Let's Not Go There

[SRMoore]

Whilst there is much in the front page article I would agree with (and much I wouldn't) I couldn't help but point out that it seems like the writer ihas missed a vital point when writing about members holding a number of comittee chairs.
Christopher and Stephen Akers-Belcher hold 4 positions between them and Rob Cook 2. Yes the writer can and has suggested this is a power thing and I'm not suggesting it isn't, but what the writer has faiiled to notice (or deliberately not stated) is that in holding more than one position each, those three councillors are actually saving the authority money.
HOLD THE PHONE! Labour are saving us some money and not simply giving a chairmanship to one of their mates to line their pockets?

As I said in the begining of this post, I'm not defending Labour in any way, shape or form. Nor am I attacking the writer. I just believe that a bit of balance wouldn't go amiss sometimes when trying to inform the public of goings on.

[steveL]

Nice try, Shane but if you are really suggesting that the A-B's motives are to save money then consider for a moment the numerous other ways that they have found to spend it - often on their own ward projects. In addition,  don't forget that it is Labour who are pushing hardest to have all councillor allowances increased.

[SRMoore]

Read my post again Steve, those are your words NOT mine.

The simple fact is that by holding more than one position money is saved, whatever you like it or not.

Perseus, I'm not denying that. As I said, there is much in the article I agree with.

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

Nice one Perseus... 

Mr. Orwell's '1984' (a book which becomes increasingly chilling) carries an interesting paragraph...

"Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me."

[fred c]

Splitting hairs a little there Shane, i didn`t read into the article the same points you did, at no point did the writer indicate that CAB & SAB got double allowances for chairing 2 committees.

I take the view that for 3 people to hold 6 chairs between them doesn`t help the democratic process in Hartlepool, the fact that none of the Labour councillors who were members of the Mayors cabinet hold a chair between them is also a pointer to just who wealds the big stick within "The Mob".

I have made my opinion known on what i believe, with regards to the tenure in office of mayor drummond, but there is no doubt that "The Mob" have been as disruptive as possible for him during the last year, they have done this with one motive in mind, & that is to achieve a stranglehold on power within HBC.

To vote for a return to the Propagandarised "Old Commitee System" will be a mistake of monumental proportions for democracy in Hartlepool.

[SRMoore]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying Fred. I wasn't attacking the writer, nor was I defending Labour. I was simply pointing out that when a member takes up two positions, one lot of SRA is saved. A point that wasn't mentioned in the article so I believed it was worth pointing out.

The sooner some posters on here realise I have no axe to grind, the sooner we'll be able to avoid a petty argument everytime I post something.

[fred c]

Got that Shane..... I hope you got my point of 3 people having 6 chairs doesn`t say much for local democracy.

[SRMoore]

Yes Fred, I understand what you are saying and I agree.

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

Isn't it about the best person for the job and not allowances.

They must be amazing to hold so many chair positions, captains of industry outside the civic no doubt

[SRMoore]

It is also worth mentioning that when roles were being 'dished out' after the May elections there was a rather strange difference in how proportionality was worked out.
In the past the independents were not tallied together in the same group. (I remembered Stephen Allison gave a very good explanation of this using a football analogy
"Can you imagine how successful the England football team would be if before every match the England manager was able to pick some of the players who would playing on the opposing team? If England could keep the stronger players from the other side sitting on the bench then it would vastly increase England's chances of winning. Even better if England could get some of its second rate players, who hold dual nationality, into the opposing country's squad, then England could pick players for the opposition who are actively working against their own side. It would be like England have 12 or 13 men on the pitch even though only 11 would be wearing the three lions on their chest.

It could never happen of course.

Unfortunately that is exactly what does happen in the Hartlepool Council Chamber when it comes to deciding which councillors will sit on which committees.

Under the current constitution of Hartlepool Council there are numerous committees and forums and one of the assumptions made within the laws governing the operation of local government is that council committees and decision making will have "political balance". This is supposed to prevent one party dominating the council even though they may not have an overall majority of the councillors.

Each of these committees and forums will have a number of councillors assigned to it plus a nominated Chairman and Vice Chairman. Take the Planning Committee. That has 16 members and political balance gives seven members to the Labour party, three Tories, two Liberal Democrats and four independents. The Chairman of the committee is almost always Labour and the Vice Chair is usually a Tory. This make up may seem very fair?

However, the numbers of councillors are set by political balance but who the individual councillors are in those seats is decided by the political party leaders. The Labour party therefore chose the Chairman of the committee and six councillors. The decision is made for political reasons and favours for favours, not because of any councillor's knowledge, experience or training. The Tory Party chose the vice chair and two other councillors, likewise the lib-dems chose their own representatives. Which leaves the independent seats. Each individual independent is free to put their name forward as an individual for the committees. If more than one wants the same seat then the decision is made by a vote of the full council. In other words the other political parties decide which independent will sit on the committee.

The make up may seem fair but in actual fact the political parties can block troublesome or outspoken independents from important committees if they wish to do so. Even better for the political parties is if they can get one of their own supporters onto the committee under the cover of being an independent. Labour for example only need one Labour supporting independent onto the committee and they have total control of planning in Hartlepool by using the chairman's casting vote in the event of an 8/8 tie. The committee may seem fair and balanced but its not. Rather like England having 13 men on the pitch even though only 11 are wearing the England Shirt.

So how can this be prevented. The ONLY way to stop the other political parties from cherry picking the councillors they want on the committees is for the independents to be a political party in their own right. This is why Putting Hartlepool First is a fully registered political party. When we get to nominate councillors to committees then we as a party can chose our own team and make sure the people in the seats are really putting Hartlepool First."

As we can see, one of the main reasons for forming PHF was to ensure that 'independents'. Would be classed as a group and their numbers would then allow them to get commitee places.

Why then was it that this year HBC decided to change the rules and group the 5 independent councillors together, giving them more of a share of places than PHF and the Conservatives? If this was always the intention why bother with another party? (That isn't the point I'm making before Steve spits his coffee out and bashes some keys in protest)
Why is it that this year the independents are given a larger proportion of potitions that they would have been entitled to in previous years?

[SRMoore]

Why then was it that this year HBC decided to change the rules and group the 5 independent councillors together, giving them more of a share of places than PHF and the Conservatives? If this was always the intention why bother with another party? (That isn't the point I'm making before Steve spits his coffee out and bashes some keys in protest)
Why is it that this year the independents are given a larger proportion of potitions that they would have been entitled to in previous years?

The rules changed for independents. Why?

[SRMoore]

 Do I?

[SRMoore]

Remove your tin foil hat Perseus :p
The decision wasn't made by elected members. It would have been better for Labour if the indies hadn't been grouped together as their share of the positions would have increased (as the Conservatives and PHF would). Even with PHFs larger share in that scenario there is still nothing to say that they'd have actually gotten anymore than the one position they were offered in May, leaving more for Labour members to take up.

I remember Ray asking Mr Devlin about it at the time and no real answer was given.

[not4me]

Recognising the Indies as a group was possibly done to prevent any more of them switching to PHF