Councillors in Hyndburn - Are they fit for purpose?

[gondola]

This thread has been set up to encourage discussion about Councillors in Hyndburn, and the extent to which they represent those that elect them. Do you feel they have taken up the role to promote their own interests, or do you consider that that they are seeking to improve the Borough of Hyndburn?.
Do some members of the public consider that their voice is not being heard because they refuse to vote for the candidates put forward? Is there any merit in having a discussion about reviewing the process of selection?.

Discuss.

[Ianto.W.]

That would depend on your motives as with the law's of libel, one has to be carefull, as you have not disclosed your interest in the site, and as far as I can see you have only contributed to one subject thus far.

[gondola]

Here is what I wrote about an article in the Observer re comments by Councillor Jones:

1)At the risk of getting shouted down I wish to raise a point that is slightly off topic. Councillor Jones yesterday suggested that there existed 'other skeletons in the cupboard'. He may have a point, and readers have commended him for his tenacity in persevering with this issue, as well as his integrity in ensuring that this issue was not swept under the carpet.
However, I would like to draw his attention, if I might, to another issue where his judgement has to be questioned, especially since in that matter it appeared that he was seeking to score 'political points' (something, absurd though the suggestion may be, I was accused of). I refer to his comments in the Accrington Observer, dated the 9th of March, 2007. For the benefit of readers this article referred to the candidate for the Church Ward, Mr Safdar, who had conveniently switched sides from Labour to the Conservative Party. Councillor Jones questioned his motives and stated ''We [the Labour Party] found out that he had approached the Conservatives three months earlier, offering to stand for them if he was'nt selected as a Labour Canadidate. Based on that I think the public can make up their own minds about Safdar. That was part of the reason why he was not selected by Labour and good luck to him''.
My question is this. If the Labour Party were aware three months earlier about Mr Safdar's motives, why then did they allow him a couple of months later to contest the candidacy? Moreover, at the time a candidate had already been selected by the Labour Party (who later stepped aside), and thus Mr Safdar had known back then that he had not been selected and thus approached the Conservatives. Yet when the other candidate stepped aside, with the knowledge that Safdar had attempted to switch sides the Labour Party considered it right and proper to potentailly select as a candidate a man who they now suggest has a lack of integrity. Surely had he won the internal selection when the vote took place (several months after Councillor Jones had become aware of his attempt to switch sides), that would have meant that the Labour Party would have been asking members of the public to vote for a man they knew had sought to side with the Tories. Surely that is not morally justifiable?
More distrubing than that, is that according to the community grapevine, Safdar has been campaigning in the Church Ward assisted by a former Labour Councillor and still current member of the Labour Party.
It makes a mockery of the principle of Party politics.
Councillor Jones should, if he knew that Safdar had changed sides several months earlier, have raised the issue with his Party and Safdar ought not to have been put forward as a candidate for an internal vote.

[gondola]

Here's the response Mr Jones gave me:

The papers print bits of what is usually said.

Safdar was behaving funnily and associating himself with Conservatives. He had done some bleating about selection. I was not told this until the day of selection when I raised the matter with Central Ward members because Safdar had issued threats to me the day before about the selection. "If the Labour Party don't select me I will get my own back, you'll see"

I was told Safdar's behaviour had been one of disloyalty to his colleagues and there was no chance he would be selected. Central Ward members had an idea of what Safdar was up to. He wasn't selected. About a week later a Tory told me they he had done a deal with them (with Peter Britcliffe) about 3 months earlier. To defect if labour did not select him.


In fact that Tory told me then that he had hinted at the deal to me about a month before and I wasn't quick on the up take. PB had been running around for about 2 months boasting of a another defector (last year it was Dennis Baron). So in the end it all came out.

Hope that clears it up Gondola.

[gondola]

To which I responded:

Not quite. You state that there was no chance he would be selected. On the contrary, there was every chance. In fact the internal vote was marginal, as you know, and swung in favour of the other candidate by the vote of just one member. Thus had that member voted the other way, Safdar would now be the Labour Party candidate for the Central Ward.

In the press, you have been reported to say that his prearrangement with the tories 'was just one of the reasons he was not selected'. I put it to you that the prearrangement had no influence in his selection. If it had, he would not have been put forward for the selection process. The only reason that he was not selected was because he marginally lost out (by one vote) to the other candidate in an internal selection process. There is little point in avoiding the truth.

[gondola]

His final response on the issue was:

First of all you know a lot more than me. I have just had it confirmed Safdar lost by one vote.

So Gondola, for you to be at the centre of Asian politics in Central Ward, seemingly backing Safdar (Lab to Tory defector) BUT against Mr Allah Dad (Tory chair of Taxi Licensing) is interesting.

Safdar had old Labour supporters voting for him becuase if his years in the party, and Ayub the younger members voting for him because they wanted change.

The Safdar to Tory pact is now well documented, he had cut a deal ahead of selection. The deal was not exactly known but his daliances where. I am told Safdar's flirtations with the Tories over many years led to the younger Central Ward Labour Party members voting for Ayub.

All very interesting

[gondola]

I note from the local press, that Councillor Jones asserts that there have been 'mutterings and rumblings' about licensing issues for years. Further, he is said to have indicated that 'Councillor Britcliffe knows there are skeletons in the cupboard'

Perhaps Mr Jones would care to elaborate. Moreover, do such skeletons infer that there are other cases of reinstatement of licences when clearly the facts suggested a decision to the contrary would have been more appropriate.

No point sitting on the fence Mr Jones. Let's have it out.

[gondola]

In fact, i think residents of Hyndburn ought to take up the issue with the Member Of Parliament. Perhaps they should ask him if he considers it right and proper that a councillor that downplays the significance of a taxi driver assaulting a female passenger, should be part of a committee formalising strategy on community safety.

[gondola]

I rather cheerfully recommend that those Councillors on the Judicial Committee that reinstated the licence resign their postions on this Commitee, effective immediately. It is readily obvious to most constituents they represent that their judgement is at best flawed, possibly worse (I decline further commentary on this issue at this stage for fear of making an egregious remark).

The decision in itself was remarkable, but was made more deplorable by the fact that one Committee member was female (Councillor M.Haworth), and another member (Councillor A. Dad) is a representative on the Community Safety and Wellbeing Committee.

This is an absurd joke

[Less]

Originally Posted by gondola

This thread has been set up to encourage discussion about Councillors in Hyndburn, and the extent to which they represent those that elect them.
Discuss.

If you had been bothered to do a search of the site you would have found that the members of accyweb do not need encouragement to discuss our local councillors.

Nor, do we need you to finish your post with discuss, if we find it interesting we will discuss, if we don't then we won't discuss, this isn't a college course on Social Studies it is a local forum.

[entwisi]

I also would have a lot more respect for you gondola if you were to reveal your true identity and stopped trying to make your posts look like you swallowed a thesaurus. I make full use of the Queens English but I am finding your posts tiresome to read as you feel you must use 'elaborate' language when a good old plain simple answer would suffice.

Come on be brave either let us know who you are (as teh people you seem fond of attacking have done) or shut up. My father told me "always be prepared to put your name to what you say or don't say owt at all"

[Gayle]

I suspect Gondola is unable to reveal his/her true identity as it would probably jeopardise his/her job.

I can understand and appreciate that because there are times when using my real name has meant that I've been unable to say what I really think or spill the dirt on something. I suspect that there are many people in Scaitcliffe House who are also currently trying to find out who Gondola is.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Gayle

I suspect Gondola is unable to reveal his/her true identity as it would probably jeopardise his/her job.

I can understand and appreciate that because there are times when using my real name has meant that I've been unable to say what I really think or spill the dirt on something. I suspect that there are many people in Scaitcliffe House who are also currently trying to find out who Gondola is.

i suspect theres one or two on here doing the same.

[entwisi]

Originally Posted by Gayle

I suspect Gondola is unable to reveal his/her true identity as it would probably jeopardise his/her job.

I can understand and appreciate that because there are times when using my real name has meant that I've been unable to say what I really think or spill the dirt on something. I suspect that there are many people in Scaitcliffe House who are also currently trying to find out who Gondola is.

I find it rather sad that individuals feel they can't say what they think for fear of reprisals. After all, isn't that exactly what we see as one of the main problems in the communist states?

The question that I would like to ask then is if gondola(or even yourself Gayle) disagrees with something such that you feel you can't write about it here or anywhere else in the public domain under your own identity what are you doing to protest about it? If it was a reasonably regular occurrance then I would be questioning why I was doing the job in the first place. Perhaps I have more scruples than some but I would find it impossible to keep my mouth shut for the sake of a wage packet.

[flashy]

well he seems to have got you lot wound up good n proper