Hyndburn to be axed. - Page 41

katex · 02-11-2007, 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Me too Garinda .. got the impression he was not offering any sort of persuasion either way until he had more of the financial costs, which I haven't seen forthcoming as yet

Oh dear , just got me Observer today and although he appears to be in favour says not making any decision personally until he has more details of financial costs, etc from Councillor Britcliffe. Also what the public have to say at public meetings. Thought best to put the record straight.

Your fault Garinda .. you misled me ...

garinda · 02-11-2007, 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Oh dear , just got me Observer today and although he appears to be in favour says not making any decision personally until he has more details of financial costs, etc from Councillor Britcliffe. Also what the public have to say at public meetings. Thought best to put the record straight.

Your fault Garinda .. you misled me ...

Therefore, according to the Observer, he is personally in favour of the name change.

I'd like to know his reasoning.

katex · 02-11-2007, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Therefore, according to the Observer, he is personally in favour of the name change.

I'd like to know his reasoning.

Ok .. see what you are saying .. has an opinion, but making himself look good by asking for reports first, but possibly won't change his mind .. am I on the same wavelength here ?

garinda · 02-11-2007, 19:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Ok .. see what you are saying .. has an opinion, but making himself look good by asking for reports first, but possibly won't change his mind .. am I on the same wavelength here ?

Yes, as far as I understand it, he's personally in favour of the change, but his party, Labour, haven't decided yet, as it depends on the costings they've asked for.

katex · 02-11-2007, 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Yes, as far as I understand it, he's personally in favour of the change, but his party, Labour, haven't decided yet, as it depends on the costings they've asked for.

Grrr ... this still drives me crazy Garinda .. I always vote for the person in local elections and expect them to vote independently as they see fit !! Still don't understand why they behave like sheep on local issues. Perhaps I am too thick to understand, but wish they had the guts to vote in a way they truly believe .. please tell me if I am misguided.

garinda · 02-11-2007, 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Grrr ... this still drives me crazy Garinda .. I always vote for the person in local elections and expect them to vote independently as they see fit !! Still don't understand why they behave like sheep on local issues. Perhaps I am too thick to understand, but wish they had the guts to vote in a way they truly believe .. please tell me if I am misguided.

I think the Labour party are doing the right thing, not deciding until all the true costs are revealed, but I'd like to know Graham Jone's reasons for personally thinking this is a good idea.

Gayle · 02-11-2007, 20:49

The best a councillor can do if they object to the party line is abstain.

The reason that they are formed into parties is so that they can do more good as a collective than individually. A council full of independent councillors would mean that everyone would be pulling in different directions. You have to have policies and you have to agree to them as a group to get anything done.

Neil · 02-11-2007, 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

The reason that they are formed into parties is so that they can do more good as a collective than individually.

That brings us back nicely to Willows Hyndborg

katex · 02-11-2007, 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

The best a councillor can do if they object to the party line is abstain.

The reason that they are formed into parties is so that they can do more good as a collective than individually. A council full of independent councillors would mean that everyone would be pulling in different directions. You have to have policies and you have to agree to them as a group to get anything done.

Sorry Gayle .. still do not get it what 'policy' does this cover as a Labour Councillor then as opposed to the other parties ? Are you saying that you would have gone along with the Labour party, if you had been voted in, than with your true judgement on this issue, which you have expressed as being against. Why would Independents be pulling in different directions ?.. just 'yes' or 'no' as far as I can ascertain

OK .. Councillor Jones .. answer Garinda's question then ? Why do you 'personally' think that you may be in favour of this change ?

Gayle · 02-11-2007, 21:33

There is such a thing as a party Whip. Basically, the decision is made as a group and then you have to go along with the Whip.

When I had my initial interview to see if I could be a candidate I was asked precisely the question that you asked Katie. My answer was that 'if the whip wanted me to vote in a way that I was completely opposed to then I would abstain from the vote rather than voting for or against'. This is one of the reasons that I really don't like politics and I feel like I had a very lucky escape by not being voted in. Politics is by it's very nature a case of wheeling and dealing and sometimes this means that you have to conceed something to get something else.

I think that Graham is waiting to see the true cost of the change over in monetary terms but also the potential cost in votes.

katex · 03-11-2007, 10:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Yes, as far as I understand it, he's personally in favour of the change, but his party, Labour, haven't decided yet, as it depends on the costings they've asked for.

Thanks Gayle, sorta' understand it all, particularly at National level, but locally just defeats me.

Garinda, does it mean that Peter Britcliffe's (Conservatives) party have aleady made up their minds then without seeing any of the costs or are they just willing to trot after their leader sweeping up his droppings ?

Gayle · 03-11-2007, 12:54

I think this could be a real vote loser for some people, which is why it's no longer a foregone conclusion. There is considerable resistence to the name change in Great Harwood and Oswaldtwistle particularly - both these areas have a strong Conservative representation.

garinda · 03-11-2007, 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

I think this could be a real vote loser for some people, which is why it's no longer a foregone conclusion. There is considerable resistence to the name change in Great Harwood and Oswaldtwistle particularly - both these areas have a strong Conservative representation.

...and that's just at the idea of a name change, never mind when the true financial costs are revealed.

Although I live in Ossy, that is beside the point. I'd still be totally against the idea if I lived in Accrington.

Ianto.W. · 03-11-2007, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

The best a councillor can do if they object to the party line is abstain.

The reason that they are formed into parties is so that they can do more good as a collective than individually. A council full of independent councillors would mean that everyone would be pulling in different directions. You have to have policies and you have to agree to them as a group to get anything done.

A Council full of independents is better than an autocratic dictator such a PB, there would be some common ground for independents to work on I'm sure. Councillors do not spend enough time getting the views of the people that elected them, and to much time following the local party line. As on the Hyndburn/Accrington issue do as Peter says or else.
As for Labour sitting on the fence, they will vote for the change, it is a handy lever for them to get something they want. PB is paranoid about this name change, he is detemined to get his way on the issue by hook or by krook.

Gayle · 03-11-2007, 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ianto.W.

A Council full of independents is better than an autocratic dictator such a PB, there would be some common ground for independents to work on I'm sure. Councillors do not spend enough time getting the views of the people that elected them, and to much time following the local party line. As on the Hyndburn/Accrington issue do as Peter says or else.
As for Labour sitting on the fence, they will vote for the change, it is a handy lever for them to get something they want. PB is paranoid about this name change, he is detemined to get his way on the issue by hook or by krook.

I agree with most of what you've said here Ianto. The only thing I disagree with is the amount of time Councillors spend getting the views of the people that elected them - I think they do. They are accessible 24 hrs a day and are always willing to listen. They can't call a referendum on every single point and we're already in danger of being 'consulted' to death. Almost everything has to have a 'consultation' these days and there are endless meetings. Take for example the name change - meetings, area council meetings, questionnaires, etc - they do nothing but consult. If you want to make your views known to a councillor then it is incredibly easy to do so.