Councillor Britcliffe Called off the AGM - Page 8

andrewb · 23-05-2010, 10:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

It is quite clearly stated to all councillors that you are expected to attend ALL full council meetings, which generally isn't a problem at 7.00pm.

Cllr Britcliffe knows that most Labour councillors work during the day and has rigged the AGM twice in a row now to suit his personal needs.

It is not a good way to run a borough, there just isn't any getting around it.

"Rigged"? You're saying it as if he is doing it because if all councillors are there, he has a minority. If the independent that is giving him the majority is no longer supporting him and Peter Britcliffe is indeed moving the AGM to 'rig' the vote, then please say so, and I'll be very openly critical. As it is, as far as I'm aware, he's got a majority if all elected councillors are there. Hence why I am saying there's a lot of fuss from Labour councillors for no reason.

Less · 23-05-2010, 10:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

Cllr Britcliffe knows that most Labour councillors work during the day and has rigged the AGM twice in a row now to suit his personal needs.

Can I just ask, do none of the Tory Councillors work during the day?

If they do work why isn't it also awkward for them to get time off to attend?

Somehow I think I already know the answer, but either yourself or the political sage of accyweb can reply, (it would be nice if he did he ignored what Wyonne and I had to say in our earlier posts, but then when you haven't got an answer thats what you do isn't it Cyfer? (formerly known as Ace......).

Ken Moss · 23-05-2010, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Again you don't know what I pay or what I don't. If Peter Britcliffe was wanting to claim an inflated train fair, at taxpayers expense, I would be saying the same thing. It's against the expenses rules to claim for money that is not apart of an MPs parliamentary duties.

The 'basic facts' are not escaping me. The Conservatives have 17 councillors. One independent, Cllr Prichard, is in the local paper saying he'll support Peter Britcliffe. That's 18 councillors. There are 14 Labour councillors, and 3 other independents. That's 17 if they all vote together.

Then make a statement on your tax situation! I hope you never get elected because you are exactly the sort of councillor we don't want more of. All this 'smoke and mirrors' guff might come across beautifully in studies but it doesn't sit well with the electorate in real life.

I have already suggested that you have read the Observer article as a statement that Graham is claiming £250 as an MP allowance rather than a possible misconstruance on your part to suit yourself. Ask Graham.

Malcolm Pritchard is not 100% guaranteed to vote either way. It all depends on his position on the day and there is absolutely nothing that Peter Britcliffe can do to force him to vote for him as Leader. If it was such a done deal then why all this jumping through hoops to move the meeting?

garinda · 23-05-2010, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

...thats what you do isn't it Cyfer?

He didn't have an 'e'.

That was something else he presumably lost, along with his former username, and everything else.

andrewb · 23-05-2010, 10:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

Can I just ask, do none of the Tory Councillors work during the day?

If they do work why isn't it also awkward for them to get time off to attend?

Somehow I think I already know the answer, but either yourself or the political sage of accyweb can reply, (it would be nice if he did he ignored what Wyonne and I had to say in our earlier posts, but then when you haven't got an answer thats what you do isn't it Cyfer? (formerly known as Ace......).

Don't know what councillors have what jobs sorry Less. I posted it in this thread because Graham spoke about the expenses he intended to claim in an article about the AGM movement.

Less · 23-05-2010, 10:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

He didn't have an 'e'.

That was something else he presumably lost, along with his former username, and everything else.

Didn't want any repercussions of a legal nature, by spelling his name correctly.

My litigation costs have shot through the roof this year.

garinda · 23-05-2010, 10:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Don't know what councillors have what jobs sorry Less. I posted it in this thread because Graham spoke about the expenses he intended to claim in an article about the AGM movement.

I do.

At least the Peter Posse, of Tory councillors in Ossy.

Not many of them have jobs which involve clocking in and out.

Ken Moss · 23-05-2010, 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

As it is, as far as I'm aware, he's got a majority if all elected councillors are there. Hence why I am saying there's a lot of fuss from Labour councillors for no reason.

He has a Conservative majority for at least another year but that is quite different from a full majority, as presumably you well know.

andrewb · 23-05-2010, 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

Then make a statement on your tax situation! I hope you never get elected because you are exactly the sort of councillor we don't want more of. All this 'smoke and mirrors' guff might come across beautifully in studies but it doesn't sit well with the electorate in real life.

I have already suggested that you have read the Observer article as a statement that Graham is claiming £250 as an MP allowance rather than a possible misconstruance on your part to suit yourself. Ask Graham.

Malcolm Pritchard is not 100% guaranteed to vote either way. It all depends on his position on the day and there is absolutely nothing that Peter Britcliffe can do to force him to vote for him as Leader. If it was such a done deal then why all this jumping through hoops to move the meeting?

Keep referring to my studies. Not sure why. My tax situation has nothing to do with you. Yeah I'm a politics student, that doesn't mean I have to divulge my relations with the tax man to you.

The original poster said that two Conservative councillors couldn't attend the meeting. If Malcolm Prichard votes how he said in the local paper, it'll still only be a majority of one. If it is a done deal, they still need to be there.

Ken Moss · 23-05-2010, 10:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

If Malcolm Prichard votes how he said in the local paper, it'll still only be a majority of one. If it is a done deal, they still need to be there.

Yet again I'll suggest that you don't believe everything that is written in the papers.

Everything hinges on Cllr Malcolm Pritchard who has been extremely courteous to me (particularly on the day of the local count) but I understand that he is very much his own man when it comes to making decisions. If there was no worry about Cllr Britcliffe's majority then the AGM would be held at 7.00pm next Wednesday, or would have already been held last Tuesday.

I wouldn't count any chickens before next Wednesday's hatching.

andrewb · 23-05-2010, 10:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

Yet again I'll suggest that you don't believe everything that is written in the papers.

Everything hinges on Cllr Malcolm Pritchard who has been extremely courteous to me (particularly on the day of the local count) but I understand that he is very much his own man when it comes to making decisions. If there was no worry about Cllr Britcliffe's majority then the AGM would be held at 7.00pm next Wednesday, or would have already been held last Tuesday.

I wouldn't count any chickens before next Wednesday's hatching.

I'm not counting chickens. I'm just saying what I think about all this fuss. If you know something we don't then do say. If Malcolm has changed his mind and Peter moved the AGM because of it, I'll criticise Peter for it. I know you're reluctant to criticise your own mans expenses. I have no bone with criticising anyone I perceve to be in the wrong, as I have done in the past.

cashman · 23-05-2010, 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

I have no bone with criticising anyone I perceve to be in the wrong, as I have done in the past.

unless its conservative, you certainly have no bones about calling other people liars.

Ken Moss · 23-05-2010, 10:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

I'm not counting chickens. I'm just saying what I think about all this fuss. If you know something we don't then do say. If Malcolm has changed his mind and Peter moved the AGM because of it, I'll criticise Peter for it. I know you're reluctant to criticise your own mans expenses. I have no bone with criticising anyone I perceve to be in the wrong, as I have done in the past.

I won't criticise Graham for claiming for a train ticket that would have dented his wallet, nor will I say that it pleases me that as a taxpayer I am footing the bill, but the current Leader of the Council is well aware that 1.30pm is damned awkward for the majority of Labour councillors to attend and it is his actions that have presented the borough with this situation, not Graham Jones' personal greed.

It is costing hundreds of pounds in lost wages and man hours and has caused inconveniences for at least half of the council to rearrange their day just so that Cllr Britcliffe can have the AGM at 1.30pm instead of 7.00pm.

Defend that.

andrewb · 23-05-2010, 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

I won't criticise Graham for claiming for a train ticket that would have dented his wallet, nor will I say that it pleases me that as a taxpayer I am footing the bill, but the current Leader of the Council is well aware that 1.30pm is damned awkward for the majority of Labour councillors to attend and it is his actions that have presented the borough with this situation, not Graham Jones' personal greed.

It is costing hundreds of pounds in lost wages and man hours and has caused inconveniences for at least half of the council to rearrange their day just so that Cllr Britcliffe can have the AGM at 1.30pm instead of 7.00pm.

Defend that.

Ken, unless Peter holds it on a Friday, Graham is going to be in London anyway. He shouldn't be charging the taxpayer for coming back for business that isn't related to Parliament. I don't think his £66,000 wallet will be dented that heavily.

I don't particularly understand why it's at 1.30pm rather than 7. I haven't seen any explanation and I'm not in constant contact with Peter Britcliffe to find out, despite being acused of being his mouth piece on here before.

I'd prefer it to be at 7.00pm because it's easier for the public to attend. I just think that the way Labour councillors have come about this when as far as everyone knows Peter has the majority of votes to be leader, is rather daft.

garinda · 23-05-2010, 11:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

I haven't seen any explanation and I'm not in constant contact with Peter Britcliffe to find out, despite being acused of being his mouth piece on here before.

Probably lost that too, when it was realised you're as useful, and as popular, as a cold sore.

There does seem to be an advantage if councillors aren't employed full time by someone else.

I know in all the companies I worked for, having to have time off in the working day wouldn't have gone down too well at all.