vic Posted May 17, 2010 Report Share Posted May 17, 2010 Why on earth was it a secret ballot? So Paul Kennedy could abstain and it not be recorded? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted May 17, 2010 Report Share Posted May 17, 2010 Well, things went as expected! All toeing the party line.....even down to the one sitting on the fence!!! Keith Bland has sacrificed any possible remaining shred of credibility the local Cons may have had left.....though that hasn't been much since they joined the 'unholy alliance'. The weakness of the local conservative party was apparent from the outset of this alliance 4yrs ago, in their inability to provide any credibly strong members for the exec board. If Cllrs Bland and Woodyatt were their best shot then the party as a whole can't be up to much! Both have blundered embarrassingly in their roles, Cllr Woodyatt as member for Education and Children's Services has managed to get damning ofsted reports and we all felt the effects of Cllr Blands 'expertise' as member responsible for emergencies during the inadequate road gritting fiasco. Cllr Bland in days prior to tonight's vote had said he intended to do "what was best for the town" considering his and Cllr Woodyatts achievements so far, the best for the town would have been if they had left the exec! Today he's been quoted as saying he's "proud of their achievements" .............unbelievable!!!!! Ian Marks retaining power for another year will no doubt result in the loss of many more individual LD councillors in next years local elections. Yet they've followed his lead tonight......like lambs to the slaughter! The only councillors really pleased with tonight's decision will be Cllrs Bland and Marks...............and of course...the whole of the Labour group!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 17, 2010 Report Share Posted May 17, 2010 Well as his abstention was recorded on here by Gary the ballott couldn't have been that secret. How many councillors are eligible to vote.. ??? should be easy to work out who voted 'what' if only 1 abstained and 1 was stuck on holiday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted May 17, 2010 Report Share Posted May 17, 2010 Why on earth was it a secret ballot? So Paul Kennedy could abstain and it not be recorded? In this ballot it's pretty obvious whose votes have gone where! But 'in the interests of transparency'why should any council ballots be secret? The public should be entitled to know which way their local councillors are voting so that they can make a judgement on which councillors best represent their communities interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 17, 2010 Report Share Posted May 17, 2010 Come off it Sha; let's have a bit of honesty - ALL sides were gagging for the added salaries of the Exec Board - such is the nature of the beast - so please, no Party pretensions. btw there is a facility to call for a "named vote". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 Ob's, what do you think would be ultimately of most value, a shaky seat on the council for a short term or a solid seat for a long term? If you look at the local election results the Lib/Cons were not just beaten......they were thrashed!!! Another year of the present, exec's antics will result in the loss of more Lib Dem /Con councillors in next summers local elections to the extent that they will probably be driven into oblivion for at least the next half century!! So they won't be getting even councillors salaries never mind exec ???s whilst the increased number of labour councillors will all be getting paid.........long term. The fact that labour now has a majority of councillors (votes) puts them into a very strong position and they now have the added year to prove to the public their worth and increase their popularity for a complete wipe out of the LDs/Cons next year. Of course there's always the possibility that they don't manage to show the public just what they can achieve..............but are they likely to look a gift horse in the mouth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 Come off it Sha; let's have a bit of honesty - ALL sides were gagging for the added salaries of the Exec Board - such is the nature of the beast - so please, no Party pretensions. btw there is a facility to call for a "named vote". If the exec job is being done properly (on top of the portfolio, attending all the regional and sub-regional meetings, LSP etc) then it's a big commitment, and worth the extra money. If it's being done properly... The maths are interesting - 29 for the unholy alliance, 26 for the Labour slate, 1 abstention. Add in the Labour member on holiday, that's 29/27. Something tells me Jo Crotty will soon no longer be the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. Not much then to make her keen on retaining the Bewsey ward seat - but the Lib Dems will not want her to resign and cause a by-election which Labour would win and make it 28/28 - but will Cllr Kennedy stay abstaining, or having done the relatively decent thing, will he now vote consistently with the Con-Dem alliance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 Sha; the use of the term "long term" and "politics" in the same breath, is an oxymoron - few, if any, "politicians" are capable of seeing beyond the next election, which gives them a time horizon of about 5 years - the only long term planning they may engage in, is their personal advancement up the greasey pole and the financial rewards that may reap. This shouldn't be a surprise, as they are pandering to a fickle public that generally expect instant gratification in all things - it's all about "me -now" - and jam tomorrow just doesn't sell. That's why we've spent the last 10 years bingeing it up on credit - both Government and people; and now comes the time to pay, those responsible for this necessary pain, won't be forgotten or forgiven by the kids who've been denied their sweeties. So we just stumble from one election to the next, from one crisis to the next, with myopic consistency. As for "half a Century", I suggest you review your history of control of the WBC - each of the three main parties has had control in that span of time. It frankly doesn't matter who's "in control", has budget realities ultimately rule: one can either try to balance the books and live within one's means or fudge every unpopular issue that comes along and run up a deficit; local Government is now well and truly strapped in a straight jacket of central Government control, a control ultimately operated from Brussels - which suggests that we could make all local politicians redundant! VICar: "attendance at meetings" in itself, is no recommendation, unless the attendee can make some inovative contribution and "the meeting" isn't just a talking shop - plans/strategies are just hot air, if you don't have the money to actually deliver them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted May 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 The thread title is a tad inaccurate. Not based on what was said on the night int he "heat of the moment!" I have added a ? to this title thread now especially for you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 That leader of the council job must be a good screw..... get the lackys to do eveything for you and rake in the allowances?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 It's called delegation Baz, thought you'd know that, being a Boss?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wireless Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 very surprised to see the Tories working with the LDs again after the Warrington South campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 very surprised to see the Tories working with the LDs again after the Warrington South campaign. thats because honour amongst thieves is merely a myth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 Unfortunately, politics is about expediency - whatever suits at any particular moment in time. I notice the Town Hall Unions are claiming there is a now a ?30million deficit, and are trying to blame it on the LIB-Tory alliance - errm, think WBC has been building up a deficit for a lot longer than that - it's caused by successive administrations not biting the bullet on budgetry issues and fudging unpopular decisions - well it seems they've no choice anymore, but to address unpopular issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 20, 2010 Report Share Posted May 20, 2010 ... and now the Town's Labour Leader pipes up with the notion that Clegg is in position to promise any Local Authority any respite from the looming austerity cuts - he may have promised Liverpool respite - but that was probably before Liverpool went back to Labour! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 20, 2010 Report Share Posted May 20, 2010 Rather a clever move by the Labour Leader if you ask me He asks... Clegg gives NO reassurance... Local labour have a go at local/national Lib Dems He asks... Clegg gives reassurance... Local Labour score a point as they are the ones pushed for reasurance and got it... whilst the local Lib Dems didn't ask Not that 'reassurance' means a lot of course. Labours Bent and Jones are in the WG today too about the scrapped clinic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted May 20, 2010 Report Share Posted May 20, 2010 Labour's bent I agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted May 20, 2010 Report Share Posted May 20, 2010 ... and now the Town's Labour Leader pipes up with the notion that Clegg is in position to promise any Local Authority any respite from the looming austerity cuts - he may have promised Liverpool respite - but that was probably before Liverpool went back to Labour! If Clegg has promised Liverpool repite then it's Clegg himself who must have had the 'notion' to think he was in a position to do so!!!! And if he is in a position to do it, and has done it for Liverpool...what's wrong with asking him to do it for Warrington? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 20, 2010 Report Share Posted May 20, 2010 Labour's bent I agree Ooops !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 20, 2010 Report Share Posted May 20, 2010 Sha, if you believe for one minute, that the Government of this bankrupt country is in any position to promise anyone respite, then perhaps your in the wrong job - the rest of this is just political hot air and posturing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted May 21, 2010 Report Share Posted May 21, 2010 Sha, if you believe for one minute, that the Government of this bankrupt country is in any position to promise anyone respite,........... Ob's, the Government, due to their position as the government is in a position to promise anyone anything. Whether they can fulfill their promises is entirely another matter! As the country is bankrupt it would appear to those with a logical mind that promises of respite from cuts are promises that cannot be fulfilled. However, politicians/governments do seem to have a looser grip on logic than most people. Spending money that doesn't exist has been what they have been doing for years and is what has got the country into a state of bankruptcy in the first place! So whilst it appears extemely illogical and could even be considered downright stupidity of Clegg to promise Liverpool respite from cuts.......it appears that this is what he has done! So now, either he doesn't deliver, which logically it appears he can't, or rather shouldn't......and looks a fool for having made promises in the first place that couldn't be kept. Or, he does deliver........gives Liverpool respite (which could probably only be done by giving other areas more savage cuts). Or, he denies giving Liverpool any such promises in the first place! Or, he could come up with any other kind of outlandish, illogical, stupid, solution he chooses.......such is the nature of politics and politicians! - the rest of this is just political hot air and posturing. Ob's, ALL of this is political hot air and posturing!!!! .........such is the nature of politics and politicians! Terry O'Neil, has drawn attention to the failings of the LD's ......the illogic of Gleggs promises. As leader of the opposition, I don't see anything unusal or illogical in that, the Lib/Cons would be quick enough to highlight any Labour politicians failings. But also,.....in the event of Clegg attempting to cover his foolishness by actually giving Liverpool respite.......which could only be done by forcing savage cuts in other areas, Cllr O' Neill is perhaps limiting the possibility of Warrington being one of the sacrificial areas. Nothing really illogical in him doing that either! Politicians are always going to play point scoring games with each other, such is the nature........... The Labour leader has had a 'pop' at the LD's....so what? The Local Cons have recently highlighed the LD's 'iffy' electoral campaign. Fair play to them too. If it wasn't for these little spats we'd probably never find anything out!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted May 21, 2010 Report Share Posted May 21, 2010 obs. Did'nt Cheshire CC used to bail WBC out on a regular basis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 21, 2010 Report Share Posted May 21, 2010 Twas a seperate Authority, with joint police and fire -those who argued for Unitary Status - would claim that WBC was baling CCC out! Sha: Clegg will basically forget about it; and if reminded, just claim the financial situation was worse than he suspected at the time - so nothing to get excited about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.