Ex-Mayor in charity storm. - Page 5

Neil · 08-06-2008, 11:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

See the poll in the Observer has gone to:-

Yes .. 20%
No ... 80%

Another Tory voter then.

How can you vote if you don't know what you voting for exactly.
Should have alternative of 'don't understand a blooming word'

Someone must have opened a can of Tory voters overnight then Kate

katex · 08-06-2008, 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

Someone must have opened a can of Tory voters overnight then Kate

Oh my goodness Neil !! ... thought you were winding me up then

I promise I looked at this not more than an hour ago, and it had shifted slightly, but was showing something like:-

Yes .. 21%
No .... 79%

Just in the last hour then !!

Maybe someone has rallied the troups then..

andrewb · 08-06-2008, 11:25

The Observer article is clear as mud in an opaque box.

As I understand it, a joint venture with the charities and the mayoral fund was established. The idea being that the charity raises money and the mayoral fund would provide them with an additional 10% as an incentive. The 10% raised was from conventional methods.

Doug Hays clearly doesn't agree with the idea. I, however, think it is great and has clearly produced a huge result, whilst remaining completely legal and doing everything within the rules.

katex · 08-06-2008, 11:43

Eeew hek, the 'yes's' are going up more .. that you Andrew ?

Well, must be a lot of people out there who understand it .. feeling inadequate

(or not .. just voting 'cause they support Cllr. Dobson).. your explanation is no different than the Observer.

I will not vote on this until I have the full details of whether that £ 90,000 is a truistic figure, and not embroiled in 'slightly embroidered' spin.

Would love to know if Jaysay has voted 'yes', even though he admits to not understanding it.

andrewb · 08-06-2008, 11:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Eeew hek, the 'yes's' are going up more .. that you Andrew ?

Well, must be a lot of people out there who understand it .. feeling inadequate

(or not .. just voting 'cause they support Cllr. Dobson).. your explanation is no different than the Observer.

I will not vote on this until I have the full details of whether that £ 90,000 is a truistic figure, and not embroiled in 'slightly embroidered' spin.

Yes it's me, I'm avidly running around family homes voting to save face.

£90,000 was raised in total. £10,000 was raised by conventional methods. The other £80,000 was raised by charities, and then given back to them with an additional 10% (from the £10,000 conventional methods).

The 'controversial' part being that the charities have been given an incentive to raise their own money, where as in the past only the conventional method was used, with the money going to a nominated charity.

Is this any clearer? If not which bit is it that I am still covering with mud.

jaysay · 08-06-2008, 11:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Eeew hek, the 'yes's' are going up more .. that you Andrew ?

Well, must be a lot of people out there who understand it .. feeling inadequate

(or not .. just voting 'cause they support Cllr. Dobson).. your explanation is no different than the Observer.

I will not vote on this until I have the full details of whether that £ 90,000 is a truistic figure, and not embroiled in 'slightly embroidered' spin.

Would love to know if Jaysay has voted 'yes', even though he admits to not understanding it.

I'm no synic kate of course I voted yes, just on the grounds of party unity you understand

katex · 08-06-2008, 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

I'm no synic kate of course I voted yes, just on the grounds of party unity you understand

Well, good on ya' for admitting it Jaysay ..

Andrew: I do understand the incentive, etc., but what puzzles me is would these 'partners' not have raised most of this money in their own right anyway ?

andrewb · 08-06-2008, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Well, good on ya' for admitting it Jaysay ..

Andrew: I do understand the incentive, etc., but what puzzles me is would these 'partners' not have raised most of this money in their own right anyway ?

I see what you mean, I suppose we'd have to look at what these charities raised last year for the answer to that.

cashman · 08-06-2008, 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Well, good on ya' for admitting it Jaysay .. :

wouldn't have expected owt else the guys as sound as pound, even if he is a tory.

jaysay · 08-06-2008, 13:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

wouldn't have expected owt else the guys as sound as pound, even if he is a tory.

Thanks cashy your a gent, and congrats for reaching 10,000 post

WillowTheWhisp · 08-06-2008, 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Yes it's me, I'm avidly running around family homes voting to save face.

£90,000 was raised in total. £10,000 was raised by conventional methods. The other £80,000 was raised by charities, and then given back to them with an additional 10% (from the £10,000 conventional methods).

The 'controversial' part being that the charities have been given an incentive to raise their own money, where as in the past only the conventional method was used, with the money going to a nominated charity.

Is this any clearer? If not which bit is it that I am still covering with mud.

So, if I'm following this correctly, the actual mayoral raising of money only totalled £10,000 - not £90,000? So why is it being said that he raised it all when the charities raised most of it themselves? Maybe that's what the complaining is all about, taking credit for something which was not entirely his to take credit for.

katex · 08-06-2008, 14:14

'BY JOVE, THINK I HAVE GOT IT AT LAST!' thanks to everybody's input on here.

Ok, the support he gave his partners plus the 10% bribe (whoops sorry incentive), generated extra income from their last year's figures; we don't know this though do we ? and always difficult to judge how much his presence at their events has produced any extra.

We don't know where the 10% extra was drawn from .. wouldn't be fair to draw from the normal Mayoral events .. would take monies from other charities then, wouldn't it ?

Really only the extra from last year (difficult to tell if they would have raised this anyway) that his partners raised should have been included in the total figure in my way of thinking, and not the extra 10% either if taken from the general fund (well, maybe, was raised and just shuffled about) We do not know if this was paid from his own pocket or not .. but, if it was, would just be considered as a donation so could be included I suppose ..

Can understand past Mayors and the current Mayor feeling a little miffed by the way the figure has been presented, as not entirely correct, and to rub salt into the wound, he was boasting that he had raised 5 times more than any other Mayor.

Not saying wasn't helpful to the charites that donated either, or illegal, does just appear to be an electioneering tactic to me.

Think I may have confused meself even more..

WillowTheWhisp · 08-06-2008, 14:16

Now you've confused me because that's not what I thought!

katex · 08-06-2008, 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

Now you've confused me because that's not what I thought!

Well, it was basically Willow ..just that some of his partners raise money anyway.

Suppose the Hyndburn Sea Cadets only raised £15,000 last year; this year they raised £20,000 + 10%, only £5,000 net should be shown, as Cllr Dobson will take credit on this for his support, but can never tell if due to this. He has taken the whole monies raised into his fund.

WillowTheWhisp · 08-06-2008, 14:24

Now that sounds similar to what I was thinking.

SO did he actually raise any himself?