(http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/images/tory%20mayoral%20leaflet.jpg)
This leaflets tries to suggest neutrality on the issue but the tone of it does anything but ....
"The majority of back bench Councillors only find out what has been agreed, after the decisions have been made."
Cabinet meetings are open to the public and Councillors can attend Cabinet meeting if they choose to do so. Of course, if you refuse to put forward your own councillors to serve on the cabinet, which is what you have done, it's more than a little hypocritical when you complain your councillors are the last to know.
"The alternative to having an elected Mayor is to have a Leader of the Council and Committees made up of back bench councillors. The Leader is elected annually (so no job for life) by Councillors who are themselves elected by you, the electorate."
The alternative is to have a permanent Labour Leader of the Council even though Labour have failed to get their own Mayoral candidate elected three times which clearly shows that the electorate do not want Labour at the steering wheel.
The largest party controls the appointments of Committee Chairs and makes sure that they have the Chair of virtually all committees. The only way for a non-Labour councillor to be given a Chair is to agree to comply with Labour in the Council Chamber which explains why the local Tories vote with Labour every time - even when this goes against their own national policy. It also explains why PHF which is the 2nd largest party in the council chamber was denied any committee chairs.
If anything approaching proportionality was being operated, then one-third of the Chairs of Committees would be held by non-Labour councillors.
"These committees are open to the public and their discussions and decisions are reported in publicly available minutes and often the Hartlepool Mail
As are Cabinet meetings
"As your ward Councillors, we will work with whatever system is in place as chosen by you on November 15th
Oh really? Then why aren't you doing this now? As things stand, the decision to have an elected Mayor was made 11 years ago and Stuart Drummond has been elected 3 times having stood against both Labour and Tory candidates. You may not like it, but that doesn't give you the right to ignore the wishes of the voters - that's how democracy works.
. . . and you can't refuse to cooperate on the basis of what you guess or hope the result of a future referendum would be which is what you have done by refusing to put forward councillors to serve on the Cabinet.
Sour Grapes. If you can't win at the polls - change the rules.
We shall find out on Nov 15 ?
I'm out at the moment so I'll comment on the leafelt when I get home.
What I will quickly comment on is the blatant lie you continue to tell people about PHF and committee chairs. You have stated in your original post and at the debate at EMS that your party was not offered a single chairmanship despite being the second largest party on council. This is completely incorrect as PHF was offered the chair of the audit committee. The problem was that Cllr Lilley was that obsessed with taking everything the tories had the position was refused in favour of applying for the posts that are currently held by us.
The obsession bacame that great that dummys were thrown out of the pram when despite the Lib Dems office now being vacant, PHF demanded the Conservatives move out of their office and take up the empty one.
Telling a lie over and over doesn't make it true Steve.
Well if that's what Mr Wells has told you then of course it must be right. ::) Why don't you lot just join the Labour Party and cut out the middle man?
Ohh great comeback.sorry you don't like the truth.
If you want to be a true blue Tory, Shane, I suggest you join the Stockton Branch; the local branch has been hijacked.
Quote from: SRMoore on November 05, 2012, 12: PM
I'm out at the moment so I'll comment on the leafelt when I get home.
What I will quickly comment on is the blatant lie you continue to tell people about PHF and committee chairs. You have stated in your original post and at the debate at EMS that your party was not offered a single chairmanship despite being the second largest party on council. This is completely incorrect as PHF was offered the chair of the audit committee. The problem was that Cllr Lilley was that obsessed with taking everything the tories had the position was refused in favour of applying for the posts that are currently held by us.
The obsession bacame that great that dummys were thrown out of the pram when despite the Lib Dems office now being vacant, PHF demanded the Conservatives move out of their office and take up the empty one.
Telling a lie over and over doesn't make it true Steve.
I was part of the round table meetings in May and I can assure readers that PHF was not offered a single chair. Also the Tory group are still in the same Office within the Civic they've roosted in for the last three years. I don't know who gives Mr Moore his information but they are not telling him the truth.
I am. True blue collar tory Steve and I joined the Stockton Branch first when I lived in the constituency. Rebuilding the local branch is now my priority. Thabks for your concern but I believe it would be better use in quelling the infighting in your own association.
Has anybody taken a close look at the signatures????? In particular those of Mr.Wells and Mr.Morris show several similarities in my mind. Both appear to be written in an open and free flowing style however the distance between Christian and Surnames are almost identical and also both surnames appear slightly lower. In addition certain letters are also very similar. In particular the 'e' in Wells and George and more so the final 's' on each surname. Finally the generous width of each capital also appears to show both have been written by the same hand. Just a thought.
I wish you well but you don't need to fell the whole tree; just prune the rotten branches.
Quote from: notenoughsaid on November 05, 2012, 01: PM
Has anybody taken a close look at the signatures????? In particular those of Mr.Wells and Mr.Morris show several similarities in my mind. Both appear to be written in an open and free flowing style however the distance between Christian and Surnames are almost identical and also both surnames appear slightly lower. In addition certain letters are also very similar. In particular the 'e' in Wells and George and more so the final 's' on each surname. Finally the generous width of each capital also appears to show both have been written by the same hand. Just a thought.
;D ;D ....ooops...well spotted NES. I've just taken another look and you're dead right....a case of the 'e's and the 's's have it.
Quote from: Lord Elpus on November 05, 2012, 01: PM
Quote from: SRMoore on November 05, 2012, 12: PM
I'm out at the moment so I'll comment on the leafelt when I get home.
What I will quickly comment on is the blatant lie you continue to tell people about PHF and committee chairs. You have stated in your original post and at the debate at EMS that your party was not offered a single chairmanship despite being the second largest party on council. This is completely incorrect as PHF was offered the chair of the audit committee. The problem was that Cllr Lilley was that obsessed with taking everything the tories had the position was refused in favour of applying for the posts that are currently held by us.
The obsession bacame that great that dummys were thrown out of the pram when despite the Lib Dems office now being vacant, PHF demanded the Conservatives move out of their office and take up the empty one.
Telling a lie over and over doesn't make it true Steve.
I was part of the round table meetings in May and I can assure readers that PHF was not offered a single chair. I don't know who gives Mr Moore his information but they are not telling the truth.
With all due respect, I'd expect the leader of PHF to say that. I got my information from numerous sources who were also present at said meetings and I also attended the council meeting where positions were voted on. I clearly heard your wife, a lovely lady I may add, that "it's a good job I didn't actually want that position" when she lost the vote against the conservative nomination.
So please stop telling that fib and let's move forward eh?
Perhaps someone could tell us how many Chairs of Committees the respective parties have?
Committee Chairs:
Audit Committee: Christopher Akers-Belcher
Scrutiny Committee: Marjorie James
Constitution Committee: Stephen Akers-Belcher
General Purposes Committe: Rob Cook
Licensing: George Morris
Planning Committee: Rob Cook
Children's Services Committee: Christopher Akers-Belcher
Neighbourhood Services Committee: Sylvia Tempest
Health Scrutiny Firum: Stephen Akers-Belcher
North Neighbourhood Forum: Mary Fleet
South Neighbourhood Forum: Kevin Cranney
Seems to me that the Tories sold their souls pretty cheaply for a Chair of the Licensing Committee and with only 3 Councillors compared to PHF's 4 (at the time) and Independents 5 (at the time) the wonder is that they make a showing at all.
Labour have roughly 2/3 of the council seats yet have claimed virtually all of the committee chairs apart from licensing which I guess is the price paid for having 100% compliance in supporting the labour vote in the council chamber. Interesting that the A-Bs claim so many Chairs for themselves. You would think with 21 Councillors to choose from they would have spread it around a bit but then there are different kinds of Labour Councillors and not all are signed up members of the Cabal.
If this is the sort of democracy on offer then I think I'll go with Drummond for the moment.
'and I also attended the council meeting where positions were voted on' SRMOORE.
The reason why we PHF pushed it to a vote was because it was not offered during round table talks and I suspect S R Moore knows that.
Perseus, I wouldn't have registered if I didn't believe there was some truth in what you just said. Hence my frustration everytime Steve tarrs everybody with the same brush. It's unhelpful and divides the opposition at a time when anybody with their eyes open can see me attempting to engage in an open dialog with the other parties. It's a shame the main hostility comes from a party who wishes to put party politics aside!
Perseus, they had that chance over the budget fiasco but when faced with de-selection they chose to take the coward's route.
I take a simple view: to stay quiet over wrong-doing is to condone it.
Something to be said for your points on the collective sway that PHF, The Indy & a Possible Tory faction could have on the decent Labour councillors.
But there is a problem in that it appears no one from the labour group wants to break ranks with "The Mob", i feel sure there are a fair number of them who are disgusted with whats going on in the civic but they need to make the initial efforts to rectify the situation.
There is no Loyalty owed to a coniving bunch of self servers, so it`s up to to the decent councillors to stand up & show their Loyaty to the people of Hartlepool, whats been going on has been exposed by the Peer Group Review`s Report & now is the time for them call for an Independent Enquiry into whats going on within HBC.
They could start with a forensic accountant taking a look at the accounts of the Voluntary & Charity Organisations that recieve "Any Funding" from HBC...... a.k.a. The Rate Payers , the vague & fatuos explanation about members having to comply with a Register of Interest is a joke.
Millions of pounds have been wasted in recent years & millions more will go the same way unless its stopped.
A serious accusation has been made that one of the people of the leaflet forged the signature of another.
Any comments Shane?
A simple yes it is correct or no it is not true will suffice rather than along winded retelling of the excuse handed down to you.
It won't take us long to get hold of a copy of George Morris' signature though it could be the other way around - it could be George that signed Wells' signature.
"However, no Labour councillor worth their salts is going to be willing to propose a motion like that, if they don't know for CERTAIN it'd be voted through. "
There's the rub, really. I would argue that any Councillor that puts his own interests first in such matters isn't worth a fig any way.
Neither signatures are forged. All three 'signatures' are printed and are stock fonts.
Conspiracy defunked. You can now doff your tin foil hats.
Quote from: SRMoore on November 05, 2012, 05: PM
Neither signatures are forged. All three 'signatures' are printed and are stock fonts.
Conspiracy defunked. You can now doff your tin foil hats.
So you are saying they are not signatures?
Then why are they passed off as signatures?
Perhaps Shane could link us an example of Ray's signature (from a document already in the public record) where we can all see the error?
I am sure you can find an electronic copy of all three signatures on HBC website if you would like to carry on with your theory. I have neither the time nor inclination to play along.i
If I was in your position, neither would I.
You've just moved the goal posts from one signature possibly being false to all THREE now being false.
My position? Care to elaborate?
Trying to pass of signatures as being genuine when they clearly aren't is something for the returning officer I would say. Your position? ......Continuing to try to defend the indefensible when common sense tells you to give it up.
Haha unbelievably pathetic and desperate now. But hey, please do go ahead and report this to the returning officer if you're that caught up on Ray.
If all Cllrs are happy for that 'signature' to respresent their mark on a letter to ward residents then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
The funniest part is that I'm not defending the leaflet or the cllrs, I'm simply defending commonsense. Sigh
I always thought that a facsimile 'signature' was meant to be an accurate representation of the original...if that were not the case, than an 'X' would surely suffice.
"Councillor Lilley was at pains to stress that all members of Putting Hartlepool First were keen and willing to work with any group inside or outside the council that would lead to a better deal for Hartlepool residents. " For those members of PHF who didn't get the memo!
Perseus, my boots are already laced up and ready to go.
"Yet here people are... arguing over a signature. "
Signatures by definition are meant to be unique to an individual. (Thank God King John didn't use a 'stock font' to sign Magna Carta) and if there was no intent to deceive then why use a different font for Ms Loynes?
In a way it sums up things nicely - nothing is genuine about the local Tories - they may as well have asked C A-B to sign the bloody thing anyway.
""Councillor Lilley was at pains to stress that all members of Putting Hartlepool First were keen and willing to work with any group inside or outside the council that would lead to a better deal for Hartlepool residents. " For those members of PHF who didn't get the memo!"
This will become possible when Mr Wells crosses the floor and sits were he really belongs.
I got the impression Shane meant that the signatures were from a database of councillors signatures, to be appended where necessary, with owners permission.
That said, perusing the handwriting on George Morriss's his 'members register' forms, I can hardly believe he could sign a document in such a flowing style!!! ::)
Another thing; Why have all of the signatures on the members register forms been redacted? :o
Quote from: Julie noted on November 05, 2012, 08: PM
Another thing; Why have all of the signatures on the members register forms been redacted? :o
So that no one can check up when one the ruling cabal are signing for the sheep......................
""Councillor Lilley was at pains to stress that all members of Putting Hartlepool First were keen and willing to work with any group inside or outside the council that would lead to a better deal for Hartlepool residents. " For those members of PHF who didn't get the memo!"
This will become possible when Mr Wells crosses the floor and sits were he really belongs.
[/quote]
I always thought you were a better man than to put personal vendettas before the best interests of Hartlepool Steve. I guess in this regard it is I who is putting Hartlepool first.
As a totaly unbiased observer I feel I can comment.
The Labour group is run by, and for, the benefit of 4 people at the top.
The Tory 'group' is a being used as a platform to showcase Wells and Wells alone.
Ray knows he has no power and the only way he can deliver deals for his mates is to get into bed with Labour.
He has sold your party for his own self interest and anyone who tries to say otherwise must be blind.
There is no Tory Party only a Wells promotion society.
So Shane are you going to ape the Labour sheep and come back to defend this myopia?
Shane, you need to look closer to home to discover what lengths people will go to on their personal vendettas.
You are completely missing the point Steve. Perseus and I are clear in stating that if you want to change something you can either continue slagging each other off on an internet forum or work together for the common good. Unfortunately you prefer to choose the former.
That's assuming the internet forum isn't under a DDOS attack at the time, I presume
The 5 PHF Councillors think for themselves and individually vote the way they believe is right - they don't need me to guide them.
The Labour Councillors vote the way they are told under threat of repercussions.
The 3 Tory Councillors do as Ray says (after he has consulted the CABAL) and confine their internal arguments to the corridors where he can be seen pointing a lot.
"plus a lot of the next generation of political leaders in this town via 'conservative future'."
;D ;D In your dreams, baby
Haha I've often found that younger people grow out of socialism once they start paying taxes ;)
But you're absolutely correct Perseus, division amongst the opposition will keep Labour in power for the forseeable future.