HartlepoolPost Forum

Manor By-election August 15th

Quote from: steveL on July 09, 2013, 09: PM
Manor By-election August 15th

Can they keep Barclay sober that long?

There's a chance they might try and slot Stephen Thomas in, the one that burst into tears when he lost in Jesmond. He works alongside CAB at HVDA and CAB likes to be thought of as the Lord who can now giveth and take away.

If  Steve Thomas got Wilcox seat Mad Dog and SAB would be happy.  I doubt the party members in Manor House have had a say. CAB will have taken an executive decision for the common good.  Plus it means he won't take the Ward from Mad Dog next May.

I always thought it was spelt By Election. Unless you know more about the candidates than you're letting on?

 ;D ;D Let's not go there

If Labour had a shred of integrity they wouldn't even field a candidate.

Quote from: The Great Dictator on July 16, 2013, 10: AM
If Labour had a shred of integrity they wouldn't even field a candidate.

The lack of Integrity is the reason we are in the present situation......... I wouldn`t hold my breath on "The Mob" suddenly discovered a box full of the stuff in "The Consorts" Office.

I just thought i'd mention that I spotted comrade Barclay making his way into the civic at about 6pm tonight. Briefcase in hand, striding up the steps looking purposeful.

Maybes on his way to a strategy meeting?

Quote from: DRiddle on July 16, 2013, 07: PM
I just thought i'd mention that I spotted comrade Barclay making his way into the civic at about 6pm tonight. Briefcase in hand, striding up the steps looking purposeful.

Maybes on his way to a strategy meeting?

Must be his turn to sharpen the pencils ... a step up from being milk monitor?  :-\

I hope that all you people will be out canvassing against Labour. Perhaps we should have a vote on who we will support. A split vote will ensure a Labour win whereas if we all campaign for the same person there is a chance.

Barclay! They must be extracting the urine!

in·teg·ri·ty
  [in-teg-ri-tee]

noun

1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.

2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire. 

3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull. 

Synonyms
1. rectitude, probity, virtue. See honour.

Antonyms
1. dishonesty.

Tory Candidate is Brenda Loynes daughter - don't know the first name as yet, sorry

Quote from: steveL on July 19, 2013, 09: PM
Tory Candidate is Brenda Loynes daughter

Thus Ray helps his soul-mates the fa*tty Belchers stay in control and preserves his chair............

The Tory will be Mandy loynes who lost out on manor last time

(http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/images/manor%20nomination%20list.JPG)

Alan Barclay it is then :(

His good for 800-85 votes..
Tom Hind 350 tops..
Mandy Loynes 150 tops..
Mick Stevens not enough..

If UKIP & The Tories had taken a lay down this time around, P.H.F. wouldn't have come second with about 523 votes.

So with all the huffing and puffing on here, Chris's bitch has mugged you all.

This might have been Fred's time to have a go!

Just as an addendum to that last post. I gather one hapless trio made the mistake of knocking on the door of the guy who won the last tribunal and when told that his household would not be voting Labour because of the MR scandal Marj let slip that he wasn't the only one to have said that ....

If Labour think it's going to be such a walkover then you have to ask yourself why they have started so early - they actually started weeks ago - and why are they dragging Iain Wright in - that's the same Iain Wright who recently said that the running of the council was noting to do with him.

I also hear that Allan Barclay was the only name put forward for selection which is unheard of in Manor. There's usually something of a stampede as it's generally regarded as Labour's safest seat.

Come on Steve, I know it's Saturday night but you can't be that drunk!!

The Labour machine is going to roll over them all.

THINK LAND SLIDE!

All of this sniping at PHF has me thinking.
Over the last months I haven't heard anything at all from the Tory camp on the scandalous situation at Manor Residents, not a peep!
On the other hand, we 've had Labour moving from complete denial to running away like their arses were on fire when things got too hot to stick around even though both SAB and Beck as Trustees were the only ones in a position to directly do something about Wilcox by getting the Trustees together and sacking her.
It seems to me that PHF are the only ones to come out of this with any credit having pushed the call for both the audits and for the public inquiry into councillor interests. Was it not also PHF who went in the paper telling us all the truth about the Peer Group report and of how the original HBC Press Release had been a whitewash? And was it not PHF who were the only party to speak up and oppose the curtailing of public questions at council meetings?
Yes they may only have 5 councillors but I'd say that they've been punching above their weight ever since PHF appeared in the council.
 

Interesting that the Manor has been blessed with lots of council workers visibly out and about tidying up grass verges and the like in the last couple of weeks - work normally done in the winter period. Has someone been dipping into their war chests prior to the by-election?

What happened to A.W. war chest?

Was it spent?

Just had the Tory Leaflet through my door for the Manor Election I have to say there wasn`t a lot of Positive Tory Bumph in it.

Rather.... RMW has had several digs at PHF on the leaflet, no doubt it is another of Raymonds pay backs to his "Friends" Christopher & Ste.(They Love him as The Ceremonial Mayor)

Considering what has been going on with Manor Residents & WCN/E in the last 12 months or so, you have to wonder why Raymond hasn`t put more effort into getting a Tory Councillor elected......... rather than  concentrating on "Not Getting" a PHF councillor elected..... another example of his unstinting support for "The Dear Leader & The Mob"....not that we need one of course.

Hang on a minute Fred, Ray natural competitor would be PHF so why should he want to help them?

He's got it cosy, like it or not, with Labour, no point rocking that boat, when he has no chance of winning the Manor.

This leaflet is a knock out....poor Mandy Loynes hardly gets a look-in, pushed aside as she is by Wells' obsession with Lilley.

Hardly surprising really, but this leaflet reads more like a Labour leaflet than one intended to get a Tory candidate elected.

There are definite similarities here with CAB's obsession with Brash

Nice leaflet shame the facts are wrong the remarks about PHF are all false so might have to stand on the nawtey step for  a long time

I can't see her polling more than 30 votes. It could be an all time low percentage.

Quote from: Mr Mister on August 07, 2013, 04: PM
Hang on a minute Fred, Ray natural competitor would be PHF so why should he want to help them?

He's got it cosy, like it or not, with Labour, no point rocking that boat, when he has no chance of winning the Manor.

Exactly......... he would rather Labour win the seat, even though what has been going on at MRA & WCN/E is a scandal.

Lets face it, he hasn`t exactly been clamouring for any changes to the manager or the system that is operating there.

The Tories would not win the seat even if Myra Hindley stood for Labour, PHF should be milking this and should win it by using good literature in the postbox, if they don't they might as well disband.

T.G.D.

Bang on the money your post I think!


Fred, why on earth would Raymondo "I might not be true blue, as the Scabs are turning me pink" Wells want to help PHF ..  it was only the other month, that some fella was giving him grief, because he spat his dummy out over a couple of chairmanships he quite fancied.

I can't stand Labour nonsense, they are a pack of ***** but PHF can't be trusted to walk my dog either.

At least Tom Hind is a stand up guy, wants the best for the town and the people in it, if anything, PHF ought to step aside and let the man make a difference.

VOTE HARTLEPOOL 1ST!! Better than any other party. Standing up for our rights.

Other Parties?? No point, it could be suggested they are all 'scratching each others backs' with some of the crap they come out with.

Quote from: Mr Mister on August 07, 2013, 11: PM
T.G.D.

Bang on the money your post I think!


Fred, why on earth would Raymondo "I might not be true blue, as the Scabs are turning me pink" Wells want to help PHF ..  it was only the other month, that some fella was giving him grief, because he spat his dummy out over a couple of chairmanships he quite fancied.

I can't stand Labour nonsense, they are a pack of ***** but PHF can't be trusted to walk my dog either.

At least Tom Hind is a stand up guy, wants the best for the town and the people in it, if anything, PHF ought to step aside and let the man make a difference.

MisterMr........

You have missed my point entirely............... i never suggested that Raymondo`s Mob should stand aside.

I raised the point about their Leaflet because it was more concerned about bashing PHF, than it was about getting Mandy Loynes elected in the Manor.

Incidentally, the Tory Leaflet has 2 statements on it that are Blatant Lies, & as such it has been reported to the Monitoring Officer

Ray Wells did not "Hand Back" any allowance, "The Independent Review Panel Removed It"

The Allowance for the Leader of PHF was not "Doubled", it has remained "Constant" since the party was first formed

What we have in Hartlepool is a Tory Group that it is impossible to seperate from "The Mob", you can`t find a better example than Raymondo`s backing for having a "Full Time Shop Steward" payed for by the Council tax Payers, which goes against "All Tory Policy".

The Tories could do a lot worse than having SRMoore as their leader, i can`t say i agree with lots of his points of view, but he does have Integrity & the best Interests of Hartlepool at heart.

Anyway enough of the TorLabs....

This following Quote from you doesn`t do you justice.

At least Tom Hind is a stand up guy, wants the best for the town and the people in it, if anything, PHF ought to step aside and let the man make a difference.

(Incidently I don`t know Tom Hinds & this isn`t a Dig at the fella)

However, your Insinuation is that people who are working hard for the PHF party don`t have the Interest of the town at heart.

I can tell you this in all honesty, the "New People" i have met recently, who have been out & about speaking to & leafleting the Manor Ward Residents are all committed to a better Hartlepool.

They aren`t doing it like some people, for the Labour Machine, they are doing it "Because of The Labour Machine" a lot of people on the Manor have seen what "The Mob" are doing at first hand & want to change it.

Yes Fred whatever you say mate,

T.B.H. I haven't got the time to argue the toss this morning, I think PHF will fall over on the Manor, I think Labour will walk it, I could be wrong of course, has been known the odd time...lol

Labour won't win the Manor, PHF will lose the Manor I think.

People might want change and I believe they do, but, if you think PHF is the answer then bless you :)

I think the relationship with R.W. & the S/C.A.B. isn't healthy for the town but I understand with 3 Tory Councillors there is not much choice to be had by them over it, After all, if you ask someone in the Park area, they think they have good Councillors working for them, in their area.

Just read a good book .
The bad cowboy guys with black hats were getting beaten to a pulp by the guys in white hats.
So they asked the indians for help the indians arrived but not with weapons to help there friends they had some thing much better a leaflet that was suppose to win them votes  but this leaflet only told lies it does not say any thing about what the indians (with blue feathers) will do only says lies about the cowboys in white hats.
So  its not the guys with white hats its the indians who speak with forked tongue.
This is yet  another good reason to vote PHF  or the only other thing to do is pick what liar to vote for.
One last point do we now have a new party LABCON or CONLAB

I think it's important for people to remember that throughout all the Manor Residents/Who cares (NE) saga there have been absolutely no genuine acts of contrition from the Labour camp. None whatsoever.
There have been no expressions of regret or remorse, no committment to put things right and no effort made to ensure that those wronged, either through failure to pay the minimum wage, NI, tax or unfair dismissal recieved their due compensation. Instead we have had denials, on-going support for Wilcox, lies and cowardice.

When this website first raised the management of Manor Residents as an issue we faced a brick-wall of denial and personal insults from the Akers-Belchers, Richardson, Hall and others. It was only through persistence and the help of PHF that we were able to get any recognition that something was seriously wrong with the management of this particular community group.

When the Peer Group raised its own concerns over 'the perception that some councillors were acting out of self-interest', the council's PR Department released a Press release which tried to whitewash over the whole report with The Mail headlining the story with Report Highlights Civic Strengths. It was PHF who issued its own press release which also appeared in The Mail and which criticised the whitewash that was taking place describing the content of the official press release as sanitised – and so it was.

When HTH put in a Freedom of Information Request for a copy of the report Labour asked council officers to find a way around the Freedom of Information Act which, to their credit, council officers wanted nothing to do with; they also wanted the names of those people who were interviewed by the Peer Group in an attempt to find out who had said that some councillors were acting out of self-interest.

When we finally got hold of the report and published it, The Mail published a very different article headlined Damning Detail of Council Review Revealed. This only happened through the efforts of this web site and PHF; the Tories said nothing and supported Labour's attempts to cover up everything up.

It was PHF who called for and pushed for the Mitchell Enquiry while the Tories and Labour claimed there was no need for it only relenting when they realised their opposition left them open to public criticism. Labour tried to limit any enquiry to the existing Audit Committee, Chaired by Christopher Akers-Belcher while Ray Wells stood up and claimed that any Public Enquiry could cost 'hundreds of thousands'.

More recently, it is only PHF that has called for a change in management at MR while S. Akers-Belcher, who as a Trustee was in a position to instigate a change in management, ran away from it like the coward that he is.

So it's more than a little laughable when people ask what PHF has done when they are the only ones who have done anything. They are the only ones to have fought to bring the scandal that is Manor Residents/ Who Cares(NE) into the open and the only ones fighting to give us a council which operates in the way that the people want.

What it should do is make the West Park Tories go Cuckoo hunting....

Quote from: mo  the lawn on August 08, 2013, 11: AM
Just read a good book .
The bad cowboy guys with black hats were getting beaten to a pulp by the guys in white hats.
So they asked the indians for help the indians arrived but not with weapons to help there friends they had some thing much better a leaflet that was suppose to win them votes  but this leaflet only told lies it does not say any thing about what the indians (with blue feathers) will do only says lies about the cowboys in white hats.
So  its not the guys with white hats its the indians who speak with forked tongue.
This is yet  another good reason to vote PHF  or the only other thing to do is pick what liar to vote for.
One last point do we now have a new party LABCON or CONLAB

Thats been the case for a while now, in one way or another they have all been Kissing Each Others Ar*e`s, they are to all intents & purposes 1 Party.

I have to say that whilst I had nothing to do with the conservative leaflet and the content may not be what I would have used; to say that the information on it is a "pack of lies" is itself a lie or delusional.

The IRP recommended the Tory group leader lose his allowance as the third largest group. Ray Wells stood up in full council and agreed with the recommendation stating that in the current climate he agreed that savings needed to be made from the allowance package and that he would not argue against the decision, happily give up his leaders allowance.

The IRP recommended that the leaders allowance given to the second largest group, PHF, be cut by 50% in line with the other cuts to allowances. Councillor Lilley stood up and requested that the allowance be put back to the previous amount (50% higher than the IRP recommended) after doing a deal with the Labour group beforehand.

No doubt there will be those who refuse to accept the above but I would suggest they do a quick search on here and find the discussion that followed the meeting when I had suggested that Geoff had 'received his 30 peices of silver', the words I used when I entered the chamber and advised D Riddle of what was going to happen before the meeting commenced.

I'm not going to question why Geoff asked for the leaders allowance to be increased back to the higher level, I'm sure he has some reason for it. But to do so and then claim that anybody stating they did so to be a liar is pathetic.

You [PHF] were caught with your pants down. Man up and admit it rather than try and lie your way out of it.

So much for being the honest party eh...

It wasnt an increase  or a decrease it stayed the same  so  how is that a lie

Well said Shane!

It was decreased as per the recommendations of the IRP. PHF argued against the decision and asked for it to be increased back to the previous amount.

Spin it like Shane Warne... which ever way you put it, the leaflet was a direct attack on PHF..........& as an Election Leaflet for The Tories, it is about as much use a T*ts on a Bull.

Shane sooner or later you are going to have to stop making excuses for the policies your "Party" are persuing in the  Hartlepool Council Chamber, they are not only letting your chosen party down, but they aren`t doing your 2015 Election Chances any good at all.

And one day Fred you'll stop breast feeding PHF and smell the coffee.

Shane, you know me. I know you. On various levels there is (I think/hope) a mutual respect for the fact that we both have Hartlepool's best interests at heart.

So before you go on, allow me to make you aware of some direct quotes form Peter Devlin, our council's chief solicitor, returning officer and monitoring office regarding the leaflet in question.

"Councillor Wells was not so noble as to 'hand back' his allowance".[b] "The statement on the leaflet is inaccurate", [/b]  (Those are direct quotes from Peter).

"Inaccurate" is defined by various dictionaries as; 'not correct', 'wrong', 'wide of the mark', 'untrue'.

Hartlepool council's own chief solicitor Peter Devlin is describing the leaflet circulated by the local Conservatives using a word that is essentially a synonym of the word 'lie'.

Those are not my words. Those come via an e-mail circulated to members of Putting Hartlepool First which was initially sent by Mr Devlin in response to a formal complaint by the former leader if PHF Geoff  Lilley.

Whilst I agree with you that I personally wouldn't have taken the money, when one considers that WE (PHF) are fighting against several national parties on a shoe string budget AND all of that allowance in question goes towards campaign funds I fail to see any merit in your argument.

Additionally, I haven't felt the need to check with Councillor Lilley(s) as to whether it's ok to make the contents of Mr Devlin's e-mail to him public. As far as i'm concerned PHF is "open and transparent" in every respect and those words are not just sound bites, they represent core principles of what we're about.

I welcome a reply from you which counters the direct quotes of our councils monitoring officer.

Hang on..

What was the ex leader of PHF moaning about the night he had a pop at Wells?

Wasn't it over money he lost by not getting on the committee's he wanted?

I know SteveL & co say it was party money lost, but I don't buy into that at all.

Quote from: steveL on August 08, 2013, 08: PM
Finally, Wells has recently repeated the claim that HTH had 'hacked' into his Facebook account.

Would that be a reference to this photo of Ray and his partner?

(http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/7016/9vgw.jpg) (http://img545.imageshack.us/i/9vgw.jpg/)

I wonder why Wells is  ashamed to be gay?
It has not done the SCABs any harm so why should Ray be worried about people finding out about him?

Quite a remarkable statement to make that steveL, looks as though this by election is gonna get tasty next week :D

This is why i love politics you get to hear both sides of the argument and
then form your own judgement

More of this please  8) 8) 8)

Quote..
Raw Wells gave up nothing. His allowance was taken off him by the Remuneration Panel.
The Leader of PHF donates any financial gain from a Leaders Allowance to party funds. Knowing this, Akers-Belcher and Wells came to an arrangement whereby both would make submissions to the RP that the first minority party leader allowance should be halved (PHF) and the second minority leader allowance should disappear. the financial loss to Wells would be made up by giving him a Chair of a Committee.
It was a straight forward attack on the ability of PHF to fight its campaigns by the Labour-Tory Coalition which operates within Hartlepool Council and which we have seen in operation again as Wells chose to virually ignore his own candidate in favour of slagging off PHF on his election leaflet - in effect, using Tory Party funds to support a Labour candidate. If this is OK with you them my e-mail inbox tells me that it isn't OK with a lot of Tories in the town and you should bare that in mind for your own election campaign.

If you don't like the rules, don't play the game... or get more support and do something about it.

Digging Shane out for Ray's actions seems a little unfair to me.

Tales from the Snake Pit, is it any wonder that people are sick to death of what passes for politics in Hartlepool.

We have seen this coalition in operation again as Wells chose to virually ignore his own candidate in the Manor by-election in favour of using the space to slag off PHF on his election leaflet - in effect, using Tory Party funds to support a Labour candidate. If this is OK with you then my e-mail inbox tells me that it isn't OK with a lot of other Tories in the town and you should bare that in mind for your own election campaign.

We haven`t heard a single word of condemnation from "The Dear Leader His Consort" or any member of "The Mob" concerning the mis-use of public monies by MRA, the silence on the same issue from the Tory Mob is deafening.

If Raymondo keeps perfoming at his present level with his own version of the coalition Shane, i think your deposit is highly  likely to go down The Suwannee in 2015.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S0keeGIgcY

Fred Labour will be laughing there heads off at this.. PHF & the Conservatives pulling each other apart detracts attention away from what you are trying to achieve.. it may be dirty politics between labour and cons but its having the desired effect!

Deary me Steve, you truly have turned into a party sheep haven't you?

I'd love to pick up on a few points if I may.

1. You claim I only comment after hearing half of a story second hand then proceed to tell half a story you have heard second hand because we all know you weren't on the said charabang.

2. So the conservative group had their allowance "taken" by the IRP but PHF's was all a stitch up by Labour and the Conservatives? Tin foil hat time again?

3. You claim that this "joint attack" was to starve PHF of election funds because all of the leaders allowance is donated to the party. Can you tell me how this makes PHF different to Labour who also fund their election campaigns with taxpayers money?
The way I see it there is only the Conservatives and UKIP who fund themselves entirely from members & supporter donations because we certainly don't receive funding from the central party as you would like people to believe.

4. I do not have any "ambitions" to become an MP. Simply to give Iain Wright a sodding good run for his money and make Hartlepool the marginal seat it needs to be to get the attention it deserves whatever the outcome in 2015. Something I would have hoped you would support.

5. Whilst you may fly into a fit or rage whenever I or someone else dare to question or criticise St Geoff, I at least come to this discussion with a level head and will often be the first to stand up and criticise actions of my own party. You cannot say the same and this is a classic example.

You were present at the full council meeting when allowances were discussed as was D Riddle so I'd appreciate it if you could clarify two things for me.

Did Councillor G Lilley as them leader of PHF stand up and request that the recommendation from the IRP to reduce his leaders allowance be ignored and his allowance be put back to the previous level?

If Labour and the Tories had intended to mount a joint attack on PHFs ability to fund campaigns why didn't Labour vote Geoff's request down instead of not only voting for it but, I believe, seconding his proposal?

And I will add that I have a lot of time for a number of PHF members. I think the party has a number of cracking activists whom I'd give a lot to have working in our corner but the trouble is that PHF is pretty much like the local Tories...

You have fantastic activists and supporters who are forward thinking and genuinely have the best interests of Hartlepool at heart but you are represented by elected members who don't always live up to expectations.

The only difference being that all of the Tory councillors get on well enough to speak to each other.

Refusing to accept the truth and answer a simple question as always, Steve. Turning the conversation back to Ray Wells, a man whom you seem to have an unhealthy obsession/lust for.

Quote from: steveL on August 08, 2013, 11: PM

Is that the same as shouting at each other in the civic corridors? Only you could be daft enough to blindly defend a man who has sold out the Tory brand and who personally thinks you're a w*n*er.

Please provide the part of my post where I blindly defended anyone or when/where I was called a "w*n*er" or pipe down as you are sounding desperate now.

Though before you do I'd appreciate it if you could clarify two things for me.

Did Councillor G Lilley as then leader of PHF stand up and request that the recommendation from the IRP to reduce his leaders allowance be ignored and his allowance be put back to the previous level?

If Labour and the Tories had intended to mount a joint attack on PHFs ability to fund campaigns why didn't Labour vote Geoff's request down instead of not only voting for it but, I believe, seconding his proposal?

I think shane asked 5 simple questions steve and not one has been answered except you refering to him as a w*****

Quote from: steveL on August 08, 2013, 11: PM

Quote from: Mr Mister on August 08, 2013, 09: PM
Quote..
Raw Wells gave up nothing. His allowance was taken off him by the Remuneration Panel.
The Leader of PHF donates any financial gain from a Leaders Allowance to party funds. Knowing this, Akers-Belcher and Wells came to an arrangement whereby both would make submissions to the RP that the first minority party leader allowance should be halved (PHF) and the second minority leader allowance should disappear. the financial loss to Wells would be made up by giving him a Chair of a Committee.
It was a straight forward attack on the ability of PHF to fight its campaigns by the Labour-Tory Coalition which operates within Hartlepool Council and which we have seen in operation again as Wells chose to virually ignore his own candidate in favour of slagging off PHF on his election leaflet - in effect, using Tory Party funds to support a Labour candidate. If this is OK with you them my e-mail inbox tells me that it isn't OK with a lot of Tories in the town and you should bare that in mind for your own election campaign.

If you don't like the rules, don't play the game... or get more support and do something about it.

Digging Shane out for Ray's actions seems a little unfair to me.

There's nothing wrong with the rules only with the frequency by which the rules are changed to suit the ruling coalition. It's actually quite rare for a council's constitution to be changed, for example, usually only after following a change in legislation. The Peer Group Report highlighted, amongst a raft of other things, the highly unusual high frequency of changes to the constitution of HBC by Councillors.

You know the score Stephen, if you want PHF calling the shots, you need to get the Councillors, if you can't get the Councillors, you ain't got jack sh1t, if you haven't got jack sh1t, you can't do a thing about it, so I guess, in order to measure your parties success, you better win on the Manor, in my lifetime you have not the slightest chance of getting control of the council..

You're up the swanny without a paddle me old mate, you just haven't worked it out yet.

All you're really doing is taking part in PHF's "wet dream"

You know you're right.
I usually do quite well and simply ignore Shane - a bit like Ray Wells actually. I tell you what,  I'll just delete my posts and allow Shane to carry on unfettered - he's happy enough as he is.

Stephen come on,don't be like that, it's just one of them things, some you win and some PHF Lose, it's the way it goes...lol

No need to take your frustration out on poor Shane, if it's Ray you're cross with, phone him up and tell him.

Quote from: SRMoore on August 09, 2013, 12: AM
  Ray Wells, a man whom you seem to have an unhealthy obsession/lust for..............

Yuk-not even with your Shane, not even with yours!

Quote from: SRMoore on August 09, 2013, 12: AM
Though before you do I'd appreciate it if you could clarify two things for me.

Can I play?

Shane:
1)
What have the local Conservative Party said in public about the MR scandal?

2) Can you point me to a  statement by Wells on the situation?

PHF have more councillors than the Tories and thus  have a bigger mandate than the Conservatives.  Would that be a fair  summation?

Hang on, since when do you answer questions with questions..

I think Shane deserves some answers to his questions, I along with others, are interested to know the answers too..

Surely you PHF boys are not stuck for the answers surely?

You seem to like asking questions but seem afraid to answer any..

It's a bit like saying "Do as you're told and vote PHF"

The are genuine questions the voters might want the answers too.

Shane, please take this as genuine advice and not criticism. As I alluded to earlier, there are many people on this forum who recognise your efforts politically. We obviously all may not agree, but most would concur that there is a degree of respect for anyone actually prepared to put their name forward and try to make a difference (for the right reasons).

However, here's the thing which puzzles me regarding this and other threads on the forum.

A little over a year ago you stood for a seat on the Hart Ward.

If you'd gained just 116 more votes you'd already be on our council.

If just 73 of the people in Hart who voted for Paul Beck had instead voted for you, you'd already be on our council.

If just 59 of the people who voted for Keith Fisher had instead voted for you, you'd already be on our council.

Those are the kind of margins we're dealing with in Hartlepool. The difference between Keith Fisher who is on our council, and Moss Body who is not, was just 10 votes, 0.23%, again on the Hart Ward.

So here's my issue.

Why, less than 24 hours after Councillors Beck, Robinson and Fisher failed to even bother to turn up to a meeting, a meeting during which it was decided that a gypsy encampment would be built smack in the middle of their ward, are you on here expending time and energy criticising Geoff Lilley and Putting Hartlepool First?

Please don't see this as a PHF member 'circling the wagons'.

Think really hard about what I've said so far.

The people of the ward you came very close to winning a seat on last May have just been dropped right in the mire by the 3 people they opted to represent them.

Keith Fisher is up for re-election in 2014 right?

That's a year before you might have the Conservative nomination for general election.

So have you joined the dots yet?

The Labour majority is already lower on Hart than in any other ward they have control of.

PHF barely contested Hart last year in that we only put forward a paper candidate. Christine Blakey and David Nin are, to my knowledge, unlikely to stand again as independents come next May.

There are at least 500 'floating voters' on Hart who are just looking for someone to genuinely represent their views, someone who genuinely cares about their needs and wishes.

So if you can maintain your core supporters, and gain just a tiny percentage of the floating voters who will be disgusted with the 'no show' from their councillors yesterday........ you're in.

So remind me again.

Why are you on here sniping about Geoff Lilley's reasons for fighting to maintain a £3k leaders' allowance?

Why are you worrying about PHF's campaign on Owton Manor?

Take some advice from me. Seriously. This is a classic example of why I think some people have pointed a little bit towards a degree of naivety you sometimes demonstrate.

I've never stood for council. I've never been elected. But I understand people.

Forget about the Conservative leaflet currently doing the rounds on Owton Manor. That's not, and will never be a fight you need to be involved in.

Instead, get your own leaflet knocked up over the weekend and spend a few pounds of the money you work hard for, to get a couple of thousand printed.

Utilise the man power you have at your disposal via the young people you work with at Conservative Future, and get the leaflet onto the doormat of every house in Hart by this Sunday.

Let the residents of Hart know, every single one of them that Councillors Fisher, Beck and Robinson had better things to do yesterday than try to prevent a gypsy site being built on their doorstep.

Take the time, trouble and effort to do that, and there's a hell of a good chance you'll be elected next May.

There is of course another option.

You could continue to defend Ray, continue to defend the Tory leaflet being circulated on Owton Manor, and continue to watch the clock waiting for a chance of a seat on Rural West that might well never come.

One last thing.

If you really want to check how you're regarded by Ray, run the idea I've suggested above by him. See what support you get. See if he'll allocate the money from party funds to pay for the leaflet. Hell, go the whole hog and see if he'll pound the pavements with you and deliver a few.

See if he's genuinely serious about increasing the number of Conservative councillors in Hartlepool to beyond three.

See if he's bothered about any other ward than Rural West and his own seat.

I've never met the man, so I don't know the answer as to whether he does.

Although deep down, I think you do know the answer.

David, I have respect for you and you are quite right that the Hart Ward Cllrs should be pulled up about not turning up to this meeting.

I am not, however, sat here attacking Geoff ir PHF. Reread my original post, I clearly state that I am not questioning why Geoff did what he did. Nor am I bad mouthing PHF per se. I am saying, quite rightly, that PHF has been caught with their pants down and that some people are desperately trying to spin their way out of it instead of just admitting fault.

MK1 - I called for the Labour group to kick Angie Wilcox out and have her removed from council back in March/April in the Mail. As I have done numerous times on here before and after that date.

Still no answer from Steve I see.

He might be a teacher but, I don't think he's likely to educate you an times soon, as we already know he's a PHF  just trying to puff his chest out.

Clearly I will be interesting to see him run for Council  :)

Well, I speak for no one but me and my take on the deal/agreement/arrangement/compromise/whatever you want to call it, concerning the maintaining of the secondary leaders allowance is as follows.

It was going to be voted through in it's original form regardless due the huge majority of the coalition anyway.

Which would have meant PHF getting nothing.

Option (a) was to kick up merry hell, complain about it, slam Labour for the 300% rise in the leaders allowance and in a week or so, the public would have largely forgotten, Ray would have his allowance via his chair and everyone would have a slice of the pie, except for PHF despite them having 5 councillors.

If there was a deal done which i'll call option (b), it ensured that Councillor Lilley feigned compliance and didn't overtly put the boot into the leader of the councils big rise in that particular meeting.

PHF then gained a couple of grand which is being used to take on 'the labour machine' right in the heart of what is traditionally their strongest ward.

As I say, personally i'd have turned down the money in favour of condemning the financial set up of the new constitution.

But then I guess that's easy for me to say because I don't have the responsibility of trying to run a political party from my front room on a tiny budget, taking on parties with national backing.

David said

"But then I guess that's easy for me to say because I don't have the responsibility of trying to run a political party from my front room on a tiny budget, taking on parties with national backing".



If that why the 5 Councillors have achieved nothing for the 40k (give or take) they have had in the last 12 months?

Only 5 Councillor, yet only 4 take part in the PHF dream..

Do you think that the local conservatives receive financial support from the national party to fund campaigns? We don't.

I don't like the excuse that the money was grabbed to fund PHF as they are, in effect, admitting that they are funding themselves via tax payers money rather than by donations from members and supporters as the local conservatives do.

No, what's happening is Councillor Lilley (Alyson now as she leads the party) is receiving an allowance for her work done as a councillor. She then can use that money in whatever way she wishes.

If she opts to use it to try to make a visible difference in Hartlepool then I have no complaints about that.

She essentially making a donation to a political party. Albeit one she's heavily linked to.

The conservatives LIKE people who donate their money to political parties they're connected to.... don't they?  ;)

Shane, i have said it before i will say it again, i don`t agree with your Parties Policies, but i do realise that your own personal motives & standards are well ment & in general for the betterment of the town.

So why do you nullify an awful lot of the time & effort you put in by backing the policies expounded in Council by your leader, you are constantly trying to justify the TorLab coalitions behaviour & its almost constant support for "The Mob"

The Tories Manor Leaflet Was not an "Election Leaflet" for the Tory Candiadate, it was TorLab Leaflet directly attacking PHF, & you know it, don`t attempt to defend the indefensible m8

Can i ask you this..... Would you rather Labour kept the Manor seat (given what is happening at MRA / WCN/E) or would you settle for a PHF Councillor.

We can all spend our time sniping at each other, back biting & name calling..... what does that achieve ??? Sweet FA

I have used this forum for a long time now & it has proved to be a lone voice in the Jungle of "Local Politics", it has constantly punched above it`s weight in the battle against Civic Mal-administration... i don`t see any point in reducing its effectiveness by the people who use it becoming as Bitter & twisted as the feckers we are all trying to Get Shot Of.

My original post stated that I had nothing to do with that leaflet and that the content is not what I would have put on it. I fail to see how that is me trying to defend it. I've simply put an opposing view forward to that of PHF who claim it is a lie. The fact is that the content isn't.

Would I rather see Labour of PHF win in the Manor? Neither. I prefer to look at the candidates rather than the party's and if I weren't voting for Mandy I'd rather Tom Hind be elected as he is a good candidate who puts in a lot of hours.

Quote from: SRMoore on August 09, 2013, 10: AM
My original post stated that I had nothing to do with that leaflet and that the content is not what I would have put on it. I fail to see how that is me trying to defend it. I've simply put an opposing view forward to that of PHF who claim it is a lie. The fact is that the content isn't.

Would I rather see Labour of PHF win in the Manor? Neither. I prefer to look at the candidates rather than the party's and if I weren't voting for Mandy I'd rather Tom Hind be elected as he is a good candidate who puts in a lot of hours.

And that in a Nutshell is why Hartlepool is in The Sh*t.

The conservatives only have 3 councillors who all consistently vote the way labour tell them. Now we have them using heir own party funds to distribute anti-PHF leaflet in an election which is a two horse race between PHF and Labour.
If you vote Tory in this town you effectively get a Labour councillor. Considering this is the twisted mess they are in themselves, quite how any of them have the time to be worrying about PHF baffles me.

Quote from: fred c on August 09, 2013, 10: AM

And that in a Nutshell is why Hartlepool is in The Sh*t.

Why Fred, because people don't buy into the whole PHF nonsense?

I would much rather Tom Hind win than PHF

Quote from: fred c on August 09, 2013, 10: AM

Quote from: SRMoore on August 09, 2013, 10: AM
My original post stated that I had nothing to do with that leaflet and that the content is not what I would have put on it. I fail to see how that is me trying to defend it. I've simply put an opposing view forward to that of PHF who claim it is a lie. The fact is that the content isn't.

Would I rather see Labour of PHF win in the Manor? Neither. I prefer to look at the candidates rather than the party's and if I weren't voting for Mandy I'd rather Tom Hind be elected as he is a good candidate who puts in a lot of hours.

And that in a Nutshell is why Hartlepool is in The Sh*t.

So you are suggesting that voting for the best candidate, regardless of their political allegiance, is not what the public should do and simply vote for a brand with an inferior product?

I'm not saying Mick Stevens is an inferior candidate because I don't know him. Never met him, never heard anything from him and I haven't even heard one thing mentioned about him by the various PHF members on here. All I've heard is 'vote for our brand'.

Quote from: SRMoore on August 09, 2013, 04: PM

Quote from: fred c on August 09, 2013, 10: AM

Quote from: SRMoore on August 09, 2013, 10: AM
My original post stated that I had nothing to do with that leaflet and that the content is not what I would have put on it. I fail to see how that is me trying to defend it. I've simply put an opposing view forward to that of PHF who claim it is a lie. The fact is that the content isn't.

Would I rather see Labour of PHF win in the Manor? Neither. I prefer to look at the candidates rather than the party's and if I weren't voting for Mandy I'd rather Tom Hind be elected as he is a good candidate who puts in a lot of hours.

Whatever


And that in a Nutshell is why Hartlepool is in The Sh*t.

So you are suggesting that voting for the best candidate, regardless of their political allegiance, is not what the public should do and simply vote for a brand with an inferior product?

I'm not saying Mick Stevens is an inferior candidate because I don't know him. Never met him, never heard anything from him and I haven't even heard one thing mentioned about him by the various PHF members on here. All I've heard is 'vote for our brand'.

"So you are suggesting that voting for the best candidate, regardless of their political allegiance, is not what the public should do and simply vote for a brand with an inferior product?

I'm not saying Mick Stevens is an inferior candidate because I don't know him. Never met him, never heard anything from him and I haven't even heard one thing mentioned about him by the various PHF members on here. All I've heard is 'vote for our brand'."

Is that a joke Shane. Any chance there was of me lending you might vote just vanished!!!

You don't know the candidates...err Mandy Loynes!
Never met the candidate...err Mandy Loynes!
Vote for our brand...err Mandy Loynes.

How can you be so deluded.

Let me tell you right now Shane from an ordinary poolie. Get yourself as far away from Ray Wells and his poisonous pseudo love affair with the disgrace that is this town's Labour group or you will not come within 5000 votes.

I would have voted for you if you had shown even the smallest ounce of balls in standing up to the mob and your disgrace of a leader. 

Nonsense

I'm sorry you have reached that conclusion, TSteels. Though I would ask you to re-read my post within the context it was written. As a reply to Fred who stated that voting for a candidate whom I felt was the better choice and not simply because they were PHF, UKIP, Tory or Labour was why this town was in the sh*t.

I don't follow that philosophy because that is why we have a council chamber full of idiotic sheep or self serving tw*ts.

Shane, coming back to the anti-PFH letter circulated by your group, do you have anything to say about the 'facts' listed on it? and the erm.... fact... that the chief solicitor for the council has taken the conservatives to task about the leaflet.

I know you think Ray is now a mate of yours, Mr Mister, but is he actually paying you to come on here to slag PHF off? Just curious.

Can we have a shufti at the Tory  leaflet?
Not all of us live in Owton Manor.............

Mr Mister said

Quotethe 5 Councillors have achieved nothing for the 40k (give or take) they have had in the last 12 months?

Bait refused... try again.  ;)

Yes I would, Fred as I have given up hundreds of hours of my free time to fight for the people of this town and continue to be as ever critical of elected members because I understand that the public want someone who will be working for them all year round and not just in the run up to an election.

I do this often at great expense to myself and without any remuneration from the taxpayer or the conservative party. Much to my wife's dismay.

Quote from: steveL on August 09, 2013, 09: PM
I know you think Ray is now a mate of yours, Mr Mister, but is he actually paying you to come on here to slag PHF off? Just curious.

Bless you Stephen,.. firstly I speak to Ray from time to time, if I want to ask about something, I will drop him a text, you want to try it sometime, you then wouldn't have to make so much up about the fella, if I bump into him we say hi and have a quick chat, but we are not spending long periods of time, looking into each others eyes lovingly.

Actually the same applies to you, I send you texts, sometimes you blank them, sometimes you reply,, I don't care either way, if I bump into you, we say hi and have a chat.

As for payment, he couldn't pay me enough, so the payment jibe is exactly that, a jibe..

Let's move onto the PHF bit of your post.. I think PHF isn't worth a handjob, I think they're clueless, I think the structure of the group is dogshit, I think they're unlikely to win a raffle, never mind power at the Cremlin, this is my own personal view based on what I have seen and read so far.

Now I am terribly sorry that you and I seem to be at the other end of the scale politically but, frankly that's just the way it goes, I understand your frustration at knowing that even how s**t Labour is, they are going to stuff PHF on the Manor and there's not a thing you can do about it, I understand how annoying it must feel to be part of something that can't even beat Labour on the Manor, knowing what's gone on there.

I can see why you're so upset you want to make cheap jibes at anyone not singing from your song sheet, I do understand the work you have put in, you must wonder sometimes why you bother, so much of your life taken up on something you can do very little about, I get all that Stephen, I really, really do.

I am so sorry for the position you find yourself in, you have my sympathy, I feel your sorrow from the other end of town, Look on the bright side though, PHF can only gain ground, so live with hope in your heart Stephen that one day things will be different, sadly, at best, i've only got 40 years of life left in me, so I won't be around to see PHF gain power in the Cremlin, I know the leaders of PHF are not spring chickens either, so bless them, I hope they live to about 120 years old, so they have a chance to see their boys in the Cremlin calling the shots.

Just saying.

We don't have a Tory Party or Labour Party as I recognise it ....oh we have the facade of them, but that's about it. ....and that's why wr have PHF..... simple, but diffcult for politicians to comprehend, .....so they chunter and wriggle but never confront the problem and take refuge in their strained logic.

Shane, you say that the council chamber is full of t**ts, but you refuse to take them on!! You come on here and offer a few words designed to make it look like you are, but in reality that's meaningless.

FACT: your leader decides on issues, not based on the good of the people, but on what CAB wants. He voted with Labour ON EVERYTHING!! You know it, you hate it, but you refuse to call him on it or attack him for it. That is your weakness.

People are sick of their politicians, all of them. A plague on all their houses. The only people who are going to break through, who are going to create the bedrock of a new politics, which once again can actually inspire the people, are those individuals who have the guts to say: "Right, f*ck the lot of you! I don't care who you are, what party you're in or who your mate is. If you f*ck with the people of this town I am coming after you with the thunder of God's own fury!"

If you continue to offer excuses, explanations, clarifications etc...for the shoddy disgrace that is Ray Wells you will be nowhere come general Election Day!

Tsteels, I agree with you. If anything this issue combined with the travellers issue will hopefully become the 'dynamic catalyst' needed to get a few more people involved at the sharp end of all of this, and really try to make a difference.

I'd only really been a casual observer of local politics until a year or so ago. Then one of them make a vindictive decision which potentially threatened my livelihood, career and could have impacted a lot on me and my family.

That was a decision he made which massively over stepped the mark for why he was elected. On a basic level I want my bins emptying, rubbish picked up from the streets around me, crime and anti social behaviour tackled, facilities and local services protected.

These people are not there to ride rough shot over the wishes of the people of this town.

This, MRA/WCNE, the travellers issue and other decisions (or none decisions) made, will hopefully shake up the local political landscape in Hartlepool.

A few months back I wrote a letter to Iain Wright and warned that the ill feeling against the local Labour group in town was growing and growing and growing and that come next May they'd be in trouble. In the May after that, in the general election, I genuinely believe he'll be in trouble and the safest Labour seat in the country will become a marginal.

Largely thanks to the ill thought actions of SOME of our local councillors.

I find the remark made by S Moore extremely offensive A Council Chamber Full of; Well you know the rest
there are of course 'some' who 'might' fall within that category but to make such a statement about all is quite simply. Out of order.

You like everyone else on this site are entitled to an opinion that is your prerogative BUT I'm quite certain that if this remark was made in the presence of said elected councillors you would find yourself in a predicament.

Councillors rightly deserve criticism when they fail to meet what the electorate asks 'demands' of them. If it's not forthcoming then the answer is clear. Don't re-elect them.

Quote from: tankerville on August 10, 2013, 08: AM
I find the remark made by S Moore extremely offensive A Council Chamber Full of; Well you know the rest
there are of course 'some' who 'might' fall within that category but to make such a statement about all is quite simply. Out of order.

You like everyone else on this site are entitled to an opinion that is your prerogative BUT I'm quite certain that if this remark was made in the presence of said elected councillors you would find yourself in a predicament.

Councillors rightly deserve criticism when they fail to meet what the electorate asks 'demands' of them. If it's not forthcoming then the answer is clear. Don't re-elect them.

They are t****, I would tell each and every one of them to their face, or the whole lot as a group of t****, I think Shane's comment is bang on the money, oddly you feel your allowed an opinion but then want to restrict his.. 

P.S. I never say anything on the internet, that I wouldn't say to the person face, just in case you think I hide behind a computer.

Quote from: SRMoore on August 09, 2013, 11: PM
Yes I would, Fred as I have given up hundreds of hours of my free time to fight for the people of this town and continue to be as ever critical of elected members because I understand that the public want someone who will be working for them all year round and not just in the run up to an election.

I do this often at great expense to myself and without any remuneration from the taxpayer or the conservative party. Much to my wife's dismay.

I removed my previous post because i thought it more pertinent to comment on this.

A lot of people know you do good work & that it probably does cost you money, your not alone in doing that, others from different persuasions take time to involve themselves in local politics & also at some expense to themselves.

We all know what you do, why some of us take issue with you is for what you don`t do, you have a propensity to gloss over the decisions taken in Council by your Leader, we wonder why you don`t adopt the philosophy of Calling a Spade a Shovel now & again.

You know as well as everybody else who takes an interest in local matters that your Party in Council have consistently backed decisions taken by "The Dear Leader & The Mob"

The biggest Scandal in local politics in recent years has been MRA & WCN/E, i haven`t seen any words of condemnation from your lot, they haven`t even questioned it in council.

We all know what you personally think about the Scandal, but "You" need to Blow your Parties Trumpet on the issue, cos if you don`t none of the others will.

It may be of interest to you that although you can call a Councillor/s all you wish to in writing or to their face/s defamatory replies cannot be returned by said Councillor/s.

Because of Hartlepool Borough Council's Code of Conduct.

I stick by what I have said that it is wrong to tar everyone with the same brush.

There is good and bad in all walks of life being rude and abusive is Wrong. No matter which way you want to twist it to justify for your own reasons of hate or spiteful vindictiveness.

QuoteHartlepool Borough Council's Code of Conduct.

Have you ever tried to get anyone to enforce the guidelines in the councils code of conduct Tank?

It's not work the paper it's written on, because no body is willing to enforce it.

Well I'll have to beg to differ on that one. What you say is correct but only in the sense that it applies to a 'normal' council. HBC ceased to operate as a 'normal' council sometime ago.

As others on here will know, I once found myself the focus of a torrent of personal abuse from the then 'Vice Chairman' of the Council, Stephen Akers-Belcher and this having just arrived in the council chamber and before I'd even settled in my seat.

My own attempts to answer back were quashed by the Chairman, Carl Richardson, who told me that members of the public weren't allowed to speak, even though he was quite happy for SAB to carry on with his abuse.

Peter Jackson said to me sometime later that he was surprised I didn't deck him.

Like I say, don't confuse HBC with a 'normal' council.

Quote from: tankerville on August 10, 2013, 12: PM
It may be of interest to you that although you can call a Councillor/s all you wish to in writing or to their face/s defamatory replies cannot be returned by said Councillor/s.

Because of Hartlepool Borough Council's Code of Conduct.

I stick by what I have said that it is wrong to tar everyone with the same brush.

There is good and bad in all walks of life being rude and abusive is Wrong. No matter which way you want to twist it to justify for your own reasons of hate or spiteful vindictiveness.

I'll tell you what then, in the interest of fairness, you find me a stand up councilor amoungst the pile of crap we have and I will try and be nice to them, can't say fairer than that.

Talking about same brush etc etc, I recall a post by you recently, that was somewhat taring with the same brush, the people of the Manor, in fact someone pulled you over it I recall.

I don't need to twist things, as the facts speak for themselves, regarding Councillors in this town, past and present.

Tankerville, you are quite right; my comment was somewhat out of order because it isn't fair to lump them all together with that label. There are some noble councillors, John Lauderdale being one of them. The man doesn't say much but he has a good heart.

Having said that I have been present at numerous meetings when I have left with the distinct impression that the council is full of 'pregnant fish'.

TSteels - I appreciate what you are saying and trust me, I understand the frustration. However you and many others don't see what I and others do away from the pages of HTh or the Mail in relation to changing things within our party.

If you have any particular concerns you are welcome to raise them with me. My full contact details are on our website.

Shane, are you going to comment on what your party put on the Manor leaflet or what............?

Barcley was at victoria park today with a bucket to collect  money for charity, but wasnt allowed in because he didnt  have a permit and never bothered to ask the club.
He wants to run a ward and cant even  organise a bucket collection.

So he can stand outside Victoria park with a bucket but a chap with a guitar is no longer allowed to sit at the bottom of the ramp to try and make a couple of quid to pay his bills. Have to love hbc.

Oh right does he have probs with some thing as technical as a bucket then

Lets be quite clear about this by election.. if PHF cant win this seat on the Manor then what scope is there for anymore success elsewhere.. put simply if the PHF candidate doesnt win on Thursday then the party is just another busted flush.. considering how weak the Labour Party in Hartlepool are as professed by PHF members on this site, the only laughing stock in town will be PHF.

I look forward to the excuses on Friday morning

I havent said that this is a two horse race this is what is being said on here by your members.. but lets be honest because it is a two horse race labour and phf.. who knows the outcome, certainly not me! But when people are unsure they stick with what they know.. it would be better that phf were channelling all their energies into persuading the people of owton manor to vote phf instead of squabbling on here over a tory election leaflet which from what i have seen explained on here is true. Is it not against election rules to call candidates alcoholics and winos? This is a dirty election campaign where the only ones who appear to be not entertaining in dirty tricks throughout the campaign are parties except PHF.. the Labour camp will be quietly confident of holding on to a seat that they really should not win.. oppositions which PHF are should be wiping the floor in circumstances like this against again, what your members call a "weak p**s artist" candidate

Quote from: ARC86 on August 10, 2013, 08: PM
what your members call a "weak p**s artist" candidate

You mean what everyone calls a  p**s artist" candidate.
It is a statement of fact. The man is famous for his benders.

Quote from: ARC86 on August 10, 2013, 08: PM
I havent said that this is a two horse race this is what is being said on here by your members.. but lets be honest because it is a two horse race labour and phf.. who knows the outcome, certainly not me! But when people are unsure they stick with what they know.. it would be better that phf were channelling all their energies into persuading the people of owton manor to vote phf instead of squabbling on here over a tory election leaflet which from what i have seen explained on here is true. Is it not against election rules to call candidates alcoholics and winos? This is a dirty election campaign where the only ones who appear to be not entertaining in dirty tricks throughout the campaign are parties except PHF.. the Labour camp will be quietly confident of holding on to a seat that they really should not win.. oppositions which PHF are should be wiping the floor in circumstances like this against again, what your members call a "weak p**s artist" candidate

My work here is done, I have found someone with an ounce of common sense, that's not blinded by the PHF light :)

I will sleep easier in my bed tonight :)

HTH has been going 11 years now and we've seen quite a few elections - enough to know the routine of planted posters and to be able recognise them when they appear.

Quote from: ARC86 on August 10, 2013, 07: PM
Lets be quite clear about this by election.. if PHF cant win this seat on the Manor then what scope is there for anymore success elsewhere.. put simply if the PHF candidate doesnt win on Thursday then the party is just another busted flush.. considering how weak the Labour Party in Hartlepool are as professed by PHF members on this site, the only laughing stock in town will be PHF.

I look forward to the excuses on Friday morning

Well I would say that PHF is already onto the possibility of 3 more councillors in the Hart ward given the way that they've just been let down by the three existing incumbents.

I posted what happened regarding the leaflet on here earlier, of course the truth was getting in the way of the story told by PHF Your administrator for some unknown reason decided to delete it.

Why I don't know..


Regarding p.45 I agree totally.

QuoteC Akers-Belcher   
Voters on #labourdoorstep today loving Hartlepool's Free swim initiative for children in hols. Gr8 support all round too for road investment

So are the mob paying for swimming or the people of the town

Excuse me but I haven't ducked any question. Members of PHF are the ones ducking the questions I have raised time and time again because they know they were caught with their pants down.

Let us clear this up again.

The Independent Remuneration Panel recommended the Conservative group leader lose his allowance. Ray Wells could have protested and, if he is as buddy with Labour as everybody says, he'd have overturned the decision with the support of Labour votes.
As it turns out Ray stood up in full council and stated that he would not go against the recommendations and would happily hand his leaders allowance back.

The same Independent Remuneration Panel recommended that the PHF group leader's allowance be reduced by 50%. Geoff Lilley protested at the thought and made a deal with Christopher Akers-Belcher before the full council meeting.
After Ray Wells had offered to give his allowance up, Geoff Lilley stood up and requested that his leaders allowance be returned to the original amount (double that of the recommendation made by the IRP.) PHF got their way as the motion was carried with the full support of the Labour group.

Now we have PHF members getting their knickers in a twist because the Tory leaflet stated that the Conservative leader handed back his allowance. PHF are arguing that he didn't hand it back, he had it taken from him by the IRP. Though they absolutely refuse to admit that Geoff Lilley also had 50% of his leaders allowance taken from him but he had the audacity to ask for it back.

PHF might not like readers of this forum to be given the whole story but I will not apologise for calling BS when I see/read it.

Queue the petty name calling from the usual suspects.

Wilcox is tyipcal of the local faction, many people on this site say things like the mob, the Kremlin etc, of course they are outwardly saying we want you BIG BROTHER, I dont want to get up to go to work, why should i when other people can do this for me, and they will. Labour isn`t WORKING. You SEE.

You're dealing with absolute finite detail of the law here. For the leaflet to be illegal and to warrant its immediate recall, a public apology or even the withdrawal of the tory candidate it would have to be 100% illegal in the sense that it would need to make 'false statement of facts in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate'.

That's defined in law as part of the Representation of the People Act of 1983.

There's a loop hole that's saved the tories on this occasion in the statement made which Mr Devlin has labelled "Inaccurate" involves Geoff Lilley and Ray Wells.

Neither of those people are the candidate of either party.

That's the primary reasons you're not out collecting them all back in Shane. It's not that what was on them is true.

Quite why Ms Loynes has circulated a leaflet that primarily focuses on Ray Wells and Geoff Lilley rather than herself is a question worth asking. Although the answer is fairly obvious.

Steels  I whole heartedly agree with you UKIP will sort it out all things are political in the end. it`s the best selling game.
Regards.

Yes quietly confident its not every day a scandal like MRA happens thankfully.. Labour are up against it without doubt but there out there knocking on the doors and listening to the concerns of voters as im sure PHF are but on a far smaller scale.. it just leaves the question now that if Labour do hold on to the seat it will be back to the drawing board for PHF and their lust to dispose of the council leader and ceremonial mayor.. the prize could not be greater and thats what makes this by election fascinating

Are PHF already on the doorstep in the Hart Ward or will they be opportunists again because ive not heard a peep from them in the local press condemning the location of the proposed traveller site.. they cant exactly promise to overturn the decision either because we all know you shouldnt make promises you cant keep

ARC86 I suspect you drink Lager.......

For your information a PHF Councillor raised objections on the selection of the Gypsy Sites in Hart Village.

As it happens he wasn`t on the Committee either, but he made the effort to attend the Meeting, unlike the 3 Councillors from the Hart Ward, errrrrr whats their names again, Oh Yes.....Jean Robinson, Paul Beck & Keith Fisher

David/Perseus, I'm not willing to play the game anymore I'm afraid; you can't have it both ways.

Despite all of the huffing and puffing on here by some PHf members I have not yet once heard anyone say 'you should vote PHF on Thursday because Mick Stevens is a cracking lad and a brilliant candidate who will work hard'. All I have heard is 'vote PHF because Labour are corrupt and we are the only ones putting Hartlepool first, honest, our party name even says so!'.

Yet here you are complaining that the Conservative election leaflet points out that PHF aren't as white as they would have people believe and that it doesn't tell more about the candidate, Mandy Loynes than it does about the record of Hartlepool Conservatives not funding themselves from the taxpayers pocket.

You assume I walked into a trap by answering your question so that you could come back with me with quotes from Peter Devlin but I fully expected it. None of those quotes still hide the fact that the Conservatives happily gave up their leaders allowance at a time when HBC are facing funding cuts whilst PHF asked for theirs to be double the recommended allowance suggested by an independent panel.

Argue the semantics all you like but the reality will always be the same. Putting Hartlepool First put their own bank account first on this occasion.

Quote from: steveL on August 10, 2013, 08: PM
HTH has been going 11 years now and we've seen quite a few elections - enough to know the routine of planted posters and to be able recognise them when they appear.

Stephen,we keep hearing this nonsense, have you ever considered that not everyone agrees with you politically that posts on here.

Yesterday I was a paid plant, today it's someone else, tomorrow I expect you to start wondering about Fred and his loyalty to the party.. lol.. You need a week away mate, somewhere nice and warm and quiet.

PHF headquarters will most likely be quiet but not sure about the warn or nice bit. :)

The loss of the conservative leaders allowance was more than made up for by his appointment as chair of Licensing... a case of Cascades of P*ss up Cabs back.

Your right about 1 thing though Shane, its not worth entering into further dialogue on your TorLab Election leaflet... the wording says it all, Vote Labour, & never mind whats her name........ you know the the woman with her photo on the front.

Gentlemen, and lets not forget the ladies of all nations of all persuasans ( hope ive spelled it right don`t want to upset anyone ) and I really don`t even U WHOEVER u are. I would like to inform all, I have Hartlepool roots, i remember the bus station (not there now )i moved away and came back lo and behold a Marina, some people may like the idea some people not, of the changes I mean, Looking back in time 2000 years ago, one man turned water into wine, and made the blind see, ( i`m not religus by the way ) my point is if Hartlepool in the present day vote a man into power, who`s only claim to fame was he had a monkey suit on and became the Leader,  whowsers. ONE side knows what he is doing the other well u decide. Manor ward election will make, a bold step, into the unknown or, they will vote for survival and not bite the hand that feeds them. Roll on the football season.   

Can I just point out that Carl and Marjorie were certainly not "knocking on doors" the other day it was more a case of post leaflet and run , certainly on the section of owton manor lane I watched them on

Perseus? David? oh yes Shane i'm both of them. In fact, i'm kipperdip, MK1, Mr Mister, Black Cat, and Joe Hudson. Actually i'm also Zorro, Batman and the Lone Ranger too.

Look Shane, the more you defend that leaflet (which anyone with eyes can see is designed to try to dissuade people from voting PHF) the more you lose political credibility on this forum and in the town. Simple.

It's a conservative leaflet (apparently) being circulated in a strong Labour ward. It makes overt reference to an apparent doubling of the secondary leaders allowance amounting to what? 3 and a half grand?, but makes no reference to the fact that the leaders allowance of the Labour controlled council was TREBLED to 20 odd thousand.

It also makes no reference to what most people believe to be the biggest political scandal at local level for a long time which has gone on bang smack in the middle of the ward in question.

Concerning the 'doubling of the allowance', I've made my views on that very clear and Geoff knows what I think. I personally wouldn't have done it and I've explained why already. I anticipated another party using that decision to throw mud at PHF come an election, as I imagine did PHF's leadership, councillors and other members. But the decision was made for the reasons I've already explained earlier in the thread.

In some respects I think the leaflet is the worst thing your group could have done to draw people away from PHF. If there's one thing people dislike more than being told what to do, it's being told what NOT to do.

Sorry Fred I'm a beer followed by a cognac kind of man.. its one thing objecting to a decision (im sure the whole Hart ward objects), but its something else promising to overturn it at election time! Where was the whole furore from PHF members when the land at B&Q was selected for the travellers site? The 3 local councillors (all Labour may i add), including the leader and deputy leader of the council organised a well attended public meeting and acted on the residents behalf to put the case to the government inspector who overturned the original decision. They came out very favorably with local residents (three cheers were even raised) for the excellent work that they did

I have to agree with Arc86 Fred :/

Quote from: ARC86 on August 11, 2013, 09: AM
Sorry Fred I'm a beer followed by a cognac kind of man.. its one thing objecting to a decision (im sure the whole Hart ward objects), but its something else promising to overturn it at election time! Where was the whole furore from PHF members when the land at B&Q was selected for the travellers site? The 3 local councillors (all Labour may i add), including the leader and deputy leader of the council organised a well attended public meeting and acted on the residents behalf to put the case to the government inspector who overturned the original decision. They came out very favorably with local residents (three cheers were even raised) for the excellent work that they did

What has this got to do with the Manor Ward Election ?

You appear intent on bashing PHF at every opportunity.....

Where have "The Dear Leader & His Consort" been whilst the biggest scandal in local politics for years has been going on, they both "Did A Runner" have they offered any condemnation of the former "Mob Member" Wilcox, on the contrary they have given her their support throughout. ?

Are they Calling for an Independent Accountant Led Investigation into the Asset Stripping that is going on at MRA. ?

Did they Call for a Public Inquiry into the Peer Groups Report ? .... No they didnt, not until their position becane untenable, they then limited the Inquiry by making an amendment that capped the time & cost required.

End of m8

Please Perseus and PHF stop this senseless feud with Shane. None of you can be winners but Labour could.

Perseus, Shane has admitted that he had nothing to do with the leaflet and does not endorse it. Shane accept the difference of interpretation that exists between the two of you.

ALL of you unite and fight the common foe - do your best to get Labour out. Labour have picked Barclay to show contempt for you and the residents of Manor. Use that contempt for you to show him, Barclay, and Labour the way out.

Fred c, your latest post. I don't think Shane is particularly bashing PHF more of sticking up for his Party. Best if all of you stop this spatt.

The Tory position is comical....ii's like a ventriloquist on stage doing his act with a skeleton on his knee.... we can can all see the bleedin obvious.

    This by-election thread has become a slanging match between P.H.F. and the Conservatives which I find strange. P.H.F. have set their target at breaking the  Labour stranglehold  on H.B.C. To be distracted by a poor Conservative leaflet and campaign is playing into the hands of their real opponents the Labour Party. Having said that I ,genuinely,  feel sorry for the Conservative candidate who is just another young person  being used by the old guard Conservatives in this town. I would like to bet that she isn't the Conservative candidate in Rural West next year.
      I would like to see P.H.F.'S policies aired more ,for example what is their standpoint on the proposed new nuclear powerstation at Graythorp. I know that two of their leading members have conflicting views but what about the rest of the membership?

Ryehill, if you see the other thread about MRA I've just put forward what i'd like to see as some form of council policy concerning residents associations.

Concerning the power station, I absolutely 100% think that we HAVE to push for it to be built here. Yes in an ideal world i'd rather not live in a town with a power station, but I think it's too big an incentive in terms of jobs and impact on the local economy to turn down.

I had never read anything about Frome Town Council until today.

Frome is in the county of Somerset not far from Bath.

It seems to be quite affluent and has a population of about 20,000.

It certainly isn`t a Hartlepool, so what is the connection if any to our town?

Well, according to the Times newspaper, in the Frome Spring of 2011, five men in a pub were moaning about the council`s plans to take over the town`s main venue for music and markets. with the threat of making it into offices.

The men decided to form an Independent Party (Independents for Frome) and placed an advert in the local paper for candidates to contest council seats for the forthcoming election.

Many of the town`s folk took up the challenge and did contest all of the 17 seats and won 10 of them. They immediately formed a majority in the council, and the story goes that the town has gone from strength to strength.

Here is the link to the Frome Council`s website:

http://www.frome-tc.gov.uk/councillors/

Sounds good rabbit and we should all be working to do the same thing. Instead, being Hartlepool, we get into slagging off each other. Oh Hartlepool!

    The Labour Party are delivering a leaflet in Manor House, boasting that they stopped the Travellers Site being located in the ward. It had crossed my mind that the decision was made with an eye on the by-election on Thursday, or am I just becoming cynical.

Mr Barclay was at the meeting. He did speak up and stated why he didn't think the site should be in the Manor House ward. Councillors Stephen Akers-Belcher and Councillor James did too. Although I guess by that logic though, then the Labour party definitely caused it to be located in Hart. 

I honestly believe that Labour are desperately keen to retain The Manor for no other reason than if they lose the seat, all sorts of "Unsavoury Information" will emerge about what has been going on with MRA & WCN/E.

You only have to look at the Blind Panic that engulfed Wilcox & her acolytes when the Post-it Stickers & Posters were stuck up all over the Manor, they were running... sorry Waddling around ripping them down as quick as they were being put up.

The asset stripping is more than likely to be fully traceable, & given that it looks as though it started before the Audit Report came out, the Trustees & Former Trustees have genuine reasons for concern about their own culpability in it all, so the 2 "Deserters" aren`t off the hook by any means.

Quote from: Ryehill on August 11, 2013, 04: PM
    The Labour Party are delivering a leaflet in Manor House, boasting that they stopped the Travellers Site being located in the ward. It had crossed my mind that the decision was made with an eye on the by-election on Thursday, or am I just becoming cynical.

Owton Manor was never really in the running to have the Traveller's Site; everything was pointing to West View though no doubt if we were having a by-election there then they would be saying the same thing. Something to think about when the planning Inspector throws out Hart as the eventual location which he will do when residents start lodging appeals.

Bit strange that so to save face on manor house they have stabbed 2 other labour councilors in the back in Hart .Have they heard of the saying "foot in mouth" think now they will struggle in Hart in may.But also shows how corrupt they are.

Quote from: Ryehill on August 11, 2013, 04: PM
    The Labour Party are delivering a leaflet in Manor House, boasting that they stopped the Travellers Site being located in the ward. It had crossed my mind that the decision was made with an eye on the by-election on Thursday, or am I just becoming cynical.

Bit of an own goal perhaps. Isn't there quite a sizeable romany community on the Manor? Doubt if they will be chuffed about being labelled as 'undesirables.'

Quote from: steveL on August 11, 2013, 04: PM


Owton Manor was never really in the running to have the Traveller's Site; everything was pointing to West View though no doubt if we were having a by-election there then they would be saying the same thing.

The only thing (or person) constantly pointing to West View was you, Steve.

There were numerous reasons as to why the two sites on WVR were unsuitable, none of which included wind from passing trains. Both myself and many other residents were very quick to point them out.

The reality is that Burbank was the most likely site to be chosen, according to two planning officers I spoke to.

Having said all of that I am still firmly of the opinion that HBC should not be forced to allocate land and eventually provide a camp because the previous government decided we have to have one. So I would urge all of you, whether you live in the Hart ward or not, to make representation to Eric Pickles and demand he keeps his pre election pledge to scrap these rules and then write/email/call Iain Wright and demand he grows a spine and fix the mess he made by asking Pickles to scrap them too.

If the gypsy & traveller families living in Hartlepool decide they wish to go give up their house and live in a caravan I would suggest they do what you or I would have to do and purchase/rent land/a plot and buy a caravan themselves.

What were the reasons given in Thursdays' meeting for not choosing West View Shane? Not that i'm saying it should have been there. I'm just interested to hear the reasons given by the councillors for not picking that site.

Quote from: SRMoore on August 11, 2013, 05: PM

Quote from: steveL on August 11, 2013, 04: PM


Owton Manor was never really in the running to have the Traveller's Site; everything was pointing to West View though no doubt if we were having a by-election there then they would be saying the same thing.

The only thing (or person) constantly pointing to West View was you, Steve.

There were numerous reasons as to why the two sites on WVR were unsuitable, none of which included wind from passing trains. Both myself and many other residents were very quick to point them out.

The reality is that Burbank was the most likely site to be chosen, according to two planning officers I spoke to.

Having said all of that I am still firmly of the opinion that HBC should not be forced to allocate land and eventually provide a camp because the previous government decided we have to have one. So I would urge all of you, whether you live in the Hart ward or not, to make representation to Eric Pickles and demand he keeps his pre election pledge to scrap these rules and then write/email/call Iain Wright and demand he grows a spine and fix the mess he made by asking Pickles to scrap them too.

If the gypsy & traveller families living in Hartlepool decide they wish to go give up their house and live in a caravan I would suggest they do what you or I would have to do and purchase/rent land/a plot and buy a caravan themselves.

Talk to the hand, Shane or better still talk to Wells (if you can get your head out of his ar** long enough) as he was the one spouting off about it on the bus. There's more to come on this which will show just how much of a cess-pitt is the place your Leader is currently co-habiting with the Akers-Belchers.

Writing to Pickles is going to do a fat lot of good given that he's already had 3 years to do as you say. Why not just tell us which way Wells voted on the issue (maintaining his 100% record) or tell us all of how, at the beginning of this process, your mate and his labour colleagues had tried desperately to get Seaton and the Fens included as sites - I wonder why that would be?

Is it just me that finds it distasteful that someone can let a member of their family make a Tw*t of themselves at the behest of their party leader ?

WARNING,  elections are all about Passion, nothing wrong with that, all belive in their own dogma, again nothing wrong with that, you vote for this, you vote for that it`s a choice wonderfull choice isnt it, when its`s taken away  ( choice that is ) what is it you are left with be carefull who you vote for. See from the eyes of Dan Brown and the Davinci Code it`s all Sybolism YOU SEE. 

Frazer kICK THE CAT, this is of course while you can, thought POLICE and all

Thought, Guess you know by now, or at least you should, there`s no volunteer for for the common good, no distribution of fortune, and no-one is coming down to save your soul, Only you can assume that role. Australia thinks we are the LAND OF THE WHINGING POM

Whether or not Putting Hartlepool First manage to win this seat, surely the best thing to come out of this by-election is that for once there is a real challenge to Labour in what must be their safest ward. This can only be a healthy thing in the longer term.

Quote from: for fawkes sake on August 12, 2013, 10: AM
Whether or not Putting Hartlepool First manage to win this seat, surely the best thing to come out of this by-election is that for once there is a real challenge to Labour in what must be their safest ward. This can only be a healthy thing in the longer term.

Challenge? who from ?

OK so Geoff Lilley once called you an a*r**o** at Mill House. It's really time that you got over it, mate because it's affecting your objectivity.

The Mail are taking comments on the election here. http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/manor-house-by-election-meet-the-candidates-1-5943145

I wonder if people will speak up and let them know what they think?

Please, please, please;
Let us remove the scourge of parasites from the Manor..even if it means voting for a party you are not too keen on!  :o

Of them, I now have a preference for Putting Hartlepool First....Mick's piece in the Mail makes him out to be a solid, sincere man of Owton Manor.  :)

For God's sake get over the childish spats you have with G. Lilley....he is insignificant in the bigger picture of removing the stain on the political landscape of the Manor in particular and Hartlepool in general.  >:(   >:(

Vote for MICK STEVENS and let him have a go at being a REAL councillor for the people of the Manor, as opposed to those people that have ripped off employees and totally taken the p*ss out the people that voted them in.  >:(

If Mick falls down in his tenure, vote him out next time but at least you will have removed the cronies of Wilcox and her crowd.

Remember, Lilley ISN'T the focus, removing the infestation is.

Im not a Manor resident, and im not a Political person either, but I do believe a vote counts so don't waste it...... good luck to all candidates, but remember all your promises are not just to win a vote they are to be carried out throughout your term... remember you are there for everyone you represent not just to boost your self esteem ... so many before all over our brilliant country come up with brilliant promises of this and that, then so forget them and start to see money and power... ps I am not saying the candidates will do this but just saying it does happen..

Quote from: steveL on August 12, 2013, 11: AM
OK so Geoff Lilley once called you an a*r**o** at Mill House. It's really time that you got over it, mate because it's affecting your objectivity.

O yes of course he did, he was upset that I outed him for wearing a brown and yellow dress, after reading about it on the internet.

Point you might be overlooking Stephen is, the small facts of... " He might just have been right" O well! :/

Let's move onto Objectivity.. in the interest of fairness, may I respectfully ask, in what context you use the word?

Objectivity (journalism)

I'm not a fat, middle aged, failed/wannabe Journalist, so that shouldn't apply to me.

Objectivity (science)

I love an ology!..The science of this politic games is appealing to me.

Objectivity (philosophy)

My philosophy is a much more direct, no hold barred approach to politics. call a spade a spade and a shithead a shithead!

Objectivity (frame invariance)

Frame, you're better at that than me R.E. Ray Wells.

Objectivity in historiography

:/ No idea what that is.. something to do with history by the sound of it, I like history, I am good at remembering the facts of the past.

Objectivity/DB - a commercial object oriented database management system produced by Objectivity

This last one sounds interesting but, I am not sure what it has to do with local politics.


Stephen I am not sorry that we don't agree politically, I think it's healthy, otherwise we would be like Labour voters in this town.

PHF is not the answer, in fact it takes them two years to answer a question.

Have a nice day, nip in to Thompson's and book a holiday mate, the strain is getting to you and I know you're not in the best of health, so try and take it easy.. I am a concerned friends worrying about your state of mind these last few days, you keep ranting at anyone not connected to PHF

Come on Stephen, we are all friends here, let's calm down a bit :) xx

Quote from: grim reaper on August 12, 2013, 12: PM
Please, please, please;
Let us remove the scourge of parasites from the Manor..even if it means voting for a party you are not too keen on!  :o

Of them, I now have a preference for Putting Hartlepool First....Mick's piece in the Mail makes him out to be a solid, sincere man of Owton Manor.  :)

For God's sake get over the childish spats you have with G. Lilley....he is insignificant in the bigger picture of removing the stain on the political landscape of the Manor in particular and Hartlepool in general.  >:(   >:(

Vote for MICK STEVENS and let him have a go at being a REAL councillor for the people of the Manor, as opposed to those people that have ripped off employees and totally taken the p*ss out the people that voted them in.  >:(

If Mick falls down in his tenure, vote him out next time but at least you will have removed the cronies of Wilcox and her crowd.

Remember, Lilley ISN'T the focus, removing the infestation is.

Grim, the G.liley isn't important to me at all, in fact he's an irellivance ( however you spell it), I couldn't care less about G.liley, But if you ask me if PHF is the way forward in my opinion, it isn't, nothing they have said or done  has impressed me, I live in a ward where we have a PHF Councillor, never heard of anything she has done or said since she was voted in. Good for the community, don't make me laugh, as you guys judge me on my actions, I in turn judge them by theirs.

Politics is a dirty business but I fit right in, I know, I know, it says so much about me :)

See here how UKIP use their defeats to bolster the national Party.


http://www.forum.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html


In by-elections UKIP's strongest result this week came in Redcar & Cleveland, where a UKIP candidate took 30% of the vote coming a strong second to Labour.  The result in the Skelton ward was as follows:


Labour 745

UKIP 485

Con 176

Ind 170

Lib Dem 40


In Waveney, a UKIP candidate took third place with almost 25% of the vote in the Oulton ward:


Labour 450

Conservatives 329

UKIP 269
Green 23

Lib Dem 21


In the Haydon Wick ward in Swindon, a UKIP candidate took 15.4% of the vote – whilst in Merton, UKIP took 6.7%.  Both were third-place finishes.  Meanwhile, some Town Council elections saw UKIP just short of election.  In the Walldown ward, UKIP took 130 votes compared with the Lib Dems' 186 and 170 (beating Conservatives on 117 and 100).  But the other two had ten votes or less in them: Deadwater (Lib Dem 123, UKIP 113, Conservatives 80) and Hogmoor (Conservatives 121, UKIP 112, Lib Dem 103, Independent 71).  A complete mixture of results across the country, but congratulations to all candidates for putting their names forward!



Make no mistake UKIP are not in the slightest bit interested in Hartlepool, MR or anything other than getting the name UKIP into the papers.
If Labour get back in UKIP could not care less. UKIP are here for the publicity and for them coming 3rd is a 'victory'. Who gives a feck if that gifts  Barclay more beer money?

MK1

Does he have a drinking problem then?

               Mk1, you have expressed your dislike of U.K.I.P. on numerous occasions but one thing you cannot do is to blame U.K.I.P. for the mess this town finds itself in. You cannot blame it for the fiasco of M.R.A. You cannot blame it for the loss of our hospital services, or the politically motivated choice of the travellers site, or the continuing high level of council tax. I am sure that you get my point so why don't you give it a rest?

Quote from: Ryehill on August 12, 2013, 03: PM
               Mk1, you have expressed your dislike of U.K.I.P. on numerous occasions but one thing you cannot do is to blame U.K.I.P. for the mess this town finds itself in.

I did not say you caused any of it.
My comment was UKIP is mainly interested in the result so it can be put in a Party Newsletter to show how (it believes) the bandwagon is still  running. That means UKIP will be happy with any result that improves its numbers. UKIP is in no way concerned about anything else. Local matters are  simply not on the agenda for UKIP.
Thus if it comes to pass that Barclay scrapes in by say 10 votes and UKIP finish a poor third it will be trumpeted as a UKIP success. Do you see my point now?

Quote from: Ryehill on August 12, 2013, 03: PM
so why don't you give it a rest?

UKIP-the party that can criticise but compalin when criticised.

I agree with Mr Reaper regarding the candidate write-ups in tonight's Mail. It's Mick Stevens that comes over as the most genuine and solid candidate. Allan Barclay makes the mistake of promising more of the same and I would have thought that's the last thing the people of Owton Manor want.

Another plus (in my opinion) is that MICK STEVENS actually LIVES in Owton Manor and therefore knows the place, people and issues.
Not someone like Barclay, simply parachuted into the area 'cos it's a 'safe' labour seat.  :(
If the people of Manor Ward really are looking for change and progress, they HAVE to dispose of the infestation thoroughly and that starts with ousting labour and their toadies.

Never mind 'forget G. Lilley', in a way forget PHF.
Simply vote for the man himself;
MICK STEVENS can stop the rot and clear out the garbage.

Oh yes, well done Lynda & colleagues.
The whole rotten edifice is starting to crumble.
Hopefully it won't be just the usual suspects, top officer heads ought to roll, as they were supine in their dealings with bent cllrs and allowed the scandal to proliferate.  >:(

Quote from: grim reaper on August 13, 2013, 09: AM
Another plus (in my opinion) is that MICK STEVENS actually LIVES in Owton Manor and therefore knows the place, people and issues.

I too agree with Councillors living in the wards they are standing in, common sense really.

Quote from: Missy K on August 13, 2013, 09: AM

Quote from: grim reaper on August 13, 2013, 09: AM
Another plus (in my opinion) is that MICK STEVENS actually LIVES in Owton Manor and therefore knows the place, people and issues.

I too agree with Councillors living in the wards they are standing in, common sense really.

The register on page 2 of this feed shows Mick Stevens to be living in Campbell Road, which is actually Fens and Rossmere and not Manor House,  I think.  Not going to let that stop me from voting for him though.  Certainly would not consider voting labour.

      MKI , it is not any easy decision to accept nomination to fight a local election. By doing so it immediately shows that the candidate has an interest in local affairs, no matter which party they represent. For you to say that U.K.I.P. is not interested in local affairs is just not true. For someone who has trawled through U.K.I.P.'s manifesto you have obviously missed the part on local politics.
      On Thursday the Labour candidate will win , not because P.H.F. will lose some votes to other candidates but because Labour will have the postal votes sown up , particularly in the ward care homes. They will also have 30 activists knocking on doors this week. The other parties just can't match that.

The gist of what Ryehill says is true although we'll agree to differ on the hopeful outcome. Labour can turn out the activists and fall back on funding while PHF is the new kid on the block and has to finance itself. The Labour tactic of targetting the care homes, encouraging the occupants to apply for postal votes and then 'helping' the occupants to fill them in and post their postal votes is well known.

Having said that, PHF does well on postal votes and I'm not sure if Labour activists knocking on doors is having the desired effect this time.

Quote from: grim reaper on August 13, 2013, 09: AM
Another plus (in my opinion) is that MICK STEVENS actually LIVES in Owton Manor and therefore knows the place, people and issues.
Not someone like Barclay, simply parachuted into the area 'cos it's a 'safe' labour seat.  :(
If the people of Manor Ward really are looking for change and progress, they HAVE to dispose of the infestation thoroughly and that starts with ousting labour and their toadies.

Never mind 'forget G. Lilley', in a way forget PHF.
Simply vote for the man himself;
MICK STEVENS can stop the rot and clear out the garbage.

Oh yes, well done Lynda & colleagues.
The whole rotten edifice is starting to crumble.
Hopefully it won't be just the usual suspects, top officer heads ought to roll, as they were supine in their dealings with bent cllrs and allowed the scandal to proliferate.  >:(

When the Boundaries Commission reshaped the wards they decided that those living on one side of Catcote Road were in Manor House and those on the other side were now in a different ward. Mick lives on 'the other side' by about 30 foot. I'm sure his view on the matter would be that he has lived in Owton Manor for nearly 40 years and it will take more than the Boundary Commission to tell him otherwise.  ;D

As you say, Barclay lives in Burn Valley and is regarded as something of a Nomad in council circles. I forget which ward he was once councillor for; possible the Hart Ward. I know it wasn't Burn Valley where he lives and after losing his seat, last year he stood in Fens and Rossmere. To him, simply being a councillor is the important thing so that he can have equal status with his drinking partners. I don't think it matters much who he is a councillor for..... 

Ok time to put the record straight i have sat reading this and now i think i would like to put record straight.I am Mick Stevens.
Yes i live in rossmere and fens but i live right on the side of catcote road so  if i walk 25 yard im then in manor house.
I havent put on any leaflets (apart from MRA) what i would like to do,mainly because i wont make a promise i cant keep and 2nd its up to the people of manor house to tell me what they want and if i feel its right  i will fight for it.
I might not agree with what people say but i will defend their right to say it with my dying breath.
Im not a political man but i know right from wrong and  there is more wrong than right at the moment .

Mornin' Michael

"i know right from wrong and  there is more wrong than right at the moment ."

Damn, wish I'd thought of that....

Do you think being an outsider in the town it will make much difference M.L.L.?

I understand in many wards it wouldn't be an issue but, up the Manor, I personally think it might.

Yeah have to agree with KD 100% as well, the PV issue is, no matter what the various groups say open to abuse.... is it right that a person "Helping" you complete your PV is an activist with one of the parties............ i don`t think.

Excellent & Imformative post Kipperdip.

Yes kipper dip and isn't funny that Labour always seem to know the results before anyone else. Are they strutting round Ward as we speak? A sure sign they know they have won.

I seem to remember about 10yrs ago with the first Election using PV Labour Cllrs turning up with bags full of PVs. There was some sort of inquiry afterwards which banned activists/Cllrs from doing this. I also thought it was stated that peoples' PVs could not be canvassed nor could the voter be assisted in any way with the voting process. Anybody remember this or can confirm from another source?

QuoteI forget which ward he (Barclay)was once councillor for

Yeah it was Thorston at the time, which I think got swallowed by the Hart Ward Boundaries.

I fully agree with every said on the postal votes. It'll be interesting if they break down the proportion of 'normal/postal' votes. Or at least reveal how many postal votes were cast. Do they do that?

Postal votes? It is akin to Mugabe running the election! 
I used to use a postal vote..hated going out in pouring rain to vote...but for the last number of years reverted to a 'hands on' approach.

You send a postal vote to the civic and God knows where it ends up.
Oh yeah, you can trust the sanctity of their 'system' can you?  ::)

If you have any thoughts of trying to change anything in our town, you will need to change your postal vote to signing on in person.

THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS ROTTEN and it is our stupid belief in their 'system' that keeps them going.  >:(

Bale out and get them out!

If PHF (Mich Stevens) got lucky and won Thursday night, would anyone like to guess where the Gypsy site will be located in the town?

I would have to guess it will be in the Manor Ward..

It will be one of them Labour jokes the rest of us don't get, or do we!

Careful how you vote Thurday night people!

Don't have nightmare, please sleep well :)
This was posted by MrMister on hartlepool mail 
can i please correct you on a few things my name is MICK thats MICK and  why attack me on the mail website about an article about Hart im man enough to stand up and take it on the chin if people vote me in i will give 100% if they dont  there is nothing i can do but one thing for sure i wont crawl into a corner and sulk. This is just 1 battle  PHF thats PHF   is bigger than me  and will be here to fight again next time we are not here today gone tomorrow we are the 2nd biggest party thats a FACT we have been going for less than 2 years FACT we have 5 councilors FACT we will fight every ward next year FACT we are here to stay FACT

What a pack of sh*ts the labour lot and their nefarious acolytes are.  >:(

The comment in the local crap sheet from mr mister (obviously labour) just goes to show the depths of depravity they will descend.  >:(

It was a calculated move to place the 'travellers' in Hart (it has backfired spectacularly, wait until tonight) but now there is the slimy suggestion in mr mister's post that if they lose Manor Ward, the site will be moved there!
What pure scumbags.  >:(   >:(   >:(

Only a very silly person would for one second think  that labour would switch to manor-house with site. Their all loving mayor has enough trouble now just think how much flak he will get from his own ward .
But then again maybe he could march in front of the caravans in his robes.
Didnt  Rolf Harris have a song about that  not 2 little boys the other one  wasnt it the kings new clothes or some thing

I have been blamed for a lot of things but never  a travelers site maybe it will be named after me. Anyway time for a quick cuppa then off to leaflet the top end of masefield road and while im there i will check to make sure no-one opened a travelers site over night without asking me first.

Just looked on mail website    some -one (cant use his name as the names shows repect i dont have any) stated
LAB 850
PHF 523
UKIP 350-400
CON 130- 150
Yet  just a few hours later
Mick Stevens (PHF) 800+
Allan Barclay (Labour) 700-750
Tom Hind (UKIP) 275-325
Mandy Loynes (Conservative) 100 or less.
So either  PHF are doing some thing right or  people are looking at his stupid remarks  and changing their vote  so keep up your work for us your doing a great job .

Well F block its your lucky day Marjorie and our mayors consort are just about to start delivering lies sorry leaflets round your way

I just cant see 2000 people going to the polls tomorrow which leads me to believe this could go either way.. i think turn out of around 1600 with the candidate achieving 700 votes being the winner.. postal votes gonna be a big factor in whether the labour vote holds up

If someone can send me a scan of the Labour by-election leaflet which mentions the traveller's site I'd appreciate it.

I also would appreciate a scan of the Labour leaflet for the manor ward, it allegedly says we have tried very hard to make sure the gypsy site did not come to the Manor Ward, now G Lilley, and A Lilley, where on the gypsy site planning committee arent they both P.H.F. small world it is.

Your right it is a small world, i was in Masefiled Road today & got chatting to 2 Ukippers dropping leaflets for the Manor Ward election, both seemed to be pleasant blokes, but in chatting, Manor Residents came up, neither of them were aware of the Scandal that surrounds the place or that there has been 4 Employment Tribunals regarding employees being paid below the NMW.

They were also at a loss as to whom, Who Cares N/E are & the connection between them & MRA & also the fact that it had lost the C/C contract to HVDA, in fact they appeared to be totally non-plussed about the general goings on around The Manor.

However, back to the Gypsy Sites issue, I distinctly heard Cllr G Lilley object to the selection of the Gypsy Sites in the Hart Ward at the last council meeting, when he mentioned that it was a politically motivated decision, he actually got a little bit of stick for it from a few members of "The Mob"

Funny old world innit

Fred C saying`g it was a political decision dosen`t say much everyone and his cat knew it was a political decision, right from the off, some of us are a bit more evolved than the monkey you hung, my point is if we all knew it was going to be a political decision why did the Lilley`s get involved with the committee the smart thing to do was not to be on the committee then the decision would have been laid right at Labours door, as it is the mood of the Hart residents tonight will not take kindly to PHF mud sticks, they have done themselves no favours.

Quote from: beanzontoast on August 14, 2013, 10: PM
Fred C saying`g it was a political decision dosen`t say much everyone and his cat knew it was a political decision, right from the off, some of us are a bit more evolved than the monkey you hung, my point is if we all knew it was going to be a political decision why did the Lilley`s get involved with the committee the smart thing to do was not to be on the committee then the decision would have been laid right at Labours door, as it is the mood of the Hart residents tonight will not take kindly to PHF mud sticks, they have done themselves no favours.

I don't follow that at all. The decision was made by the Finance and Policy Committee and Alison Lilley and Keith Dawkins are members of the committee (Geoff Lilley attended as a subsitute for Keth Dawkins).

If either had not attended then they could have been accused of ducking the issue. As it was, they voted gainst the Hart decision and made it quite plain that they thought it had been a political decision - and so it was - and a bloody shameful one at that..

I willl rephrase that comment, i did not suggest the Lilleys not attend said meeting, i suggested it would have been better for PHF not to have been members at all, as they were members and have as you say, vote against having the site at Hart, would i feel not make any difference to the Hart residents and the mood they were in tonight may suggest they would see PHF at best inefective, and at worst, part of the Hart problem, much the same as Becks and Fisher, don`t blame us we didn`t know the meeting was on type of guys, then there`s the Labour leaflet for the Manor ward election which ( alegedly say`s ) we have worked very hard to make sure the gypsy site did not come to the manor ward, as i said mud sticks and PHF havent done themselves any favours if Hart get the gypsy site and PHF win the Manor ward, well how far does the rabbit hole go.   

Quote from: beanzontoast on August 14, 2013, 11: PM
I willl rephrase that comment, i did not suggest the Lilleys not attend said meeting, i suggested it would have been better for PHF not to have been members at all, as they were members and have as you say, vote against having the site at Hart, would i feel not make any difference to the Hart residents and the mood they were in tonight may suggest they would see PHF at best inefective, and at worst, part of the Hart problem, much the same as Becks and Fisher, don`t blame us we didn`t know the meeting was on type of guys, then there`s the Labour leaflet for the Manor ward election which ( alegedly say`s ) we have worked very hard to make sure the gypsy site did not come to the manor ward, as i said mud sticks and PHF havent done themselves any favours if Hart get the gypsy site and PHF win the Manor ward, well how far does the rabbit hole go.

There will be no Traveller sites in Hart. The way that Labour have ignored the criteria is so blatant and so obviously political that the Planning Inspectorate will see through it very quickly. However, what does need to happen is that people need to write those e-mails to the Programme Officer within the next 3 days - yes 3 days is all the time left as August 18th is the cut-off point. 

Quote from: beanzontoast on August 14, 2013, 11: PM
if Hart get the gypsy site

Hart will not get the site. Once the Manor Election is out the way  it will be quietly  dumped in a ward that returns the  fewest Labour councillors.
The current decision was made  just so the drunken Engineer  could boast on his leaflets he kept it out of Manor.

I don't see how the gypsy site being allocated to Hart can be even remotely pinned on PHF. It's an 11 person committee right? Labour have 7 of the 11 positions as it is, and you can obviously add in any tories to that total of 7.

PHF currently have 2 of the 11 positions on the committee? Right?

I actually was very surprised at how lightly Beck and Fisher got off in tonight's' meeting. In fact, it was very bizarre to see Keith Fisher basically regarded as some sort of hero figure.

Quote from: mk1 on August 14, 2013, 11: PM

Quote from: beanzontoast on August 14, 2013, 11: PM
if Hart get the gypsy site

Hart will not get the site. Once the Manor Election is out the way  it will be quietly  dumped in a ward that returns the  fewest Labour councillors.
The current decision was made  just so the drunken Engineer  could boast on his leaflets he kept it out of Manor.

It's not often mentioned but when the original list was produced, Labour tried bloody hard to get Fens and Rossmere added to the list (PHF) and Seaton (2 Independents and 1 PHF). When poor George fell asleep, they even sneaked in Briarfields (Tory)

There's also talk of a planning application mysteriously appearing from nowhere which suddenly excluded a site in Burbank and of green spaces in Manor suddenly being awarded 'Village Green' status.

No one can claim that local politics in Hartlepool isn't entertaining.

Quote from: DRiddle on August 14, 2013, 11: PM
I actually was very surprised at how lightly Beck and Fisher got off in tonight's' meeting. In fact, it was very bizarre to see Keith Fisher basically regarded as some sort of hero figure.

He plays to the crowd but sings off-key and the tune is still the internationale

Fisher plays to the crowd alright but the tune is Keep The RED flag flying here, can a leopard change his spots.

Quote from: beanzontoast on August 14, 2013, 11: PM
I willl rephrase that comment, i did not suggest the Lilleys not attend said meeting, i suggested it would have been better for PHF not to have been members at all

[/i]

Not to be members of the committee at all ?................. Is that the UKip position on any committee that may have Contentious Issues to deal with ?

We saw SAB & Beck Abandon the MRA Ship double quick, but it would appear from your Comment that you wouldn`t even Board the Ship in the first place, i wonder how UKip would attempt to oppose "The Mob" if not by joining any committees.

Good luck to you Mick :)

Quote from: lynda on August 15, 2013, 08: AM
Good luck to you Mick :)

Thats brought the thread back on Topic..... nice one Lynda, & your right. Good Luck to Mick

Quote from: kipperdip on August 15, 2013, 09: AM
Morning Fred,
Regarding your post (176 on the 14th)


Can I just say that the experience you encountered yesterday of utter complacency and total unawareness as to what is going on in the 'Manor' - the reason for the by-election in fact, is not unique.
I met a similar situation when leafleting last week.
I even heard from one resident "Oh, is there a by-election then?  When I explained the background, and how they were all having the p**s taken out of them by the Labour Mafia it was met by a shrug of the shoulders - scary?

Still, rampant apathy and political ignorance is just how the Labour Party / Hartlepool Mail axis wants this town to remain.

Morning KD

I experienced several similar "I Don`t Believe It" moments when dropping leaflets over the last week or so...............It almost destroys my faith in the Political system.

Manor ward, one of the most deprived in Europe.

It's a good job the socialist labour canvassing team didn't park an expensive foreign car with a private number plate on the estate to remind people who are struggling to make ends meet what they're voting to sustain.

ohhhh....and you never took a picture  :(

It was something that only occurred to me after I was well past.

I've got no problem with people having nice things, but there are times and places for flashing your private plate.

A battle of wits with the Labour group would be unfair.

yes, I think empathy (or the lack of it) is of some relevance to the present state of affairs

Sadly I think Barclay will get in because of the whole 'generations of voting Labour' that goes on, also they have the most visible campaign.  Barclay is merely the sozzled puppet to front the vote.

Quote from: Caracas on August 15, 2013, 08: PM
Barclay is merely the sozzled puppet to front the vote.

If his letters to the mail are anything to go by sozzled he is..... ;)

As i've posted on the Hartlepool Snail Website, none of the Candidates have bothered to knock on my door, however, i went out for an hour last night at 9pm and when i returned the letter box was empty.

When i got up for work this morning (7am), i found a leaflet from the Labour Candidate urging me to vote for him. Is he really so desperate to avoid coming into contact with anyone who might question him that he has to deliver his campaign material under cover of darkness?

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 15, 2013, 09: PM
As i've posted on the Hartlepool Snail Website, none of the Candidates have bothered to knock on my door, however, i went out for an hour last night at 9pm and when i returned the letter box was empty.

When i got up for work this morning (7am), i found a leaflet from the Labour Candidate urging me to vote for him. Is he really so desperate to avoid coming into contact with anyone who might question him that he has to deliver his campaign material under cover of darkness?

He might have been on his way home from The Pub.......... Thats if Cab thought he had earned a pint  :D :D :D

Labour 639 UKIP 226 PHF 194 Cons 74 turnout .15.79%

Very low turn out. Well done to all involved, especially UKIP who beat PHF into third.

Excellent result for Labour looks like over 50% of the vote too.. back to the drawing board for PHF beaten into third by UKIP

Thanks for all the helpers and the people who voted for me shame  how it turned out  but the people of manor house  decided i wasnt the guy for them .
On the good side i have made several good friend through   this  and will  be proud  to still look on them as friends.
I wont be standing in may (getting to old for all the walking and posting) but there will be some one there to ask for your help and votes so please give them the help and support you gave me .
regards and best wishes 
mick

Well done Mick

Labour again, they don't learn their lesson do they ?

lambs come to mind.

Quote from: The Great Dictator on August 16, 2013, 01: AM
Labour again, they don't learn their lesson do they ?

Aye...... You'd think with all the 5hit thats gone on under Labour control, that people would learn some sort of lesson.

How can anyone vote for more of the same?

Disappointment yes. But look at it another way (DRcan check the stats). Labour maintained their core vote so that's the.target next year. With 84% not voting then, some at least, can be motivated to vote. The number of people that complain would swing it. Just need to persuade them to vote. What's the swingometer say David?

Lynda and the others, keep telling the people what they are like. Nine months to work on the people and then James is the target and what a target.

I said in an earlier post the people in Owton Manor are 'ALL' thick it would seem that 'some' are not.

Well done to those that bothered to vote.

And to those that voted Labour may I say this; No.. On second thoughts you wouldn't understand.

This is pretty much what i've just posted on The Mails comments on this Hartlepudlian.

If you do the maths, Labour took 56% of a 15.79% turnout. That's about 8% of the total potential votes cast on the ward.

Another way to look at this is 92% of the people who live on Manor House did NOT vote Labour.

More than 9 out of 10 people who could have voted Labour.... didn't.

It IS a victory to Labour under the rules of democracy, but it's virtually a 'no mandate'.

Iain Wright's majority currently is just 5,509. Back in 2004 his majority was just 2,033.

Peter Mandelson's majority in 1997 was 17,508.

Would you say Iain Wright is MORE popular now than he was when he scraped home in 2004? I wouldn't.

We need a credible alternative candidate. Someone who is apolitical and objective in terms of the national politics.

Unfortunately, we don't seem to be able to find one.

In terms of the 'SWINGOMETER' it's really a tricky one to get a true reflection beacuse last May was an all out with 9 candidates and this only had 4, so the %'s are thrown massively.

In terms of raw data, this is correct.

                 2012                                                                         2013
Labour  (Wilcox)           822                                                                       639

PHF                               305                                                                       194

UKIP                             289                                                                        226

Cons                             70 (To Mandy Loynes)                                            74

With numbers like that it's possible to basically make these stats say whatever the hell you want them to. You could argue that under Angie Wilcox Labour polled 22% of the total vote, where as under Barclay they polled 56% of it.

Alternatively, you could say Labour 'lost' 183 votes from one year to the next, with is actually a 22% decline.

I susspose you could technically argue (as Shane might actually do) that the Tories were the only party to gain more votes than in 2012 (in terms of Many Loynes at least).

I guess the main fact is..... they won.

think im quite shocked but then also am not surprised that Manor kept its seat.... mind you they think a no vote is better than a vote.... pity really as I think labour needed a shock, now they will think they still on top  >:(

I think the conclusions from last night were that Labour has a core vote in Manor of around 600 who will vote Labour even if their candidate is a drunken Nomad and Al Capone is put in charge of Manor Residents and,  that UKIP have established their own core vote of 200 plus in the ward so well done to them and Tom Hind.

The answer for PHF lies somewhere within the 85% of people who are so disenfranchised from the whole business that they couldn't be even bothered to vote which is something that should concern everyone.

Last nights result is obviously a disappointment for members & supporters of PHF, but Well Done to Mick Stevens for the efforts put in by him, his family & PHF supporters.

Tom Hind & UKip also deserve a Well Done for their efforts in finishing 2nd.

The real disappointment however is for the town, a turnout of less than 16% shows just how apathetic the people of Hartlepool have become with Local Politics, its a sad fact of life that even in the middle of the biggest local scandal for years, people still couldn`t be bothered to turn out & cast their votes.

There's a comment on The Mail site saying 'Well done PHF - You got rid of Wilcox and gave us someone worse'

You can't really argue with that sort of logic.

Nice photo of fat SAB and mad dog holding a red faced Barclay up in the mail, cant believe how big the mayor is these days he is starting to make Richardson look lithe, full quota of idiots and hangers on in the back ground.
I've cut it out to keep the kids away from the fire.

CAB describes the result, in Labour's strongest ward, as 'incredible' (i.e. beyond belief). Do I detect some acknowledgement there of Labour's total complicity in the biggest scandal to hit the town in years.

To paraphrase, "It's incredible. We Labour Councillors have not only got away with fiddling our accounts, paying our own staff less than the minimum wage, running away from our responsibilities to put things right, conspiring with a known dishonest woman to try and stop the victims of our crimes receiving their due compensation, lying in court under oath, leeching off millions of pounds of public money to pay ourselves inflated salaries, holidays in the Bahamas, 50" 3D Flat Screen TVs - and the silly buggers STILL voted for us. In fact, they voted for that drunken sod lying on the floor over there. It really is incredible, don't you think, deary?"

Yup, we certainly do.

Quote from: steveL on August 16, 2013, 02: PM
There's a comment on The Mail site saying 'Well done PHF - You got rid of Wilcox and gave us someone worse'

You can't really argue with that sort of logic.

Hi steveL, I dont think the new Councilor has half the track record of AW or the amount of lost respect amongst the Labour voters, however time will tell. One thing is for sure if Alan Barclay rests on his laurels then PHF will succeed next time around.   

It wasn't even close, but i expected that when all we've had on here is PHF arguing with Shane over an election leaflet

So we have got the PHF members spinning this like a good one. They correctly state that almost 9 out of 10 people didnt vote Labour.. well 9 out of 10 people didnt vote PHF either!

CAB calls this an incredible result and he is spot on.. Labour in this town are at their lowest ebb for years (if you believe what is posted on here) and the scandal of MRA dragged them into the gutter.. fact is, if you cant unseat what you believe to be the most unpopular party in town what chance for next year? Labour is obviously connecting with the electorate and getting there message across which PHF are unable to do


i've been banging on for months about voter apathy with politics, unless PHF can find a way to connect with the electorate and do some more ground work im afraid there is no chance of unseating the incumbent next year.. What PHF need to realise next time they put a candidate up on the Manor is they are going to need to triple their core vote to even have a chance of winning.. in 9 months that ain't gonna happen.. i'd suggest turning your attention elsewhere.

Finally, calling the electorate dumb because of their voting intention is not likely to help your cause!

Quote from: Missy K on August 16, 2013, 03: PM

Quote from: steveL on August 16, 2013, 02: PM
There's a comment on The Mail site saying 'Well done PHF - You got rid of Wilcox and gave us someone worse'

You can't really argue with that sort of logic.

Hi steveL, I dont think the new Councilor has half the track record of AW or the amount of lost respect amongst the Labour voters, however time will tell. One thing is for sure if Alan Barclay rests on his laurels then PHF will succeed next time around.   

Barclay will rest on his laurels but it won't make any difference. Frankly, Missy, even if Wilcox had still been the candidate, she would still have been re-elected. 

@arc86 The difference is that members of PHF are actually bothered by the low 15% turnout because it shows that so many people in Manor don't believe that they can use the ballot box to control a large part of their lives.

I'm absolutely certain that Labour couldn't give a toss about how low the turnout gets just as long as they win and their snouts can stay firmly in the trough.....I would agree that PHF aren't connecting with people but I don't believe Labour are connecting with anyone either, they are relying on habit which this time has worked for them. I see this more as a PHF failure than a Labour success.

BAAAHHHHH !!!!!

there's no hope for them....it must be genetic....

Know what I think?...well here it is anyway....'the manor' is well known for drugs, illegally imported cigarettes, knocked off items etc. etc. etc.
If you want something, 'the manor' can supply it.

It is my contention that a lot of the voters for Barclay, and indeed, Wilcox before him, couldn't give a sh*t about MRA and the 'fiddles'. It's part of the culture....innit?

The people that are allegedly buying the items from MRA at knock-down prices are the same that keep voting for the status quo.
They don't want 'change', honesty and jobs.
They're doing ok as they are, thank you very much.

And before the usual gobsh*tes start, NO, I don't mean everyone in the manor is on the take...but by hell there's a lot of it!!!

PHF didn't do as well as I hoped and they thought, because not enough people got out and about, door knocking etc.
Mainly because they are still in the infancy and need more publicity.

Maybe if the Hartlepool Post was more well known and a greater amount of people knew what has been going on in MRA and the way bent cllrs twist the rules etc. it may have focused the minds of the decent people in the manor and given them hope that it IS worth going out to vote.

One thing is for sure, this town will never lose the shackles of a 'loser town' whilst people still continue to vote for the communist ideology and 'fill yer boots' attitude of the controlling party.  >:(
I truly despair of this town.  :'(

Quote from: not4me on August 16, 2013, 10: PM
there's no hope for them....it must be genetic....

Would the last sane person to leave Hartlepool please turn out the lights. I think the switch is just to the right of the Power Station.

Quote from: steveL on August 16, 2013, 05: PM

Quote from: Missy K on August 16, 2013, 03: PM

Quote from: steveL on August 16, 2013, 02: PM
There's a comment on The Mail site saying 'Well done PHF - You got rid of Wilcox and gave us someone worse'

You can't really argue with that sort of logic.

Hi steveL, I dont think the new Councilor has half the track record of AW or the amount of lost respect amongst the Labour voters, however time will tell. One thing is for sure if Alan Barclay rests on his laurels then PHF will succeed next time around.   

Barclay will rest on his laurels but it won't make any difference. Frankly, Missy, even if Wilcox had still been the candidate, she would still have been re-elected.

If there are 12 Manor Labour Voters on the Jury, all charges will be thrown out. lol

 I never thought I would see a drunk man redder than a Labour banner but here he is...............

(http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/917/v0fg.jpg) (http://img202.imageshack.us/i/v0fg.jpg/)

the man clearly has a problem with the sherbet.

I also noticed the huge  gut  on the bloke at the front.

So unsteady on his feet they have to hold him up....................

(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/2787/b1e2.jpg) (http://img6.imageshack.us/i/b1e2.jpg/)

Who`s that short ar*ed bloke behind Marge ?

With regard to the abysmal 16% turnout, it is obvious the majority of 'decent' people have given up the ghost on trying to change things in Hartlepool.  :'(

Someone on here commented on people not being aware of the MRA scandal. Maybe if the odious episode was in the greater public domain there may be more of a concerted effort to remove the scum driving this town deeper into the mire.  >:(

The Hartlepool Post, it goes without saying, has been instrumental in publishing the self-enrichment ethos of labour in this town.
But not enough people are aware of The Hartlepool Post.  :(

Months before next years elections, how about hiring one of those mobile advertising vans to drive around town for a few days?
The message could be;
' Read what REALLY goes on in your town..log on to The Hartlepool Post'.
Or words to that effect.
Cost? I'm sure there are many on here that would gladly chip in.  :)
And, quid pro quo, you achieve a larger readership and the potential for more paying advertisers goes up! Job done.  :) ;D :D

You are right there Mr Dip but not only legends in their own minds but in the minds of 600+ others. I wonder is we are seeing the ghetto-isation of the Labour vote in much the same way that we see it in Rural West. I can't, for example, see Hart Ward re-electing its two Labour councillors when the time comes.

I think my response to Barclay's guff is in the mail tonight, I haven't bought a copy but someone told me it was. Hopefully he'll reply after some refreshments tonight and we'll all have a good laugh next week.