Labour HOLD Manor House

[SRMoore]

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.

[beanzontoast]

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.

[DRiddle]

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.

[beanzontoast]

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.

[ARC86]

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

[fred c]

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

[SRMoore]

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.

[Mr Mister]

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.

[fred c]

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.

[beanzontoast]

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.   

[no6bus]

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

[DRiddle]

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.

[ARC86]

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

[Mr Mister]

I have to agree with Arc86 Fred :/

[fred c]

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