I hear moves are in place by the Labour 'rebels' to move all committee meetings to the evening. Their 2020 candidates are being leaned on to support the move, which will obviously test their loyalty.
It'll ruffle a few feathers. Dr Pothole will be the grand centrals best customer if it goes through. Carl will be fuming as he hasn't worked those hours since the co-op had Christmas late night opening on 1979.
And then of course there's Stephen. My guess is he's burnt out by the afternoon with all the thinking he has to do and likes to spend the evenings pointing at the dragons on game of thrones. He'll be livid at more late night meetings with more members of the public in attendance.
As a side note, did anyone read SAB saying "We should be bold enough to look at all the opinions available" referring to waste disposal decisions.
That's 'boldness' apparently. Considering your options when faced with a decision. I could have sworn that was just common sense.
Ah well. Also the rebels are moving to bring back supplementary questions.
If the 'Rebels' do regain 'the party' will they bring in an independent financial expert /forensic accountant / barrister to take a long hard look at the last 5 years of the LabTor coalitions decisions, why was the town plan abandoned, why was planning permission allowed to run amok, why has the "Quick Flip of Jacksons Landing proven to be a waste of money etc etc etc
Will they also take a long hard look into the awarding of CIC contracts and Carpet fitting in council premises and councillors running businesses out of council premises, we wouldn't want another MRA or WCNE....Would we ?
The questions requiring answers are many and unless those questions are answered with in depth explanations that satisfy the many critics, the 'Rebels' will be regarded with the same scepticism as the current regime.
Ohhh just popped into my head...... will they take a serious look at introducing a new CEO from outside the current council staff......New Broom sweeping clean comes to mind.
Quote from: fred c on September 20, 2018, 09: AM
If the 'Rebels' do regain 'the party' will they bring in an independent financial expert /forensic accountant / barrister to take a long hard look at the last 5 years of the LabTor coalitions decisions, why was the town plan abandoned, why was planning permission allowed to run amok, why has the "Quick Flip of Jacksons Landing proven to be a waste of money etc etc etc
Will they also take a long hard look into the awarding of CIC contracts and Carpet fitting in council premises and councillors running businesses out of council premises, we wouldn't want another MRA or WCNE....Would we ?
The questions requiring answers are many and unless those questions are answered with in depth explanations that satisfy the many critics, the 'Rebels' will be regarded with the same scepticism as the current regime.
Ohhh just popped into my head...... will they take a serious look at introducing a new CEO from outside the current council staff......New Broom sweeping clean comes to mind.
The answers to the above questions, fredc are, obviously.....NO, NO, NO. There's more chance of SAB being awarded an OBE in recognition of his services to Catering! :o
Here are the specifics of the motions below. It's also worth knowing both of these motions have already been agreed by wider body of local labour party members at a meeting last night. This means that the next step is for it to be put to the actual current group of Labour councillors. Note the bit in bold, which is a clever move to help establish who is loyal to the democratic nature of the wider Hartlepool Labour Party and who is loyal to the SCABS. The SCABS have instructed the Labour councillors to vote down these motions many times previously when independent councillors have proposed them. It looks very much like the rebels are laying the foundations for real people with actual real proper jobs to be councillors. (As opposed to the retired, workshy, criminal (Wilcox) unemployed or unemployable).
Lastly, both SCABS were absent from last nights meeting (when this was voted through) without apologies being sent.
Motion 1
Seaton Branch Motion
The CLP notes the decision taken by the Labour Group in 2013 to remove supplementary public questions from full council.
The CLP believes democracy must be open and the public's ability to question and scrutinize their elected officials is central to that transparency. The removal of supplementary questions at full council has irrevocably reduced public scrutiny in that forum to nothing more than a superficial exercise whereby councilors read out pre-prepared answers to questions submitted in advance, only to those the leader deems appropriate.
The CLP resolves that in the interests of transparent government we ask that the Labour Group take immediate steps to amend the council's constitution and re-introduce supplementary public questions to full council meetings. Furthermore, and as part of that change, we ask that the practice of not allowing the public to ask their own question be ended, and that questions submitted be floored at Labour Group for discussion before Labour Group votes as a whole on whether they are suitable.
Motion 2
Rural West Branch Motion
The party urges all its councilor's to support a move to change all council committee meetings to the evening.
All applicants for the 2020 panel of candidates will be asked to pledge their support for this policy.
The purpose of the policy change is to enable working people to be able to stand for the new council in 2020 while maintaining their current employment.
A wise starting move for them. However, there's a long way to go and clearing the decks for more credible candidates would be a welcome move and might begin to signal a return to proper politics.
Time will tell.
Quote from: DRiddle on September 20, 2018, 06: AM
And then of course there's Stephen. My guess is he's burnt out by the afternoon with all the thinking he has to do and likes to spend the evenings pointing at the dragons on game of thrones. He'll be livid at more late night meetings with more members of the public in attendance.
You know what kids are like, miss their sleep and they're as ratty as hell.
Quote from: DRiddle on September 20, 2018, 11: AM
...Furthermore, and as part of that change, we ask that the practice of not allowing the public to ask their own question be ended, and that questions submitted be floored at Labour Group for discussion before Labour Group votes as a whole on whether they are suitable.
So basically instead of the chief exec and the leader choosing which questions will be allowed to be asked it'll be Labour councillors who choose which questions may be asked?
Yeah Because that's fair and won't cause any issues at all...
Quote from: SRMoore on September 20, 2018, 12: PM
Quote from: DRiddle on September 20, 2018, 11: AM
...Furthermore, and as part of that change, we ask that the practice of not allowing the public to ask their own question be ended, and that questions submitted be floored at Labour Group for discussion before Labour Group votes as a whole on whether they are suitable.
So basically instead of the chief exec and the leader choosing which questions will be allowed to be asked it'll be Labour councillors who choose which questions may be asked?
Yeah Because that's fair and won't cause any issues at all...
Yup - that's my thoughts,too. Just widening the net.
Quote from: SRMoore on September 20, 2018, 12: PM
Quote from: DRiddle on September 20, 2018, 11: AM
...Furthermore, and as part of that change, we ask that the practice of not allowing the public to ask their own question be ended, and that questions submitted be floored at Labour Group for discussion before Labour Group votes as a whole on whether they are suitable.
So basically instead of the chief exec and the leader choosing which questions will be allowed to be asked it'll be Labour councillors who choose which questions may be asked?
Yeah Because that's fair and won't cause any issues at all...
It should be decided by a neutral panel.
Do the Labour Councillors feel they reside on some higher ethical plane than mere mortals?
Quote from: Inspector Knacker on September 20, 2018, 01: PM
Quote from: SRMoore on September 20, 2018, 12: PM
Quote from: DRiddle on September 20, 2018, 11: AM
...Furthermore, and as part of that change, we ask that the practice of not allowing the public to ask their own question be ended, and that questions submitted be floored at Labour Group for discussion before Labour Group votes as a whole on whether they are suitable.
So basically instead of the chief exec and the leader choosing which questions will be allowed to be asked it'll be Labour councillors who choose which questions may be asked?
Yeah Because that's fair and won't cause any issues at all...
It should be decided by a neutral panel.
Do the Labour Councillors feel they reside on some higher ethical plane than mere mortals?
Not if you look at the current LabMob..... ::)
Bit confused here with motion 1 - my understanding is that if supplementary questions by the public were to be reinstated, in the true interests of democracy they would be un-censored questions. So what they are proposing is no different to the present system of questions being vetted by the Mayor, CEO and Solicitor and if you remember the present mob voted against the public finding out what those questions were (if rejected). So my reading of that last sentence is "we still decide what you ask us"
Regarding the evening meetings this was put to the Constitution Committee last year by Paul Thompson and absolutely nothing has happened since
Quote from: jeffh on September 20, 2018, 03: PM
Bit confused here with motion 1 - my understanding is that if supplementary questions by the public were to be reinstated, in the true interests of democracy they would be un-censored questions. So what they are proposing is no different to the present system of questions being vetted by the Mayor, CEO and Solicitor and if you remember the present mob voted against the public finding out what those questions were (if rejected). So my reading of that last sentence is "we still decide what you ask us"
Bascally it looks good, HOWEVER, the Devil is always in the detail. I think we can safely call it a 're-branding', but the contents remain the same
I think you're making more of that than you need to Shane. At present the chair of council can veto the questions for some made up reason or other. Which essentially means CAB can. So the change nullifies his power if he attempts to cling onto the poisoned chalice.
Putting it to the group rather than essentially leaving a decision to CAB is surely a step forward?
Obviously ideally an impartial CEO would vet questions in terms of validity and/or legality. But I think that ship has long since sailed.
Quote from: DRiddle on September 20, 2018, 07: PM
Putting it to the group rather than essentially leaving a decision to CAB is surely a step forward?
Marginally, depends on how compliant the group are. I'd expect them to you the party line, so I wouldn't build my hopes up.
Basically, they are still trying to con the electorate by pretending to 'change' the Constitution for the benefit of the plebs! I (and others on here) know that Labour (North) are crapping themselves because they are losing votes in Hartlepool, year after year....and now they have finally realised that the public are slowly but surely waking up from their Zombie trances and voting for anything other than Labour! So they are having a purge, a clear out of the dross, the cancer, the scum.......BUT....once in power, it will be the same old crap, same old bulls%$^, same old lies, SAME OLD LABOUR!
Their grip is slipping and any change is being forced upon them after ignoring the monkeys steering the ship of local governance for far too long, so dramatic visible change becomes a necessity.
Grass roots rising or shout 'look at us we're different' remains to be seen.
They're members of a political party and all party members of any party love to comply, it avoids messy stuff like deep thought. Group thought is a reassurance to them.
Will the electorate swallow the rebrand? That said, the monkeys are still swinging on the ship's wheel with the usual gusto, so maybe the 'rebrand' was just a sop to that bit of the electorate easily reassured by apparent 'action'.
For all those who think change is always for the better.
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1044712540389945344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1044712540389945344&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.co.uk%2Fentry%2Flabour-mp-laura-smith-calls-for-first-general-strike-in-90-years-to-bring-down-the-government_uk_5bab2dd0e4b0f143d10e7e49
Have I slipped back 2 generations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w0WPkB3XJ4&feature=youtu.be&t=6s
Wasn't that at the parallel Momentum event? The political equivalent of a Saturday morning matinee that gets the kids out of the way for a couple of hours?
General Strike, Industrial Action.........How many MP's or Rabid Labour / Momentum supporters have had strike, never mind man a picket line.....They have never had to wonder how they can pay the mortgage or find money to feed their kids........She should wash her mouth out with carbolic soap the silly woman.
Naive idealism by those who wouldn't have a clue what the working class was.
These novelty socialists are more like public school Marxists, in a world of their own detached from reality.