Labour HOLD Manor House

[grim reaper]

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.        

[mo the lawn]

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

[mo the lawn]

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.

[mo the lawn]

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 .

[no6bus]

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

[ARC86]

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

[steveL]

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

[beanzontoast]

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.

[fred c]

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

[beanzontoast]

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.

[steveL]

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..

[beanzontoast]

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.   

[steveL]

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. 

[mk1]

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.

[DRiddle]

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.