What is the difference between Scabal Labour and 'new' Labour

[Foradmin]

With the Scabal it appered to be ME ME ME,  Party Party,   Town

With 'new' Labour it seems like    PARTY PARTY PARTY,  PARTY PARTY,  PARTY

Apparently, at Tuesday's round table meeting to decide the Committee Chairs, the Indie/Tory coalition offered to keep two Labour Councillors in their current Chairs, Thomas and Harrison. The rationale being that the two had got to grips with their portfolios - if it ain't bust, dont fix it.

A good sign of all the parties working together for the betterment of the town.

BUT the Chairman of the CLP said NO!

According to the Chairman of the CLP, Labour has now entered into opposition mode and therefore the Party would not accept any positions of responsibility e.g. Chairs and Deputy Chairs.

                So much for working together for the benefit of the town!



   

[Inspector Knacker]

More rebranded petulant posturing. A chance to arrive at some sort of consensus and they take the huff.
Maybe they just can't handle not being top dogs anymore and have flounced into a collective sulk. Ah well

[fred c]

I find it incredibly ironic that the Corbyn Pixies are claiming credit for getting shot of the SCABAL, the simple fact is the residents of the town through various social media outlets finally sussed the LabMob out.

The Hartlepool Post and its sister FB Page did more to make people aware of the antics of the SCABAL and there Tame Kiss Ass labour colleague's than the Labour Party ever did, they all sat back took the money and said sweet FA............They all stuck their hands up to vote on numerous occasions to change the towns constitution, to stop public questions, to ditch the town plan.........Party First, Party Second, Party Third.

They will do everything they can to discredit and devalue anything the new ruling group come up with.......Spirit of cooperation and putting the towns interests first......My ar**

[Inspector Knacker]

Simple rule of thumb here. The Party is God.
If the wishes of the people coincide with the Party, deep joy.
If the wishes of the Party are not popular with the public, re-brand it, if that fails ignore it, plough on and pass the buck.

[mk1]

Tom Watson  wants to change the rules and bring him back into the fold. Its finally hit Labour how much they need the SCABs

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tom-watson-calls-for-amnesty_uk_5cee405ee4b0ae67105929b1?utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

[Inspector Knacker]

Looks like the Blairites in the shadows are finally coming out of their hibernation. Looks like the Campbell 'eviction' has sparked them into life. I could see no other option for Labour's actions when 'members' blatantly support the opposition and then defend their actions, the arrogant actions of people who think they're untouchable.
The funny thing is, just imagine a scenario where the full motley crew were re-admitted, would the present new leaders 'head for the hills'?

[fred c]

As already mentioned it's gone from "Me Me Me to Party Party Party"..........The 'new labour party' still has a nasty set of pixies who, both pre and post election spewed out vitriol and bile like a muck spreader.

They have no intention whatsoever of contributing anything but negatives to the next 10 months of council business, if as they say it's a matter of principle not to cooperate why didn't highly principled councillors like Carl Richardson, C Simmonds, S Thomas et al apply those principles in the previous 6 years, that didn't happen and labour happily co-existed with the tories..........Is it a case of 'Principles' or Expediency on labours part.

[Inspector Knacker]

I find it more than curious how the HCLP have transformed themselves virtually overnight from political Daleks, taking orders from those who would have trouble co-ordinating walking and chewing gum at the same time.
From compliant underlings, it would appear they have turned into a political version of Jesus cleansing out the temple, except they contributed to creating the mess in the first place. As Volte- face's go, it's up there with the best of them.
They've adopted the 'nowt to do with me guv' defence with gusto and all without blushing.
They've become bystanders muttering from the sidelines and hoping no one will remember.
The Independents are playing by the rules and will lose by the rules. Ideally the Independents could have formed a coalition with Labour, a win win scenario, but Labour's aloof attitude suggests to me they're playing it strategically because they want to be in total charge. A wish to return to the days of wine and roses and calling the shots?
They may well be disappointed. Times have changed, they'll have to as well or suffer the consequences.

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

Spot on, IK.

[Hartlepudlion]

Agreed. Spot on IK. 👍👍👍👍👍✌️

[kevplumb]

Tom Watson  wants to change the rules and bring him back into the fold. Its finally hit Labour how much they need the SCABs

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tom-watson-calls-for-amnesty_uk_5cee405ee4b0ae67105929b1?utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

the only persons that need the SCABS are the SCABS 

[mk1]

I find it more than curious how the HCLP have transformed themselves virtually overnight.......................

Shane has made a deal with the Conservatives and given them more chairs than they should have whilst keeping CAB in a position of great influence. . Shane also has a high-profile Councillor with a  second day-job even further away than Doc Pothole. Remind me again how much  has changed.

[Hartlepudlion]

I think most people don't appreciate how Chairs are appointed.

The Leader of the Council does NOT appoint the Chairs. They are elected. To be elected they have to be nominated and seconded and then a vote has to take place.

Labour did not nominate one of their own to any of the operational Chairs. I am in no doubt that Shane, like any other leader, would rather appoint someone into responsible positions than have them foisted onto him. Who set the rules? The previous Labour administrations.

[mk1]

The Leader of the Council does NOT appoint the Chairs. They are elected. To be elected they have to be nominated and seconded and then a vote has to take place.

Shane actively took steps to get SAB in and deny the Chair to another candidate. He was not a disinterested observer. 

Labour did not nominate one of their own to any of the operational Chairs. I am in no doubt that Shane, like any other leader, would rather appoint someone into responsible positions than have them foisted onto him. Who set the rules? The previous Labour administrations.

Rubbish. Shane made  the same deal with the Conservatives as Labour did so he could have made it a condition for the Tories getting Chairs that they not vote for SAB. 
He chose not to do that.

[Inspector Knacker]

I find it more than curious how the HCLP have transformed themselves virtually overnight.......................

Shane has made a deal with the Conservatives and given them more chairs than they should have whilst keeping CAB in a position of great influence. . Shane also has a high-profile Councillor with a  second day-job even further away than Doc Pothole. Remind me again how much  has changed.

My criticism is of Labours clumsy part this debacle. I did point out that that the independents and their leader 'played by the rules and will lose by the rules'.
My interest in this instance was pointing out Labour's intransigence and self serving non involvement for their own purpose but making it look like some high moral stand.
Pretty pointless standing for office and then standing again but on the sidelines, and making a 'moral stand' out of sulking.