What’s the REAL reason Labour won’t take chairs within the council?

Started by DRiddle, May 16, 2019, 09: PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DRiddle

I've seen the video starring Paddy Brown in which he offers his reasons for not being willing to work with the coalition and take up chairs and positions of authority within the broader council.

Paddy says it's because he won't be part of a coalition which involves the Tories.

It comes across as a principled position as he blames the Tory's for the significant cuts the council is facing up to.

I understand the principle.

However, is there more to this seemingly principled stance?

My understanding is/was in a situation in which a council is under 'no overall control',  Labours national executives do not ALLOW their councillors to take committee chairs without specific permission to do so.

So here's how I see it.

Paddy knows his councillors are not allowed to take the chairs under party rules.

But he knows that would look really bad in a town crying out for decent councillors (of whatever political persuasion)  to step up to the plate. It would very much look like his councillors were putting the rules of party before the needs of the town.

So instead, he offers up the argument that they won't work with the tories.

Which is ironic given they've spent the last 6 years doing precisely that.

People on this forum have always argued Labour councillors in Hartlepool under Akers-Belcher put themselves first, the party second and the needs of the residents third.

Whilst I don't think Paddy Brown is putting himself first, it does appear the party is still coming before the needs of the residents.





kevplumb

A councillor is an elected representative of their ward, not their political party!
Councils need communities but communities don't need councils
Party politics have no place in local goverment

Inspector Knacker

After reading the comments he made, you get the distinct impression they were all held hostage by the Dear Leader and his cohorts, either that or they were all held under mass hypnosis!
I'm amazed the way they all seemed to grow a pair after the cabal road out on the horse they rode in on. That's why I can't take this window dressing seriously.
What can be asserted without proof,
can be dismissed without proof.


kevplumb

Quote from: Lucy Lass-Tick on May 16, 2019, 10: PM
Stockholm Syndrome?
i hear you but its not quite the way my mind is working at the moment

i smell a rat in all of this
A councillor is an elected representative of their ward, not their political party!
Councils need communities but communities don't need councils
Party politics have no place in local goverment

Johnny Bongo

Quote from: Lucy Lass-Tick on May 16, 2019, 10: PM
Stockholm Syndrome?

More like R Sole syndrome!  The New Kids in Town have a chance to prove that they are 'worthy' of being Hartlepool councillors and serving the good folk of this town BUT what do they do when the hand of cooperation is extended to them? :o   Nothing changes with Labour, does it!   

DRiddle

To clarify, if Labour still essentially control a council in NOC, either by minority governance or through a coalition, then they obviously take committee chairs and exercise authority and share in key decision making.

BUT when they don't have essentially control in a NOC council and don't have the leadership the default position is "Go on then, crack on, we're the opposition now".

I am 100% sure that the HIU/Tory coalition want Brenda Harrison as chair of children's services and Stephen Thomas as chair of Health and Well Being.

At present, those chairs could go to Anne Marshall and god knows who.

Now ask yourself this. What's better for the children of the town?

Is it children's services being led by an ex-teacher with some 30+ years working with children, who has actually done the role already for over a year? Or let the chair go to Mad Dog's bitter mate from ASDA?

Saying "We won't work with Tories" isn't going to cut it when chunks of the electorate know you did PRECISELY that for 6 years.

The council NEEDS someone as good as Brenda in that chair.

Any decision other than allowing her to take it does not reflect well on Labour.






Inspector Knacker

The message I'm getting here is are the new wave really that different from their recently departed masters?
Co-operation seemed the blatantly obvious way forward, but looks to me as though it is being substituted by sulking and mischief. Sounds familiar, just like the familiar dim peacocks script, just this time it's done by their rather less flamboyant underlings, but the song remains the same it would appear.
I was actually hopeful for a couple of days when they appeared with their grand proclamation, but it had obvious strings attached. Such a pity it wasn't applied during their Masters reign, did they have it prepared to be boldly pulled out when the Leader and his flock left? A sort of Manchurian candidate moment?
What can be asserted without proof,
can be dismissed without proof.

fred c

Quote from: Johnny Bongo on May 16, 2019, 11: PM
Quote from: Lucy Lass-Tick on May 16, 2019, 10: PM
Stockholm Syndrome?

More like R Sole syndrome!  The New Kids in Town have a chance to prove that they are 'worthy' of being Hartlepool councillors and serving the good folk of this town BUT what do they do when the hand of cooperation is extended to them? :o   Nothing changes with Labour, does it!

Unfortunately not, I have often mentioned that there are good labour councillors who for whatever reason failed to challenge the SCABAL, under CABS leadership it was a Me Me Me leadership group, it now appears it's going to be a Party Party group.

All of the blather about things need to change, as council we want what's best for the town and its residents, we want to follow The Hartlepool Model etc etc etc, then the labour default position kicked in, they are unwilling to act in the best interests of the town, the party first mentality is so ingrained in them things will never change.

jeffh

Over on the Facebook page it is being reported that Marshall has been nominated for Child Services chair whilst CAB has been nominated for Regeneration chair, with both nominations being supported by Moore.  It now appears that with Labour not taking any chairs and the Coalition not appearing to be keen to take any chairs we could be heading down a serious path.

The same post is reporting that Neighbourhood Services chair is to go Tennant.  I guess we can expect the Planning Chair to go to a Conservative member of the coalition.

If we are to prevent the SLP from gaining positions of power the Coalition members need to step up to the plate and prevent them.  Obviously the Facebook post may not be reporting the whole story and coalition councillors are standing for these positions and if that's the case I do hope they are successful.

Maybe what the town needs is a Constitution change allowing more suitable people to take these chairs - Officers of the different departments of the Council would be better qualified to carry out these roles in conjunction with the members.  We are already seeing that the Labour group are being political to the point of causing more problems in the town and they are trying to destroy the coalition in the process.  The SLP are just a party of convenience and self servance.

If we do end up with SLP councillors in chairs, then the chairs of Finance & Policy and Audit & Governance need to be resolute to prevent this rear guard action.  Unfortunately I do not have a good feeling about all of this, but I huess we'll find out next week.


Inspector Knacker

 If the Labour group quarantine themselves from the rest of the council, they can stand aside and watch the cabal gain a temporary foothold.
The result would be the return of the cabal, not a popular move voter wise and resulting in a probable assumption by the electorate that the cabal have joined forces with the new coalition.
The Labour Party have given out their grand moral proclamation prior to this, so they can step forward to be the new 'cabal free' alternative when the elections come around next year. They are laying the foundations and their ex leaders are inadvertently their trump card.
The petulance appears to have a purpose with a 'nowt to do with me guv' master plan.

What can be asserted without proof,
can be dismissed without proof.

Tee_Ess_25er

Quote from: Inspector Knacker on May 17, 2019, 09: AM
If the Labour group quarantine themselves from the rest of the council, they can stand aside and watch the cabal gain a temporary foothold.
The result would be the return of the cabal, not a popular move voter wise and resulting in a probable assumption by the electorate that the cabal have joined forces with the new coalition.
The Labour Party have given out their grand moral proclamation prior to this, so they can step forward to be the new 'cabal free' alternative when the elections come around next year. They are laying the foundations and their ex leaders are inadvertently their trump card.
The petulance appears to have a purpose with a 'nowt to do with me guv' master plan.

Nail, head & hit springs to mind here.

DRiddle

The narrative that Labour are now SCABAL free doesn't wash with me. 40% of their current councils backed CAB every single time on every single issue and more importantly offered literally ZERO objection to allowance rises and various other calamitous decisions.

Labour will not win the trust back of floating voters in Hartlepool until the dregs of the SCABAL are fully removed from their party.

I actually don't know how Carl Richardson has the audacity to sit there offering himself up as part of the 'new solution'.

It's a joke.

P.S Anne Marshall will not become chair of children's service. I'd be very surprised if the coalition are daft enough to allow a socialist labour councillor to head a committee.

The tell tale sign of any relationship between the SCABAL and the coalition will be demonstrated by who becomes chair of regeneration.

If that person is CAB, the coalition may well be wiped out next May.

diSme

It looks to me, based on what I've learned in this thread, that the scabs have left the labour party basically to ensure that they can still be eligible to sit as chairs in the various lucrative extra posts that are available for councillors.....
I believe everything and nothing

Land Phil