The day PHF accepted their 30 pieces of silver

[SRMoore]

As I left the Conservative group office and headed into the main council chamber to take my seat next to my fellow backbench tories, I tried to make sense of the agreement I'd just been made aware of: Why would Putting Hartlepool First councillors support the 300% payrise for Christopher Akers-Belcher? It makes no sense.
Thankfully I'm still young and my mind is to be sharp enough for it to work out the reason before I took my seat, which led me to send a text message to another member of this forum stating "Lilley has apparently accepted 30 pieces of silver".

The truth became apparent when Cllr Lilley stood up and proposed an amendment to the recommendations on group leaders allowances. Cllr Lilley tabled an amendment that the leaders allowance for Putting Hartlepool First should NOT be reduced from 60% SRA to 30% and when the council chairman asked for if someone would second the motion, cllr Lilley said "I bloody hope so". The game was then up. The whole of the Labour group would then -with 100% commitment- vote to accept Cllr Lilleys amendment, despite the group leader previously stating that savings are inevitable and that "every penny counts".

The reality was made all too aware when the majority of PHF councillors would then go on to vote against Cllr Brash's amendment that Cllr C Akers-Belcher's new SRA allowance be curbed, ensuring that the new Labour leader of the council would be receiving a 300% payrise.

I have the greatest respect for Geoff and for his lovely wife Alison; I believe they are ultimately in this 'game' for the right reasons but the decision to accept 30 pieces of silver from Labour to play ball has shown that whatever you may be told that PHF is different, they are ultimately just another dysfunctional cog in the political system of Hartlepool Borough Council.

What I will say on this matter is that whilst I know that the actions of PHF councillors tonight may not represent those of the majority of their party membership, it does now highlight how the actions of conservative councillors may not always represent the views of the party membership. Food for thought.

[steveL]

The logic was sound enough. Whether or not PHF supported the Brash amendment, Brash didn't have the numbers to get it through. So Lilley's choice was between losing the amendment and his 30% which goes into campaign funds, or losing the amendment and keeping his 30%. As I say, the logic was impeccable but sometimes logic just isn't enough and sometimes it leads to the wrong decision being made. Something to reflect on, methinks.

[fred c]

As steveL mentions, the logic behind his decision was sound, but & theres always a but, his decision to propose that the PHF leader should retain the 60% allowance was in contrast to his statement recently that CAB`s 300% increase was far to high.

Last night was an opportunity for the Opposition to the labour groups rule to show a unified front on an Issue, that of Cllr Brash`s proposal that SRA Allowances to be restricted, i don`t think there was ever a chance of it being adopted, but a solid opposition could have been of possible benefit some way down the the line.

A side note for me was Cllr Hargeaves slapping an ex-labour colleague down for attempting a play on words with her name in the council chamber...... an example of don`t try to take the P**s out of someone cleverer than you.

[steveL]

Does anyone know if we're supposed to be calling her Brash or Hargreaves? In the old days, it would have been quite straight forward - Brash, but some people are funny about this and prefer to retain their own name. How about Hargreaves-Brash? Hyphenated names are all the rage in the council chamber. I thought Robbie was a bit rude about this last night and maybe needs to quietly apologise.

[DRiddle]

I have to agree with SOME elements of Shane's opening post. I was in the public gallery last night, which as a side note was quite full as it happens, and was surprised by the ammendment put forward by Councillor Lilley.

As others have stated, I see the basic logic in it, in so far as the new leaders allowance would have been voted through anyway, but in my opinion this potentially does more harm than good.

I realise some PHF members will argue the party needs the funds, which is true, put in putting the party stamp of approval to a huge rise in leaders allowance, there is a serious danger this will tar the party with the 'you're just the same as the rest' brush.

There was a point of principle to be upheld last night. Personally, I wouldn't sell my principles for any price.

On the other hand, the beauty of PHF is I am free to speak out publicly and state that my opinion is in contrast to that of the group leader. I can do that (I assume) without fear of him ringing my boss, black spotting me, sacking me from the party etc.

That's what true democracy is all about.

That said, the decision has been made now, and the extra money from the 60% allowance will go directly into PHF funds.

Labour might think they have Councillor Lilley 'on the hook' now, but the proof of the pudding will be in how well PHF can put the money to good use via raising awareness of the party and fighting in the next round of elections.

I also think there was an element in Labour's thinking of ensuring they created an immediate rift in the side of the chamber now occupied by Councilors Brash and Hargreaves.

Last nights situation reminded me a little bit of the issues in 1980's Afghanistan. Remember? Their country was split down the middle with Marxists on one side fighting, radidal militants on the other. 

A bigger, more organised, well financed group got involved and bunged the militants a load on money to keep them in hand and make sure they sided with them against their immediate enemy of the time.

It worked for a while as well.

But eventually, they fell out, and the little band of militants turned their backs on the bigger more powerful group that had funded them.

In fact history would later show that they'd never REALLY truely sided with the bigger more powerful machine at all.

They used them. They were happy to take their money, use it, train up their troops and, in time, the little rag tag band of millitants took on two huge superpowers. 

Everyone's entitled to their opinion on Councillor Lilley's decision last night.

But it'll take time to establish whether it was right or wrong.

[Vincent]

You all seem to have forgotton that this is ratepayers money you are talking about going into the pockets of each party.

PHF - putting HARTLEPOOL first - bollocks

[Ryehill]

 Steve, for the sake of clarity how did the other members of P.H.F. vote last night?

[SRMoore]

I can assure you, Stephen that there is no bee in my bonnet and I certainly do NOT have any reason to target any venom towards Geoff.

I believe my original post was quite fair and sought to highlight a fact to certain PHF members that there are occasions when your councillors may not act in a way which you deem to be correct but that does not mean that that particular view is representative of all party members.

Now you can continue with your personal attacks against me if you wish, Stephen. I will refrain from biting since I have on two occasions acknowledged my actions towards you fell short of professional behavior and I have apologised. The ball is firmly in your court as to whether you accept it.

[fred c]

You all seem to have forgotton that this is ratepayers money you are talking about going into the pockets of each party.

PHF - putting HARTLEPOOL first - bollocks

I am certain that the people in the Cheap Seats at last nights Council Meeting, are all to aware of where ratepayers money goes.....

The proposal by Geoff Lilley to keep the 60% allowance was in part a response to the spiteful decision to reduce it to 30%......although i have misgivings about it, the money received doesn`t go into Geofffs own pocket, it goes into the coffers of PHF a party that receieves no monetary assistance apart from donations by its members.

If you are so keen on seeing an Improvement in the direction of local politics, why don`t you consider joining one of the party`s & making a contribution yourself.

To compare PHF to "The Mob" is a rather Inane, not to say Anal comment & reflects on "Why Hartlepool" is in the state it`s in.

[steveL]

Quote: "I believe my original post was quite fair and sought to highlight a fact to certain PHF members that there are occasions when your councillors may not act in a way which you deem to be correct but that does not mean that that particular view is representative of all party members. "

Let's not get carried away here, Shane.

The suprise last night was to see Lilley supporting Labour in the vote. Where Mr Wells is concerned, the surprise would be if he ever didn't support Labour in a vote. In fact, I can't recall a single occasion when he didn't and for the second time in consecutive meetings last night, I witnessed the union Orangutans in the corner, along with the seatless Barclay, cheering Mr Wells for his comments. If I were a real Tory, like yourself, I wouldn't be feeling too comfortable about that.

I can cope with the 'occasions' Geoff and I disagree, it's what PHF is all about, but I would struggle if it ever turned into 100% consistency as it is with Mr Wells.

The two situations are not comparable as you suggest. Geoff and I have a disagreement; what you have with Mr Wells is a problem.

[steveL]

Steve, for the sake of clarity how did the other members of P.H.F. vote last night?

I'm not actually sure but will try to find out.

[steveL]

Even Jesus Christ couldn't have saved the Pink Domino, KD, so I'm afraid the likes of Lilley stood no chance. In the real world that the rest of us occupy, had The Pink been commercially viable and its owners deemed it viable enough then the Pink would still be standing. It wasn't, they didn't and it isn't.

[mk1]

R.I.P.

[for fawkes sake]

It was quite a nice building when you look at it in the photograph. A pity it will be replaced by yet another mini-shed.

[Vincent]

I am certain that the people in the Cheap Seats at last nights Council Meeting, are all to aware of where ratepayers money goes.....

The proposal by Geoff Lilley to keep the 60% allowance was in part a response to the spiteful decision to reduce it to 30%......although i have misgivings about it, the money received doesn`t go into Geofffs own pocket, it goes into the coffers of PHF a party that receieves no monetary assistance apart from donations by its members.

If you are so keen on seeing an Improvement in the direction of local politics, why don`t you consider joining one of the party`s & making a contribution yourself.

To compare PHF to "The Mob" is a rather Inane, not to say Anal comment & reflects on "Why Hartlepool" is in the state it`s in.

Morning Fred

For your information I am a member of a local party and I do make a significant contribution.

It is my opinion that by colluding with "The Mob" you become part of the Mob.

Dont understand your Anal comment on how that reflects on the state Hartlepool unless its my description of PHF actions in accepting the 30 pieces of silver - bollocks