Labour Group and the local Labour Party aren't one and the the same ??

[jawsbbc]

hartlepool politics page mr frain explaining  Hartlepool Labour PartyLike Page
5 hrs
Local Government Boundary Commission: Electoral review of Hartlepool Borough Council - Hartlepool CLP submission.

- - -

Hartlepool Constituency Labour Party objects in the strongest possible terms to the submissions being proposed by both Hartlepool Borough Council, and the councillors of the 'Hartlepool Independent Group', for new ward boundaries.

Introduction

The electoral review aims to recommend ward boundaries that:

1. ensure each councillor represents approximately the same number of voters
2. reflect the interests and identities of local communities
3. promote effective local government.

The proposals are made against the following statutory criteria:

• To deliver electoral equality. Each local Councillor should represent roughly the same number of people, which is reflected by a rather loose +/- 10% threshold from the average number of electors.
• To reflect community interests and local identities. Establishing electoral arrangements which, as far as possible, maintain local ties where boundaries are easily identifiable to promote effective and convenient local government.
• Ensuring that new wards can be represented effectively by their elected officials.

In creating the new ward patterns consideration must be given to several factors including:

• the geographic size of each proposed ward;
• the impact on community cohesion of community governance arrangements;
• levels of deprivation of each proposed ward.

Hartlepool CLP: Objections

Hartlepool Constituency Labour Party objects to the proposals made as they fail to meet the statutory guidelines:

They do not deliver electoral equality

1. The proposed new wards fall outside the +/-10% threshold and overall the proposals do not deliver on the spirit of the statutory requirements, i.e. that each councillor should represent the same number of electors.

Under the Council's proposal the Park ward would comprise 5,577 electors, while the Hart ward is forecast to have 7,287, a difference of 1,710 electors. Within the submission from Hartlepool Independents Group this problem is further emphasised with their proposed Park ward having a smaller predicted population still (even allowing for planned developments). This is demonstrably iniquitous, unfair and so fails this key statutory test. Additionally, it is also fundamentally undemocratic, with electors in the proposed Park ward having a far greater voting power than those in others.

Current proposals do not reflect natural communities.

2. The Rural/Fens West wards in both submissions pairs the village of Hart with the conurbation of South Fens, which are not linked in any meaningful geographic or community way. They are in fact some 5 miles apart at opposite ends of the town.

3. Related to point 2, the community of Fens will be split, which has led to considerable public outcry from residents. Fens Residents Association have written to the Council's chief executive to protest these plans, this is an extract:

"The Fens is a distinct identifiable community with its school, shops, resident's association and newsletter. The present warding works well because of commonalities between the Fens and Rossmere, indeed community activists from both estates work together with the public and members to bring about environmental and social improvements. Your own criteria directs that under circumstances such as these communities should not be split, it would be the worst possible thing that you could do." – Robert Smith, Chair Fens Residents Association (29th July 2018)

Hartlepool Constituency Labour Party backs residents in opposing these plans and believes that this represents a needless splitting of a well-defined community.

4. The proposed Hart/Hartfields wards do not include the village of Hart from where they take their name, this highlights the failure to reflect the importance of the village to the community cohesion of the ward.

5. The proposed Rural/Fens West wards largest areas of population are not, in fact, rural (South Fens), this creates a significant barrier and conflict when trying to establish a sustainable community identity.

6. The proposals for Burn Valley ward to take in parts of Foggy Furze move the Browning Avenue Baptist church out of the community it traditionally serves in Foggy Furze and places it within a ward with which it has far less affinity.

7. To compound this, in both proposals, Burn Valley loses Stranton primary school to Foggy Furze (as part of an area to the south). Stronton primary school typically serves the families and children of the Burn Valley community, not Foggy Furze.

Taken together points 7 and 8 demonstrate a basic lack of joined up thinking in the both submissions. Removing a church from one ward and a school from the other, needlessly disrupts local communities and should not happen.

8. The Headland and Harbour ward in both proposals fails to rectify the problem of not reflecting natural communities which stems from the last review. There was widespread disquiet at the pairing of the town's Headland and Burbank communities, which are geographically separate and share little in terms of community function. This review offers up the opportunity to change this, something which the Council's proposal fails to do.

Current proposals do not promote effective local Government

9. The current proposals do not consider geographic size, with the Rural/Fens West wards and Park wards bigger in geographic size than all other wards combined, making effective representation much more difficult.

In summary Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 requires the following statutory conditions to be met:

a) The need to secure that the ratio of the number of local government electors to the number of members of the county council to be elected is, as nearly as possible, the same in every electoral area of the council.

The proposed submission fail on this point as evidenced above by the proposed Park wards, (both of which will vary greatly from the average).

b) The need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and in particular—
i. the desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable, and
ii. the desirability of not breaking local ties when fixing boundaries.

The current proposals fail on both these points as evidenced here in terms of the pairing of Hart Village and South Fens, the division of the Fens estate overall, the absence of Hart from the Hart/Hartfields wards, the removal of prominent churches and schools from wards in a wholly unnecessary way in Burn Valley and Foggy Furze and the failure to rectify the Headland and Harbour issue as stated.

c) The need to secure effective and convenient local government.

The council's submission fails on this point as evidenced above, particularly in respect of the Rural/Fens West and Park wards geographical sizes.

Conclusion

Finally, Hartlepool Constituency Labour Party believes:

1. The proposals are unimaginative and seem focused upon fixing boundaries in such a way to cement political advantage.

Hartlepool Constituency Labour Party flatly rejects any form of gerrymandering, no matter who it seeks to gain political advantage, and believes that wards should offer electoral equality, truly reflect local communities and promote effective local government.

2. The current proposals are wholly flawed, fail all statutory tests and should be rejected.

3. There has been a general failure to properly engage and consult the public on these proposals, hence they wholly unreflective of what residents want.

Hartlepool residents have expressed serious concerns over any changes to electoral boundaries and the inclusion further councillors onto Hartlepool Borough Council during these times of austerity. Hartlepool Labour Party reflects and supports these concerns and would ask that further consideration be given to the proposed changes with a more in depth public consultation being held prior to any decisions being made.

- - -

We would encourage all residents to use today as our last opportunity to oppose current HBC and Hartlepool Independent Group proposals. Please use this chance to request that further consideration be given to any proposed changes and a more in depth public consultation be held.

Please leave your thoughts in the comments below and click here to make a submission: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/have-your-say/12866...

19 Comments


Comment
Comments
Gordon Lynn
Gordon LynnGordon and 8 others joined Town Of Hartlepool Politics within the last two weeks. Give them a warm welcome to your community! The town has problems, the person in charge of this is absolutely clueless, its change for the sake of it, without any benefit to the local community.
Everyone will defend their own corner, often selfishly, get a grip. Don't add to the woes.
Manage
Like · Reply · 4h
Ben Marshall
Ben Marshall I wonder which party would benefit most from this proposal?
1
Manage
Like · Reply · 4h
Hide 14 Replies
Anth Frain
Anth Frain Yours...do you have no understanding of the box demographics? I wonder if you'll now post in support on realising this or whether you'll oppose the changes as is right.

This is all the more reason for the proposal to go the journey...every ward, bar one, rejects your murderous austerity agenda at every opportunity. Why would we want to see you handed more seats, especially when the proposed ward would hand you those seats with far fewer votes than needed in others?!
2
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h · Edited
Gordon Lynn
Gordon LynnGordon and 8 others joined Town Of Hartlepool Politics within the last two weeks. Give them a warm welcome to your community! So! I see, a case of me me me, don't give a flying f... About what is best. Maybe we can have a big fight as a certain comedian often says.
1
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h · Edited
Anth Frain
Anth Frain Clearly not Gordon, I said 'all the more'. The proposals make little predictable difference to the Labour Party, our issue with the proposals is the splitting of the Fens, Hart, and Burn Valley communities for needless number games...

Do please try to read and understand the post before demonstrating needless aggression.
1
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h · Edited
Ben Marshall
Ben Marshall It's because local Labour are slowly losing grip of overall control of the council and are terrified of losing their majority in the chamber.

Nationally, the current government inherited a record budget deficit. There is a difference between national debt and budget deficit.
Labour always leaves office with Lower levels of employment than when it entered office.
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h
Anth Frain
Anth Frain Ben Marshall Do you actually understand what we're talking about?
1
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h
Ben Marshall
Ben Marshall Yes
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h
Anth Frain
Anth Frain Would you care to explain what your previous post has to do with Hartlepool's electoral boundaries in that case?
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h · Edited
Ben Marshall
Ben Marshall I think that explained it self. We all know that the local Labour group are worried about losing their majority, especially with how well the independents did at the last round of local elections.
During all this boundary review, it'll be all party politics from all groups.
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h
Anth Frain
Anth Frain Erm...you've not read the post have you Ben? 😂

You do realise the local Labour Group and the local Labour Party aren't one and the the same entity don't you?
1
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h · Edited
Ben Marshall
Ben Marshall Yes, it's about the boundary commission and local Labour throwing their toys out of the pram about it
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h
Marie Duncan
Marie Duncan Its true they are worried i dont think we need more and not all people have a lap top shout me down if you think im wrong labour want more because slowly they are loosing
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h
Anth Frain
Anth Frain Again Marie...read the post, the party are against the changes and the expansion.

The public don't want anymore councillors - the party is backing them up on this.

The public don't want Fens, Hart, Burn Valley and Foggy breaking up - the party are backing them.

You suggest that not everyone has a laptop and so can't consult as asked - the party agree with this and have asked for a longer and mroe in-depth consultation.

What is the issue?
3
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h · Edited
Anth Frain
Anth Frain Ben you started this discussion claiming that the proposals helped the Labour party, now that you've actually read the post and realised Labour are against splitting of Fens, Hart, and Burn Valley you're trying to change your tune...why not give up before you make more of a fool of yourself?

The reality is that the above boundary changes have little impact on Labour electorally yet party are standing with Fens residents against the breaking up of their community for the sake of silly number games (especially since the proposals don't even offer answers to the number issues)!
4
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h · Edited
Gary Hughes
Gary Hughes I wonder which party is hoping to benefit from people like Ben.
1
Manage
Like · Reply · 2h





Julie Clayton
Julie ClaytonJulie and 2 others manage the membership and posts for Town Of Hartlepool Politics. Typical Tory 😡
2
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h
Andi Turner
Andi Turner

TENOR
1
Manage
Like · Reply · 3h
Colin Bartholomew
Colin Bartholomew Are these the original proposals ?

[Inspector Knacker]

It's now apparent the party locally is collapsing. The pompous old guard don't realise the foundations beneath their house of cards have turned to quicksand while the young pretenders try to put lots of clear blue water between themselves and the disastrous reign of the clique and it's Stepford Councillors.
The Leadership of the old guard who gave a lot to lose, look like someone whose house is on fire but try not to notice the heat and smoke and carry on watching the telly.
The new order appear to have no time to pussyfoot about any longer and their revolution has started by openly challenging the clique.
The result being the party looks not just incompetent but incompetent and divided.
I pity any group trying to come into power inheriting the legacy of the wilderness years we've suffered as residents under the circus in charge of our town.
However, this boil took so long to lance, I have little faith in the chance of meaningful change from any successors to this damaged brand.

[fred c]

Reading through the replies from Anth Frain to a number of posters he comes across as a bloke who is overflowing with his own self importance.

"Do please try to read and understand the post before demonstrating needless aggression"

"You do realise the local Labour Group and the local Labour Party aren't one and the the same entity don't you?"

"why not give up before you make more of a fool of yourself?"

He clearly follows the Corbynite mantra of 'we know best'.......and that attitude has shown through in social media posts from a number of the new labour disciples over the last 12months.

[SRMoore]

They've made fools of themselves by objecting to a submission and set of figures they claim HBC have submitted but they are actually objecting to a flawed set that was rejected by HBC. (Look at map and figures they show then look at actual submission from HBC on BC website.)

Thats what happens when you shoot from the hip in a last ditch attempt to make it look like you are relevant.

[Lord Elpus]

Reading through the replies from Anth Frain to a number of posters he comes across as a bloke who is overflowing with his own self importance.

"Do please try to read and understand the post before demonstrating needless aggression"

"You do realise the local Labour Group and the local Labour Party aren't one and the the same entity don't you?"

"why not give up before you make more of a fool of yourself?"

He clearly follows the Corbynite mantra of 'we know best'.......and that attitude has shown through in social media posts from a number of the new labour disciples over the last 12months.

For all I share some of your concerns however the bottom line is Hartlepool Council/Labour Party will be 100% better without the SCAB's et. al.  Personally I have a degree of faith that the person behind this, the nice man who sits in the corner waiting to take power has got the integrity and intelligence to run HBC and the Labour group for the benefit of the town.

Either way the SCAB's, Mad Dog, Cranney, Richardson are all dead men walking, they know it, everybody knows it.  The question is will they go with a degree of dignity or will they have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Kremlin, personally I would love to see the later.

I understand Senior Council Officers are loving this and a sweapstake is being run as to when CAB finally fooks off.

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

They've made fools of themselves by objecting to a submission and set of figures they claim HBC have submitted but they are actually objecting to a flawed set that was rejected by HBC. (Look at map and figures they show then look at actual submission from HBC on BC website.)

Thats what happens when you shoot from the hip in a last ditch attempt to make it look like you are relevant.

Just like their attempt to save the hospital that they helped close.

Anth Frain is the next reason I will not vote Labour, so up himself and I can't see him representing anybody but himself if he is ever in a position of real power.
He is like a Cranny that can spell on the diplomacy front.

What is all this rubbish about local and national Labour being different ?
They are two strands of the same organisation, they are often pictured sitting around the same table.
One Labour party representative washing their hands of another because they perform a different role in the party is feeble and quite pathetic.
Solidarity my ar**.

[Inspector Knacker]

For all I share some of your concerns however the bottom line is Hartlepool Council/Labour Party will be 100% better without the SCAB's et. al.  Personally I have a degree of faith that the person behind this, the nice man who sits in the corner waiting to take power has got the integrity and intelligence to run HBC and the Labour group for the benefit of the town.

Either way the SCAB's, Mad Dog, Cranney, Richardson are all dead men walking, they know it, everybody knows it.  The question is will they go with a degree of dignity or will they have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Kremlin, personally I would love to see the later.

I understand Senior Council Officers are loving this and a sweapstake is being run as to when CAB finally fooks off.

The cabal were only elected because they were in the party. People vote for a party, not the candidate.
The  party will be left a toxic legacy for someone else to bury, if that's possible.
However, talk of their departure is premature. I won't believe it till I see it.
When the glorious day dawns, I'll hire the Red Arrows to fly over the town.

[fred c]

Quote Lord Elpus.


"For all I share some of your concerns however the bottom line is Hartlepool Council/Labour Party will be 100% better without the SCAB's et. al.  Personally I have a degree of faith that the person behind this, the nice man who sits in the corner waiting to take power has got the integrity and intelligence to run HBC and the Labour group for the benefit of the town"

I certainly believe the town will be better off without the SCABAL.....self serving and self interest has characterised the LabTor coalition for years, howeve, I believe that the "nice man sitting in the corner" is in part the way this Mob have run the town.

It would help if the "new nice man sitting in the corner"  had the courage of his convictions to come forward and lead from the front, the vitriolic filth and veiled threats made on social media aimed at members of this forum came from the direction of South Road and whoever the nice man is, if he has leadership hopes he should take a close look at the bristles of the new broom.

[Inspector Knacker]

This shower have been strutting around the town like landed gentry for far too long and the Party appeared to be happy to let them carry on doing do.
Suddenly the alarm bells are ringing, but for who? Concern for the electorate or for their party's reputation and standing? It's been one hell of a long time coming, the coup has had it's sacrificial offerings, now let's see how far they can or dare go, because the brand is in decline if this farce continues.
They need the drains up.

[mk1]

Bit of a kerfuffle over the Health Village in The Mail

https://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/row-over-plans-for-health-village-on-land-at-hartlepool-s-hospital-site-1-9294860

Hints of consequences for 'traitors' contained within:

The motion states Hartlepool CLP will actively campaign against any developments on hospital land other than those intended to increase social care provision in the town, and says any Labour representative who supports, campaigns or votes for such developments do so against the party's wishes.


Given the SCAB Cabal know their time is running out do they care about retribution?

Is that Fisher in the photo in the Mail story?

[Inspector Knacker]

In response to the original question . Yes they are. It's just one set of ego's trying to replace another set of ego's.

[mk1]

Note the Labour Party officials and acolytes  piling into this thread. 


https://www.facebook.com/hartlepoolmailnews/posts/2062800883739751


Anth must have organised a rota where members have to post the local party line as a comment or be marked down as a 'class traitor' or even worse,  a 'cnut'

[Inspector Knacker]

Note the Labour Party officials and acolytes  piling into this thread. 


https://www.facebook.com/hartlepoolmailnews/posts/2062800883739751


Anth must have organised a rota where members have to post the local party line as a comment or be marked down as a 'class traitor' or even worse,  a 'cnut'

Dismally ironic that they have the nerve to appoint themselves as the knights in shining armour riding to the rescue of the hospital. Who was it who put the hospital in this state in the first place?
A bit rich given their Party's disastrous effect on the hospital's fortunes.
History being re-written.