar move made by people of lower principles, too frightened to put themselves forward for public scrutiny. This demanded another compromise on the part of the two councillors but this time they had had enough of it. It's quite refreshing actually that, amid the game of politics, principle can still sometimes take precedent over compromise. Brash especiall has had plenty of stick from this site over the last 10 years so it would be pretty churlish of us not to recognise what happened last night.

If things go the way everyone expects them too, then I hope they stick around as Independent Labour councillors, if only to keep the IQ level in the council chamber up above embarassing levels.

Incidentally, by way of an aside, we've heard a lot lately about how the public would still have plenty of opportunity to ask questions of councillors in neighbourhood forums, ward surgeries and by e-mail. In fact, this was the message put over by SAB as part of his recent mail contribution.

So last night seemed the perfect opportunity to put this into effect so I approached CAB and asked him if he would be answering the e-mail I sent him last Monday asking him to explain why he had falsely tried to blame the discrepency in the Manor Residents accounts on the Charity Commission. "Not to you," was the answer.
"Why not?", I asked, "your mate has sjust aid we can ask questions of councillors by e-mail."

With that he.....well, ran away through the adjacent doors basically.

Oh well, I suppose I wasn't really expoecting him to answer after almost 9 months of asking but even so, It was well worth it to see the 's**t a brick' expression on his face when he turned to see who was asking.

I hear it's the Labour AGM soon when they will choose the Leader and Mad Marg (can you tell the difference between marg and Bitter?) has been lobbying like mad to get herself elected.

Not so much a Rock and a Hard Place as stuck between Jason's Mother and an overly scented, fluffy toy.

[marky]

"From May, each member of the public will now only be allowed to submit two main questions, which must be on different subjects, and both must be submitted to the council 7 days in advance. In addition, the public will no longer be allowed to ask any questions personally. In future, all questions will be read out by the Chief Executive and no member of the public will be allowed to ask a similar question at any subsequent council meeting even if they had not been satisfied with the original answer received."

Sums it up nicely, I'd say. How did it come to this?

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

All you can expect from people with lots to hide and unable to defend themselves with honesty.

...you don't have to worry about being caught out if you always tell the truth.

Self serving totalitarian dictators and worse.

Labour council ...will the true socialist please stand up ...thought not.

[Stevef]

The reality is that HBC had for so long held a control over the local media and got use to carrying on with its activities unchallenged by the media and unobserved by the public. This continued for so long that they forgot their true purpose.

Along comes HTH and things start to change. Suddenly they are under scrutiny, stories that would have never have seen the light of day are put out for all to see. Interest is generated and questions asked. The public start to take an interest and express there concerns, and the walls start to crumble.

So what to do!

The decision to ban supplementary question effectively blocks the public from direct involvement in the scrutiny of local government. But what has not yet sunk in is that it does not stop the questions.

This decision is akin to a child who in refusing to deal with something unpleasant, sticks his fingers in his ears, closes his eyes and shouts   "LAR LAR LAR LAR" at the top of his voice in the vain hope that it will all go away.

HTH will continue to place all aspects of local government under scrutiny. As more details of council activities are placed in the public arena, the public are going to be asking more and more questions and will be demanding relevant and honest answers.

I wonder how long it will take before it sinks in that all they have done is deny them selves the means to provide meaningful answers while directly engaging with members of the public.