Councillor Britcliffe Called off the AGM - Page 10

Ken Moss · 24-05-2010, 11:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

Let's face it, you were fighting to keep it on a day when you knew that two Conservative Councillors would be unable to attend - Paul Barton because he's been in a crash and another one who's name I forget right now but it said she was unable to be there. If those two had failed to turn up then Labour would have taken control.

The battle on this thread isn't about who would deal best with the issues but who would win the vote.

You make a good point and moving a meeting to a time when it is convenient for most councillors to attend is sensible practice but we're in a situation here where the Leader of the Council has rearranged the AGM to suit one councillor and forced more than half of the others to lose out financially as a result, plus caused inconveniences for a dozen workplaces who now need to find covering staff.

It simply doesn't make sense to do this when a 7pm slot would have circumvented the whole problem.

Neil · 24-05-2010, 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

It simply doesn't make sense to do this when a 7pm slot would have circumvented the whole problem.

You can't have meetings at 7pm unless you want to have them in the Black Dog

jaysay · 24-05-2010, 14:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

You can't have meetings at 7pm unless you want to have them in the Black Dog

Rose and Crown I'll have you know sir

g jones · 24-05-2010, 17:53

There are always meetings that people cannot attend. My feelngs are not opportunistic at Kath Pratts absence. Neither are they Paul Barton as I would have stood down and paired off. There is little point in gaining a quick advanatage this week knowing hat next week it will be reversed.

As it stands it is 17-17-1 or 18-17 if Malcolm sticks to his deal. Yes Labour has 14 but those wanting change have 17 so far. One short.

The Conservative 17 by the way is based on a lower share of the vote than Labour so I would question their mandate simply based on seats.

Posted from mobile

Every argument must be exhausted to promote a progressive open transparent Council.

Nickelson · 24-05-2010, 20:32

It was nice having a chat on the platform today at Preston today Graham. Hope you was not delayed long !.
Possible voting system change at local level too anyone ?

Posted via Mobile Device

Gayle · 24-05-2010, 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

The Conservative 17 by the way is based on a lower share of the vote than Labour so I would question their mandate simply based on seats.

What have you based your figures on - because I've just done some sums and going back to when each of the current councillors won their seats, the Tories have more votes. It's very close.

Tealeaf · 24-05-2010, 22:23

Oh Dear. I was just about to start a new thread entitled 'My Cheese is Sweating' whem I came across this. So are we now about to see an exercise in applied Psephology? And if so, who do you think will be the winner - Graham or Gayle?

Bernard Dawson · 24-05-2010, 22:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

What have you based your figures on - because I've just done some sums and going back to when each of the current councillors won their seats, the Tories have more votes. It's very close.

I'd got it that we got more votes in the local elections Gayle. And that doesn't include Overton where we didn't have a candidate.

claytonender · 25-05-2010, 06:49

The figures for votes cast in the 2010 HBC election are as follows -
Labour 11047 41.59%
Tory 10562 39.76%
Liberal Democrat 281 1.06%
Independent 4480 16.87%
BNP 192 0.72%

TOTAL VOTES CAST 26562 out of an electorate of 41515 which means there was a 63.98% turnout.

garinda · 25-05-2010, 07:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by claytonender

The figures for votes cast in the 2010 HBC election are as follows -
Labour 11047 41.59%
Tory 10562 39.76%
Liberal Democrat 281 1.06%
Independent 4480 16.87%
BNP 192 0.72%

TOTAL VOTES CAST 26562 out of an electorate of 41515 which means there was a 63.98% turnout.

Makes interesting reading.

I wonder if there'll be a push to have electoral reform, and proportional representation, at local level?

Gayle · 25-05-2010, 07:36

The local council election this year was only one third of the seats - if you factor in the last two elections when the other two thirds were elected, the Tories were elected on most votes.

claytonender · 25-05-2010, 07:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

The local council election this year was only one third of the seats - if you factor in the last two elections when the other two thirds were elected, the Tories were elected on most votes.

But the turnout was much lower in both 2007 and 2008.

Bernard Dawson · 25-05-2010, 08:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

The local council election this year was only one third of the seats - if you factor in the last two elections when the other two thirds were elected, the Tories were elected on most votes.

We can all play at that game Gayle. During the Poll Tax years the Tories hardly got a vote.

cashman · 25-05-2010, 08:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Dawson

We can all play at that game Gayle. During the Poll Tax years the Tories hardly got a vote.

Funny i thought Gayle was begining to sound like P.B.

andrewb · 25-05-2010, 09:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Dawson

We can all play at that game Gayle. During the Poll Tax years the Tories hardly got a vote.

She's hardly playing games. Only a 1/3 of council were elected in 2010. You can't ignore the other 2/3s of council in your calculations on vote share!