Local Elections

[Hubris]

Hart will be a good benchmark of whether the last 2 or 3 years tomfoolery by the Labour group have made any imprint in the minds of the electorate.

3 out of 4 active voters up there typically don't vote Labour.

If Jean Robinson stands again (and I believe she will) and wins.... then the thousand's of people across Hart will have re-elected a councillor who even members of her own party fully accept does basically nothing for her allowance.

It'll be a classic case of voting for the party rather than the person. In fact, as SteveL alluded to, it's not even a case of voting for the party really. Labour in Hartlepool couldn't be further away from Kier Hardy and more recently Jeremy Corbyn.

On that note, It makes me laugh when I see tweets from the Akers-Belchers cosying up to Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn is a man who's entire parliamentary expenses one year totalled £8.70 for an ink cartridge. Yet the Akers-Belchers are men who voted to channel upwards of a million quid to a company started by Kevin Cranney and Angie Wilcox.

Chalk and cheese.

Anyway, back to Jean in Hart. If she wins I honestly won't know what to make of the situation.

Hart and Seaton will be where it's close this year. Hart is likely to feature ex-tory Shane Moore for UKIP, the young Tory boy Isaac for the Conservatives, presumably Jean Robinson... plus a few surprises.

Seaton also will be a hard fought contest.

[Hubris]

Sorry about last one. Fat fingers obviously! What I should have done was to highlight DRiddle's info about two of the possible candidates for Hart in the attempt to get someone more value-adding than JR.
Question was going to be - which of them would be the best one to support? Are they both "good guys"? Should they both be fighting the same seat and so clearly diluting the Tory vote? Can either of them be persuaded to try somewhere else?

[grim reaper]

As someone has already alluded to and not received a cogent response, what can 'WE' do (as followers of this august site) to ensure the perpetrators of the downfall of our town are NOT allowed to carry on, unhindered, in their search for self aggrandisement.

It is no use whatsoever venting accumulative spleens on the H.P.
We need to concentrate on what can be achieved by consolidating our collective ire and DOING SOMETHING POSITIVE.

Obviously, this can't be discussed on an open forum. What do people think about a meeting in a hostelry in the town and work out how we can negate the 'black ops' the dictators in this town engage at election time.

We also need to consider involving the police in monitoring (warning) old folks homes managers etc. about the requirement of the duty of care to their residents.
But of course, we have Labour hierarchy at the top of that particular tree  :-(

I can imagine Fred C is up for it...I also imagine the only thing from 'the usual suspects' is " I thought you didn't want to come on here again" or "What's the UKIP angle".
Yeah, whatever.

[mk1]

I can imagine Fred C is up for it...I also imagine the only thing from 'the usual suspects' is " I thought you didn't want to come on here again" or "What's the UKIP angle".
Yeah, whatever.

OK then lets get it straight.
Are UKIP going to run candidates in every ward with an election knowing full well that to do so will pretty much ensure Labour benefit from the split vote?
Is it more important for UKIP to be seen running than it is to unseat Labour?
Does the national interests of UKIP overide all local considerations?

I forecast no UKIP reply to any of the above.

If you want my opinion I think that if Shane runs  then PHF should not stand in that ward.
It follows  that UKIP should stand down in others.

[mk1]

If you want my further opinion I believe Shane would be happy to tun only in selected Wards but that others in the party are the ones determined to run everywhere.

[Hubris]

"Obviously, this can't be discussed on an open forum. What do people think about a meeting in a hostelry in the town and work out how we can negate the 'black ops' the dictators in this town engage at election time."

Good proposal grim reaper. Just need someone to grasp the nettle and choose the where and the when. Or has anyone a better idea?

[Hartlepudlion]

If Riddle and Thompson agree, I suggest we ask them to invite interested people to a meeting to discuss the best way to move forward. I am suggesting invited people only in the first place because of probable Labour clones turning up. If we make our interest known to the two of them via the private message system on this site, they can then make an informed decision on which people may be dubious and not offer an invitation. Obviously real names and contact details must be used.

Over to you, David and Paul.

Whether known members of other political parties are included I'll leave to a general consensus but my own feeling is probable not at this stage.


I offer this for your consideration : to succeed whatever movement is chosen,  what is vitally needed are volunteers to help with the donkey work and funds for publicity. . If any people have any special skills e.g. Fund raising, canvassing, legal and previous electioneering then please make it known.

Any organisation that is formed must be legal and above board. Previous agents could help with the legalities and bookkeepers/accountants with the latter.

The above may be a little premature but to combat the very well oiled and provan Labour/Union machine any new organisation needs to find the manpower and funds to take them on.

Obviously, these are my thoughts and are offered as a possible starting point.

[grim reaper]

Thx Hartlepudlion, we're getting there.
The 'usual suspects' concentrated on the 'UKIP' aspect...as expected!!
I have nothing whatsoever to do with UKIP (other than I once voted for them...just as I did once for Tony Bliar!!).
But some people are so wrapped up in their own bullsh"t they can't see the wood for the trees (or people trying to improve the outcome of our town...which is why they are persona non grata.....de trop in my eyes and I simply don't respond to their trolling responses).

We need to pick a venue.. King Johns...Greensides? and demand that all attendees produce a driving licence, or similar form of identification, to ensure validity of person.
People just walking in will not be allowed in without identification.
Too tough? Yeah, sounds just like what the residents of our town have to put up with from the dictators running the show.
It is time for the keyboard warriors to give their digits a rest and come and make a difference and DO SOMETHING POSITIVE!

Time given can be just as productive as money, therefore if you have time, or money (for leaflets etc.) lets take this forward.
I still contend that POSTAL VOTES should be scrutinized very carefully and 'old folks homes' etc., ought to be focused on, with regard to Councillors/a.n.other visiting and badgering one way or another (allegedly).
Remember Lin Homer of Birmingham Council and the scandal of the postal votes and the way labour accessed them.
If you have a postal vote for the convenience, change it now....if you want your anti labour vote being counted!

Go on Hartlepudlion, pick a venue and check the veracity of attendees and let's start a bonfire of the CIC's, nepotism and black ops that have kept out town in the dark ages for the last 50+ years of labour rule.
It really is time for a change.
Tory...of course not!
UKIP? Maybe.   
PHF? My choice, going by the maudlin, moribund performance of the UKIP Cllrs. in the chamber.
But, as alluded to elsewhere, we must vote tactically (like the labour/Tory dimwits) and simply ensure THEY are ousted.
Whatever your allegiance, if you really consider the good of our town to be your quest, you should put 'selfishness' aside and vote to ensure the detritus currently running us into the dust, are consigned to the dustbin of history.

[mk1]

I still contend that POSTAL VOTES should be scrutinized very carefully and 'old folks homes' etc., ought to be focused on, with regard to Councillors/a.n.other visiting and badgering one way or another (allegedly). ...............etc................etc...............etc.

All far too ambitious and way beyond organising in the time available. A dream doomed to failure.

The SCAB's, Cranny, Wells, Mad Dog, Richardson are the worst of the lot.  All seen as being self serving *#+*'s by many even within their own party..............

Far better to concentrate on removing the head. There is a group that run the party whilst the rest do either nothing or as they are told. The removal of the SCABs, Cranney and James is all that is needed.

[ReturntoZenda]

Tory...of course not!

and straight away there's one of the problems.  we're talking about people voting the L*bour clowns in charge back in year on year out of habit being a bad thing.  Again, out of habit, a decent proportion of hartlepool voters are excluded, especially in one of the wards where us good guys are urged to concentrate 'our' efforts - Hart.

I naturally lean gently to the right in national political matters, but i don't see any mileage in dancing to a party tune at a local level.  The antics of the so-called 'conservative' group in this town would be like a black comedy if it didn't have such serious ramifications for future generations.  Dismiss the Tories because of the Martin-Wells Travelling Performers and you hamstring your chances of removing the chancers.

[Lord Elpus]

Far better to concentrate on removing the head. There is a group that run the party whilst the rest do either nothing or as they are told. The removal of the SCABs, Cranney and James is all that is needed.

I so agree, shift the Scab's, Wells, Richardson and James and you'd see a very different Council.  Make no mistake, a significant number of Labour Councillors would love to see the back of them.  During the Peer Review senior people within HBC at all levels (Officers, Drummond and Councillors, including Calamity Chris) all agreed that HBC would function much better if they could 'ditch the bitch'.

[mk1]

Wells with his 2 token Tories will be no problem without  the SCABs.

[Lord Elpus]

In reality Wells only has Loynes, Morris spends most of his time in residential care.

[fred c]

A concerted effort in May to get rid of CAB, Lying Ste & Wells is required, how we go about that is the important thing.

Good candidates in each of the 3 wards is a given

The "Tactical" vote in the 3 wards is imperative (the difficulty with that, is all opposition parties agreeing to 1 candidate in each of the 3 wards)

Finance, a fund set up specifically to attack those 3 wards would be required (leaflets, fliers, advertising all cost money)

Boots on the street, people to make a concerted effort to canvas & leaflet in each of the 3 wards, that doesn`t just mean 1 leaflet drop of 1 door knocking per ward is not enough, it requires an organised campaign that would take weeks of effort.

There are clued up readers of this forum who could us point in the right direction, the do`s & don`ts of an election campaign, legal implications etc etc.

The bottom line is getting those 3 binned, I for 1 won`t be to bothered which party or persuasion the candidates for those wards are, as long as they have the towns interests at the forefront of their ambitions.

The problem we have faced in the past is.... We can`t stand together long enough to get a group photograph.

if that attitude doesn`t change for this May`s elections, the town is doomed to more of the same ol same ol

[testing times]

All very interesting but if the starting point is UKIP insisting they put a candidate forward in every ward, as has been suggested already on this forum, then the vote will be split from the onset so any discussions would surely be pointless.