Obnoxious

[steveL]

Mail Quote from Ray Wells: "We also support the recommendation to remove the secondary group leader allowance which I appreciate is a bit like a turkey voting for Christmas. I would remove all leader allowances, apart from the leader of the council."

A straight forward financial attack on PHF by the Labour/Conservative coalition reducing Lilley's leader allowance from 60% to 30%. In short, it looks like Wells has sold his own leaders allowance in return for a sought after Committee Chair which will more than compensate him for any financial loss and gain him the influence he so much wants on decisons that matter to him and his mates.

[marky]

You missed this one Steve:

Quote from CAB "It would be morally incorrect to accept a rise."

This from the guy who's about to accept a rise in his own pay to £25,000. Maybe it's a typo. Maybe it should have read:

"It would be morally incorrect for anyone else to accept a rise."

[SRMoore]

You forgot to quote this too, Steve

Coun Geoff Lilley, group leader of the second largest party, Putting Hartlepool First, said: "I accept we have the lowest basic allowance in the North-East.

"But we are a small town and the council is looking to make savings of around £20m. We are on the bones and to me, every penny matters.

"We should share the degree of financial stress that the town is suffering and I don't think there should be an increase in the basic allowance."

Coun Lilley also said the leader's allowance – which is three times the basic allowance – was "far too much" and argued there should be a recognition of the work group leaders do.

I don't believe it's a deliberate attempt to starve PHF if party funds but I do applaud Geoff for agreeing with the recommendation that the allowances be cut.

[fred c]

Awwwwwwwwwwwwww Cmon Shane, you have got more off than to keep swallowing the Guff from The "Dear" Leader........... But you are correct in applauding Geoff for his stance

[SRMoore]

I haven't spoken to my 'Dear' leader in about a week Fred. I just don't believe every decision requires tin foil hats to be donned.

Now let us turn our attention to the party who are really bankrolling themselves from the public purse.

[steveL]

Here's something to think about:


* actual spend

This quotes the Remuneration Panel's own figures but compares it to the £343,000 actually spent last year. Notice that the projected savings fall well short of the £100,000 a year saving claimed in Labour's referendum leaflet.

[steveL]

I haven't spoken to my 'Dear' leader in about a week Fred. I just don't believe every decision requires tin foil hats to be donned.

Now let us turn our attention to the party who are really bankrolling themselves from the public purse.

As always, Shane, you fail to acknowledge that, as a Tory, you are quite detached from what is actually going on in the council chamber. I know your views on the council paying for full-time union reps while UNISON subs go directly to UNISON coffers, a large chunk of which then make their way into Labour Party coffers BUT . . .

Were a motion to be brought in the council for this practice to stop, could you guarantee that the 3 'Tory' councillors would support it? Were you not the one who told us that the Tories would oppose the scrapping of supplementary questions? You got that one wrong didn't you?

[mk1]

I haven't spoken to my 'Dear' leader in about a week Fred.

Obviously Ray was too  busy  plotting negotiating  with his mates the fat*ty Belchers to  speak to his underlings...............

Now let us turn our attention to the party who are really bankrolling themselves from the public purse.

Yes indeed.
Any idea when Ray with grace us with his opinions on this  or perhaps name the main 'bankrollers'?
Is he  frightened such a move would hamper his promotion prospects?

[SRMoore]

I haven't spoken to my 'Dear' leader in about a week Fred. I just don't believe every decision requires tin foil hats to be donned.

Now let us turn our attention to the party who are really bankrolling themselves from the public purse.

As always, Shane, you fail to acknowledge that, as a Tory, you are quite detached from what is actually going on in the council chamber. I know your views on the council paying for full-time union reps while UNISON subs go directly to UNISON coffers, a large chunk of which then make their way into Labour Party coffers BUT . . .

Were a motion to be brought in the council for this practice to stop, could you guarantee that the 3 'Tory' councillors would support it? Were you not the one who told us that the Tories would oppose the scrapping of supplementary questions? You got that one wrong didn't you?

Steve, it's obvious you're peed that the public won't be bankrolling PHF as much but please try and avoid the childish insults every now and again, eh?

Regarding your claim that I stated that all Conservative councillors would vote against banning supplementary questions - I would suggest you re read the topic you are referring to and see that I clearly stated "I would hope so".
Would I be confident they'd vote for cutting union funding if brought up? No more/less confident of any councillor voting for it since the last time I raised it not a single one dared to stick their head above the pulpit.

[steveL]

Shane, you're no better than the Labour carpetbaggers - the equivalent of the Labour sheep who tow the party line irrespective of whether its moral or not.

I'd say that you at least know the difference between wrong and right, but there's a very strong argument that people like you, who can separate the two, but who are not willing to stand up for what is right when it matters, are much worse than those who don't know the difference.

There are no Tories in the council chamber at the moment. If I were you, I would be making sure that situation was corrected as soon as possible. There's a cuckoo in the forest.

[The Great Dictator]

I thought that PHF candidates were happy to do it for nothing or was that just a scam.?

[SRMoore]

Please do tell me which part was me toeing the party line Steve? Or were you just taking a leaf out of Angies book and simply going for the good soundbite-sod the facts approach?

Now rather than worry yourself with how I should 'deal with' my party, I strongly suggest you focus on your own, which has an association in crisis as you and I both know.

[steveL]

PHF were the first to go on record as opposing any increase in the basic allowance and the only party to call for all party submissions to the remuneration panel to be made public. So far, they are the only party to do so.

[steveL]

Nice try at mis-information, Shane which didn't quite come off. If you're content to have three extra solid labour voters in the council chamber then that's OK with me. PHF has included the three 'Tory' councillors in the labour total as a matter of course for a long time.

I'd stick to your party coffee mornings if I were you and leave the business of giving the town the council it deserves to others with more balls.

[SRMoore]

Aww come on Steve. You can talk about supposed problems with the labour or conservative party's but when it come to admitting that things aren't all as rose coloured as you like to portray in PHF you get personal and spit your dummy out.
Why has Paul Mitchenson left the party? Why has Alec Gough quit as chairman after only being so for less than a year? I could go on...

Now I'll get back to actions in trying to make this town a better place as opposes to solely being a keyboard warrior. X