Local Election Nominations - May 2019

[jeffh]

Labour don't have to lose many before they lose overall control and by default the leadership.

Isn't that assuming that the Independents get their act together and combine - a split independent group may be able to vote as a majority but won't be recognised as a political group - I believe that was voted down at the last Full Council meeting by both the HIGs and Lab/Con groups.  If the Independents are not recognised as a group for the purpose of constitutional representation on the various committees they definitely won't be recognised when deciding the overall control of the chamber.

Currently Labour have 18 seats with next largest party being HIG with 7 seats - the rest are Conservative with 3 then 5 Independents
So Labour would have to lose 6 seats and they would all have to go to HIG

If Independents & HIG combine Labour would only need to lose 4 seats - still a large task

[SRMoore]

Labour don't have to lose many before they lose overall control and by default the leadership.

Isn't that assuming that the Independents get their act together and combine - a split independent group may be able to vote as a majority but won't be recognised as a political group - I believe that was voted down at the last Full Council meeting by both the HIGs and Lab/Con groups.  If the Independents are not recognised as a group for the purpose of constitutional representation on the various committees they definitely won't be recognised when deciding the overall control of the chamber.

Independent Union councillors and Independent councillors don't need to be in the same group to be recognised when deciding overall control. The council leader should be voted on every year but with Labour always having had a controlling majority a vote has never been taken (even though constitutionally it should have been).

As you know I voted to keep independents classed as a group for the purpose of deciding committee places though it is also true that even when independents were classed as a group too many of them did not take up their share of committee places, hence them not being represented on the constitution committee.

My sincere hope for this election is for the council to go into no overall control so that all groups have to sit down around the table and discuss things like adults to put forward plans and decisions that a command a cross party majority. Rather than the railroading from one group as we have seen in the past.

[jeffh]

Labour don't have to lose many before they lose overall control and by default the leadership.

Isn't that assuming that the Independents get their act together and combine - a split independent group may be able to vote as a majority but won't be recognised as a political group - I believe that was voted down at the last Full Council meeting by both the HIGs and Lab/Con groups.  If the Independents are not recognised as a group for the purpose of constitutional representation on the various committees they definitely won't be recognised when deciding the overall control of the chamber.

Independent Union councillors and Independent councillors don't need to be in the same group to be recognised when deciding overall control. The council leader should be voted on every year but with Labour always having had a controlling majority a vote has never been taken (even though constitutionally it should have been).

As you know I voted to keep independents classed as a group for the purpose of deciding committee places though it is also true that even when independents were classed as a group too many of them did not take up their share of committee places, hence them not being represented on the constitution committee.

My sincere hope for this election is for the council to go into no overall control so that all groups have to sit down around the table and discuss things like adults to put forward plans and decisions that a command a cross party majority. Rather than the railroading from one group as we have seen in the past.

Thanks for clarifying that Shane I, quite wrongly, thought that the Council Leader would be the leader of the majority group and not elected by the council members - so if my understanding is correct - this coming May when the vote for Leader takes place with the way the no-confidence voting went the vote split would be 13 (includes 3 Conservative)  for CAB  and 20 for AN Other - let's hope no more then one candidate stands against him.

Not up to speed on procedure but couldn't a motion of no confidence in the Leader have been proposed by the council?

[SRMoore]

Thanks for clarifying that Shane I, quite wrongly, thought that the Council Leader would be the leader of the majority group and not elected by the council members

No worries Jeff, we all wrongly assumed that but since Labour have always had a majority in the council their Leader has seemingly automatically become the council leader.

I would assume then with this new information that yes, members could call for a vote of no confidence but that would have to be clarified by the chief solicitor.

[fred c]

I have long thought that the full council should decide who the leader should be, however the seemingly automatic appointment of the leader of the largest group as leader of the council has always been reinforced by CAB's 6 year reign.

This new information is a further condemnation of the HCLP and its councillors, in theory the recent attempted coup would have succeeded if all councillors including tories and independents had been allowed to vote. ?

I also think that the selection of the Mayor should not be a matter of a member of the largest group automatically being nominated for the position, I personally believe that the Mayoral position should be a reward for long service to the town.

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

Well, I've certainly learned something today; always took it that the leading group automatically appointed the leader. So ...  can removal of a leader come from a wider source, too?

[jeffh]

Thanks for clarifying that Shane I, quite wrongly, thought that the Council Leader would be the leader of the majority group and not elected by the council members

No worries Jeff, we all wrongly assumed that but since Labour have always had a majority in the council their Leader has seemingly automatically become the council leader.

I would assume then with this new information that yes, members could call for a vote of no confidence but that would have to be clarified by the chief solicitor.

Just to confirm what Shane is saying is correct.

Under Article 6 of the Constitution (Part 2 Page 19) it says that both the Leader and Deputy Leader are appointed by the Council from amongst its voting Members.  If the Council does not appoint a Leader, the Leader of the largest political group will become the Leader.

[Inspector Knacker]

I also think that the selection of the Mayor should not be a matter of a member of the largest group automatically being nominated for the position, I personally believe that the Mayoral position should be a reward for long service to the town.

The position of Mayor seems to have been degraded from a dignified honour to that of a bauble for the spoilt or obedient  bag carriers. It's a joke.

[DRiddle]

I personally think a 'no overall control' situation is a bridge too far for this particular election.

Currently we have 18 Labour, 7 independent Union, 5 independent and 3 Tory.

I see things panning out as follows:

Burn Valley – Ged Hall is likely to hold the seat. So basically 'no change' in the numbers.

De Bruce – Rob Cook will hold it, mainly due to lobotomized electorate in that area, rather than anything to do with his performance as a Councillor. So 'no change'.

Fens and Rossmere – I expect Slim Jim to hold this by around 150. In any other town he'd be finished politically after his grubby grab of the 31% rise. But this is Hartlepool, the split vote will save him. So still 'no change'.

Foggy Furze – Despite making the national tabloid press for asking a granny if he'd slept with her, despite 30 odd failed businesses, despite being banned from running a company for half a decade and despite having to be physically restrained by two senior council officers as he threatened to give me a clump, the pound shop godfather will hold this thanks to his mates lending their names to the ballot paper ensuring a very split vote. No change.

Hart Ward – This one will be close. Eileen Kendon is like Marmite on the Bishop Cuthbert estate and the collective anti-Labour vote firmly established on Hart Ward is size-able. This could go either way which either results in 'no change' or gives Labour +1.

Headland and Harbour – The stench of the Doctor Pothouse episode still lingers like a trawlerman's glove. That said, an engineered split vote looks likely to give Labour a path to victory. 2 votes out of every 5 cast will be enough for Labour to hold the seat. No change here.

Jesmond Ward – Tricky one this. You got the fake elements of the real Labour Party trying to stop the Labour Party from winning. Concurrently, you've got the real Labour Party trying to defeat the mother-in-law of the council leader who is representing the fake Labour Party, in order to help the fake elements of the real Labour Party retain power. Still following? Again, there's a huge split vote in the making here and I anticipate even with all the confusion, the Labour candidate should take 2 votes out of every 5 cast and that should be enough. When the smoke clears, Labour hold it. No Change.

Manor House – Even with the skulduggery involved in this ward with Rudolph Barclay, there's a long standing rule that the residents of Owton Manor would elect a cushion an old woman had left in her backyard for cats to p**s on, if you pinned a red rosette to it. Labour hold. No change.

Rural West – Tory hold. No change.

Seaton Ward – Leisa Smith hold as Seaton voters once again show themselves to be the most politically astute voters in Hartlepool. No Change.

Victoria Ward – There was a chance to take this for someone other than Labour but I'd say that ship has sailed. The Independent Union have a candidate even Labour deemed to be a controversial choice when he stood for them in previous elections. I expect Labour to hold this and celebrate with a curry. No change.

When it all shakes down, i think Labour will come out of this with their 18 council seats in tact and may in fact increase it to 19.

Some of the opposition have been outmaneuvered before a vote has even been cast in my opinion.

The real fun then starts as the 4 or 5 'new' Labour councillors attempt to end the hapless reign of the SCABAL.

[fred c]

I think Loadsa Money could lose out to an Independent in Foggy......Hypocrisy leaves a long lasting taste in the publics mouth and his 31% increase in allowances vote was certainly the height of hypocrisy........I have a number of friends who live on the Fens, none of them have a good word for him.

A long shot for me is the Tory to lose in Rural West......Lots of voters in the ward have realised that the previous incumbent was focused on backing the SCABAL for whatever reason ?

[Inspector Knacker]

When it comes to playing the much thumbed victimhood card, a sizeable percentage of the electorate play it too, as their blind devotion to Labour is based on long gone grievances of their forefathers, passed down through the generations. I can accept it in a way, but times have moved and I really don't class the current pantomime cast as a Labour Council.
If the present shower stood as independents, unopposed, they'd struggle to come second, but the Party system is a breeding ground for putting people into power who you'd need to be told to breathe in and out.
It really is a shame that people stop looking at the Party label and just take five minutes to look at the candidate. I suspect however some folk are so marinaded in their own political prejudices that actually voting logically comes second to political folklore.

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

This May's just a fringe event, to my mind. Now come 2020 with the boundary changes and the alleged departure of some of the current elite ....

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

Who's had election leaflets so far - and which party in which wards?

[mk1]

Who's had election leaflets so far - and which party in which wards?

The Liberal leaflets are out.

[jawsbbc]

I personally think a 'no overall control' situation is a bridge too far for this particular election.

Currently we have 18 Labour, 7 independent Union, 5 independent and 3 Tory.

I see things panning out as follows:

Burn Valley – Ged Hall is likely to hold the seat. So basically 'no change' in the numbers.

De Bruce – Rob Cook will hold it, mainly due to lobotomized electorate in that area, rather than anything to do with his performance as a Councillor. So 'no change'.

Fens and Rossmere – I expect Slim Jim to hold this by around 150. In any other town he'd be finished politically after his grubby grab of the 31% rise. But this is Hartlepool, the split vote will save him. So still 'no change'.

Foggy Furze – Despite making the national tabloid press for asking a granny if he'd slept with her, despite 30 odd failed businesses, despite being banned from running a company for half a decade and despite having to be physically restrained by two senior council officers as he threatened to give me a clump, the pound shop godfather will hold this thanks to his mates lending their names to the ballot paper ensuring a very split vote. No change.

Hart Ward – This one will be close. Eileen Kendon is like Marmite on the Bishop Cuthbert estate and the collective anti-Labour vote firmly established on Hart Ward is size-able. This could go either way which either results in 'no change' or gives Labour +1.

Headland and Harbour – The stench of the Doctor Pothouse episode still lingers like a trawlerman's glove. That said, an engineered split vote looks likely to give Labour a path to victory. 2 votes out of every 5 cast will be enough for Labour to hold the seat. No change here.

Jesmond Ward – Tricky one this. You got the fake elements of the real Labour Party trying to stop the Labour Party from winning. Concurrently, you've got the real Labour Party trying to defeat the mother-in-law of the council leader who is representing the fake Labour Party, in order to help the fake elements of the real Labour Party retain power. Still following? Again, there's a huge split vote in the making here and I anticipate even with all the confusion, the Labour candidate should take 2 votes out of every 5 cast and that should be enough. When the smoke clears, Labour hold it. No Change.

Manor House – Even with the skulduggery involved in this ward with Rudolph Barclay, there's a long standing rule that the residents of Owton Manor would elect a cushion an old woman had left in her backyard for cats to p**s on, if you pinned a red rosette to it. Labour hold. No change.

Rural West – Tory hold. No change.

Seaton Ward – Leisa Smith hold as Seaton voters once again show themselves to be the most politically astute voters in Hartlepool. No Change.

Victoria Ward – There was a chance to take this for someone other than Labour but I'd say that ship has sailed. The Independent Union have a candidate even Labour deemed to be a controversial choice when he stood for them in previous elections. I expect Labour to hold this and celebrate with a curry. No change.

When it all shakes down, i think Labour will come out of this with their 18 council seats in tact and may in fact increase it to 19.

Some of the opposition have been outmaneuvered before a vote has even been cast in my opinion.

The real fun then starts as the 4 or 5 'new' Labour councillors attempt to end the hapless reign of the SCABAL.

https://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/.../notice_of_election... this has now been taken down i wonder why ? it gave you a look at who the agents were for each candidate  i noticed sab was cranneys agent lewis akers belcher(cabs son ) was  sandra belcher agent  anyone screen shot it ?? i cannot think why the council website has taken it down