PHF Wins Seaton By-Election

[christine blakey]

Dave, I simply sought to find out about the issue as the biggest problem for people these days is finance.  Whenever the date is, there will always be the submergence into political debate because the big parties always get more publicity.

I was simply wanting to maximise the interest for local people by giving them only one day in which they have to get up and vote. 

I have no problem what date the election lands on, just that I want people to feel the inclination to vote. 

I see your point regarding the two main issues that will dominate in November but that is going to be the case in the run up anyway, as Police and Crime Commissioners are new and across the country and then the referendum is of topical debate.

After the meeting last night, I can see that UKIP's name is going to be mud for calling the bi-election and the fact that it is a five figure sum, it is not me who needs to be told, it is the voters in Seaton.  Maybe you need to contact the Hartlepool Mail?

I am the one who said we need to consider Parliament if we want the SHALL be held rule changed as no matter what, the feeling in the room last night was that the early date was going to be an asset to the other candidates in their pursuit of Mike's shoes, and they will be hard to fill. 

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

Does having a couple of people sat in the library for the day guarding a plastic box and then counting up a couple of hundred slips of paper really have to cost thousands ?

The expensive bit must be sending out all those thousands of voting cards that get discarded or used as coffee cup coasters.

Just had a thought, the cash every ward gets to spend at it's discretion should be paid as a percentage of the people that bother to vote.
!00% of people vote ... 100% of the money.

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

I take my comment back, just checked and more people actually voted than I remember.

Just over 4K votes were cast and Mike was the only one that topped 1K.

(I wonder what the average votes cast per voter was.)

[Ryehill]

            Christine, can you explain to me how U.K.I.P.'s name will be mud for simply starting the democratic process to call an election?
           All this talk of saving money is a smokescreen. The political eastablishment in Hartlepool has been wrong footed . As Steve L. pointed out they take the electorate for granted and they assumed ,wrongly, that it is up to them to control the agenda.
          Ask yourself, would Perseus, who hates U.K.I.P., have been as critical if another party, say P.H.F.,had called the election?
   

[Ryehill]

             I am surprised that no-one has come to the obvious conclusion that the whole business is collusion between U.K.I.P. and Putting Hartlepool First. Looking at the voting figures for May 2012. Who was 4th? The P.H.F. candidate. So, using the Perseus school of thought, Mike Turner resigned in August ,knowing full well that an election would have to be called within 35 days of his resignation. He did this to give Kelly Atkinson the best possible chance of becoming P.H.F.'s 5th. councillor. U.K.I.P. were pleased to put into motion the necessary request for a by-election to be called ,knowing full well that they would receive all the flak from people like Perseus but at the same time get the thanks of P.H.F.
           Elementary my dears.

[The Great Dictator]

It concludes that Pascoe and his crew are a bunch of fu*k*ng half wits and cannot be trusted in power, that money could have been better spent.

[christine blakey]

Ryehill, I am just reiterating what was said at the Full Council meeting on Thursday evening. 

It was made very clear that the electorate would be told at a time when people are terrified of grim days that UKIP have wasted money based on a selfish quest to win a seat in the Council.

I just think you ought to know what was said, and let us face it, money is very tight so people will be annoyed.  They will not consider that they have given the opportunity to digest the information from individual candidates.

Then as I have said before, as the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Referendum are hot topics, we can see that people feel that voters will still be confused (if they can be) regarding the three choices which require their cross in a box.

It might be an idea to ensure that a member of UKIP is at Full Council meetings so that you can hear what is said at these times.

[SRMoore]

In his first reply to this thread (post #5) Kipperdip states that the objection from the Conservative and other mainstream political parties' is that we "will have to print a specific election leaflet rather than cramming all on to one leaflet covering the Mayoral referendum and the Police Commissioner vote as well." And continued to justify him calling the election early at additional cost by saying "Surely the voters of Seaton deserve a bit more respect than this."

The problem with his statement is that it is completely untrue and I would have gladly clarified the facts with anybody who had taken the time to ask. It was always the intention to produce separate literature no matter when the by-election was held. The campaign for the Conservative PCC candidate is being ran as a separate campaign altogether. Yes literature for Ken may have been distributed at the same time as that dedicated to the Seaton by-election but that is as close to "cramming it all on one leaflet" as it would have got. The PCC campaign is being headed up by an area team and paid for with separate funds, not a single line of the Seaton literature would have been dedicated to it. 

As for the mayoral referendum, Hartlepool Conservatives have always maintained that we will not be campaigning for one side or the other. It is for the people of this town to decide and we are pleased to have played a part in giving the people of Hartlepool the opportunity to decide.

I would appreciate it if you could refrain from speaking on behalf of Hartlepool Conservatives in future and contact me if you would like to know our opinion on subjects. When you assume you only make an ass out of u and me.

[steveL]

Quote: "In May everyone cast 3 votes, that means in real terms 1500 people or so actually physically came out to vote in Seaton.
If that is the case this time UKIPs 243 votes would account for about 16% of the turnout (significantly up from the 5% in May, although technically the same number of physical UKIP supporters)."

I think there's a bit of flawed logic here. The 5.38% that UKIP received in May is a reflection of the fact that they only had one candidate when other parties fielded multiple candidates. In a situation when all parties fielded only one candidate then you would expect the UKIP vote to stay pretty much the same while other party candidates would receive roughly an average of the vote individual party candidates received in May. Transposing this has to be done on a vote basis and not a percentage basis as the percentage figures in a single vote election are quite different because the total number of votes is different.

The Labour candidates, for example, gained 274, 287 and 237 of the votes respectively. Most of those votes will have been people voting for all three labour candidates so you would expect a single labour candidate to receive an average of 266 votes - all things being equal.

Expanding that gives the following as a sort of transposition of a three-vote election into a single-vote election:

PHF   250 13.5%
Lab   266 14.3%
Con   158 8.5%
UKIP 243 13.1%

The elephant in the room is the average 940 votes (50.6%) gained by Independent candidates last time. Where those votes go and how many of them will be picked up by new Independent candidates will decide who wins the by-election.

Can I just add that the marginal increase in cost to hold a separate election is but nothing compared to the £100,000 a year paid each and every year by HBC to fund two full-time UNISON officials. While on Thursday night Labour bemoaned UKIPs action for instigating a separate election in Seaton on the grounds of costs, they also did their utmost to supress any debate on taxpayer funding of a trade union which already receives subscriptions directly from council staff, has an £18m yearly income and which, in the 2nd quarter of 2012 alone, gave £213,000 to the Labour Party.

[steveL]

You've missed the point. I'm saying that the UKIP vote in May, translated into that of a single-vote election, was actually 13.1% and not 5%.

[Ryehill]

           Perseus, not only has your sense of humour got lost in your desire to try to discredit U.K.I.P. but also your ability to reason. On earlier threads you suggested that I was one of the two signatories of the request for a by-election in Seaton. Incorrect. You also suggested that Steve L was a member of U.K.I.P. Again incorrect. On numerous occasions Steve has indicated his opposition to U.K.I.P.'s aims without having to resort to name calling.
          You read what you want to read not what is actually written. You call people unpleasant names when their only crime is to disagree with you. Any casual reader of this site would quickly come to the conclusion that you are a blinkered bigot. You cannot accept that that other people should have opinions and you attempt to belittle them , the term knuckle- dragger seems to be your latest turn of phrase.
         In tonights Hartlepool  Mail Dave Pascoe answers the question which you say he is dodging. I  suggest that you  read it , carefully.

[Ryehill]

 Perseus, I think your last couple of sentences confirm everything that I wrote about you in my last posting.

[no6bus]

Coun Wells said: "I condemn the actions of UKIP because it will cost the taxpayer thousands of pounds extra.


and this from the man who wants councillors to have more money, who pays that the expense fairy? oh no the taxpayer again.
so does he condemn himself?

[steveL]

I'm not sure if Mr Wells does support increasing the allowances for Councillors - I think probably not - I know it was he who asked for Drummond's allowance to be added to those being looked at by the remuneration panel after Drummond took on his second job.

Not that it will make much difference and in any case, won't Drummond's second job come to an end when the Police Commissioner thing starts? Or are they going to do away with the Police Authority and then re-invent it under another name? Yea, that would sound more likely.

Incidentally, I think the correct term is knuckle-scraper which I used to think was a reference to Neanderthals but is in fact a reference to Orangutans and the way that their hands touch the floor because of their unusually long arms. I don't mind that so much, but the red hair.....yuk! 

[steveL]

I think we should all make an effort to skip the name calling... I find it starts to make an appearance as soon as reasoning begins to break down.