I know that this blog article is going to make me mightily unpopular in some quarters of the Stoke-on-Trent political arena, but here goes.
Following on from my last post about the far right England First Party, which was fantastically well received, I climb up on my soapbox for round two.
You see i have a real worry about the upcoming local council elections, in fact I would go as far as to say it is boarding on a mortal fear, that our city will end up with a load of councillors that are in it for all the wrong reasons.
My fears were further realised following a disturbing telephone conversation with an ex-member of the Labour Party here in Stoke-on-Trent.
It appears there is a group of disenfranchised ex-Labour party members that are to throw their hats in the ring and are to seek election to the City Council with their number one priority to smear the Labour Party and its candidates as opposed to actually wanting to represent their communities.
I admit that I was absolutely flabbergasted by this revelation.
These people are to focus their campaign on what the Labour Party have done to them in the past, how the Labour party has broken their own rules [in their opinion anyway] and they are to publicly smear some of the Labour candidates.
I’m sure that you don’t need me to mention their names in this article, but you will know who I mean when I describe them as the usual suspects.
It would appear that the labour Party’s crime is to select 44 candidates to fight every available seat across the City.
They stand accused of not producing a manifesto on which to fight the election and they are definitely guilty of fielding candidates that are not legitimate and have been selected by the Regional Office so the dissenters claim.
One poor candidate that has got it coming to her is Alison Wedgwood, her crime? She doesn’t live in the City according to this group. “We are going to nail her” was the phrase used. She won’t be the only one.
This group are marketing themselves as “Ëœoriginal Labour’ ““ you know, a throwback to those halcyon days when the Labour Party that the ultimate power in our city. A time when all 60 candidates were Labour and the only arguments, and there was a few, were between themselves.
But those days were blighted by some of the most monumental cock ups in our city’s history. The Cultural Quarter, World Gate, the Britannia Stadium deal to name just a few ““ hardly the city’s finest period of history, do we really want to go back there?
In fact it is rumoured that Barry Stockley, the Council Leader at the time of those Keystone Kops like incidents will stand in the election alongside the usual suspects against an official Labour candidate thus ending his long association with the party.
None of current crop of Labour councillors were in office at the time of the darkest days in our council’s history.
Please don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying vote Labour in this post.
As I have said in the past we will have a real choice of candidates in these elections ranging from mainstream parties, community councillors from the City Independent Group and Community Voice, and true Independents who seek to serve their communities and wards and to help make the areas in which they live a better place.
But we have a duty to vote for councillors who will make a real difference to the city.
By and large we will have a single councillor to represent the majority of wards across the city and we will be stuck with them for four whole years. If we vote in the wrong calibre of person we will be able to repent at leisure.
I therefore ask a genuine question.
Do we really want to vote in a group of individuals or are standing against a party, it’s rules and regulations [or the lack of them] and it’s candidates?
Do we genuinely care if this crew were thrown on the scrap heap for having a different ideology to that of the modern day Labour party?
Why should we the general public get embroiled in a war between factions when the likelihood is that it will be us that get caught in the crossfire whilst the two opposing sides will be battling it out?
Are we really bothered who is right and who is wrong in this dispute?
Activists fall out with their parties every day, just like in the case of Shaun Bennett. But the fundamental difference here is that Shaun has walked away and is standing for the City Independents. He hasn’t spat his dummy and is standing on an anti-Conservative agenda.
It has been said that the Community Voice group is made up largely of ex-Labourites and that’s true. But Community Voice have their own identity. They have their own set of political principles. They will seek election on a set of their own pledges. To their enormous credit they rejected a number of advances from this “Ëœoriginal Labour’ group because they did not want to go down the anti-Labour route why? – Because they have their own vision.
And what of the suggestion that the City labour Party have no agenda?
My understanding is that the Labour collective will have a very definite set of priorities, policies and pledges that will be communicated to the electorate during the election campaigns.
So in summary I find myself pleading with all communities to use their votes wisely.
The majority of us will be represented by a single councillor, we will be stuck with him or her for four long years, so let’s get the right ones in eh?
Whether you are far left, left, middle, right or god help us far right, let’s get people into the chamber who want to put communities ahead of their own personal vendetta’s.
We want people who will support, represent and help the elderly, the disadvantaged and vulnerable in our society and we want councillors who are progressive and can improve the areas in which we live.
If I lived in a ward where there is an “Ëœoriginal Labour’ candidate standing I would be “Ëœnailing’ them to be open and transparent for their reasons on why they are seeking election. I would be “Ëœnailing’ them on what they intend to do to stand up for their ward. I would be nailing them to say what their priorities are.
And if one of them gave an answer which contained what the Labour Party did to them, or which rule it did not follow, or how the candidate selection was wrong, or why a certain candidate should not be standing ““ I would shut the door in their faces. Their leaflets would be flushed down the toilet so that it can meet the other sewage that lurks in the city’s drains.
No doubt my politics will be “Ëœnailed’ as a result of this article. I simply do not care. Anyone who reads my articles [10's of thousands] and the people who know me personally [hundreds] know that I have socialist principles but when it comes to the local election, my family and I always vote for those who we think will best represent our community and who will do the most for the people who live in it.
Apart from the BNP and heaven forbid the England First Party that applies to pretty much any candidate.
Here, here. I think this is something we can all agree with and can sign up to.
There are so many good candidates out there from all parties and none that deserve to be elected.
Voters need to be able to SUPPORT something, not just vote AGAINST something.
Now I’ve never said there is no place in an election campaign for some negative…in moderation. That is just part of the hurley-burley of election campaigning. But if as candidates we fail to put the positive rather than just the negative then we will be failing the city and letting the voters down.
Too right!
Spot on – I don’t give a shit about he did, she didn’t, a big boy did it then ran away or even my dad is bigger than your dad!
What I want is a councillor that put him/herself out for the people of their ward. I want someone who will do the best for the city when they are in the chamber.
I am a proud Labour voter but I agree with young Wally here, if Labour selected a candidate that didn’t quite do it form me, I’d vote elsewhere. We won’t be short of alternatives.
You only have to read this site to measure the extremes. Terry who’d do it for nowt and as he is as thick as pig shit, it’s the only way he will get to do it.
Gary who fought for Blair until the death who now apparently hates the red rosette with a passion and often these days agrees with racists and Tories just because he seeks some kind of approval from anywhere.
We were promised a legal case against the labour party around this time last year, where is it cos it’s all gone quiet over there! Just shows how the old left rear guard have got themselves so much out of kilter with the rest of socialism if they think normal folk give a flying fig about there angst against the current policy makers of the local Labour party.
Labour aren’t perfect I’ll admit, but they are a damn site better than a bunch of tired old left wingers who think that are the bee all an end all to humankind! Dream on guys… dream on
The BNP seem to be getting more & more popular in stoke (from what im hearing on the streets) It seems very likely that they will win a big chunk of councillors on may 5th
Well said, Tony. These ‘Original Labour’ clowns have no principles beyond their egos. Come the election the good people of Stoke-on-Trent will reject them.
Can’t disagree with a single word written in this honest and forthright article.
I have lived in Milton for many years and every time I read something that is written by Gary I am more convinced that he is completely unsuitable for public office.
Let those who want to do good stand and those who want to make mischief fail miserably!
Reject these negatives out of hand we only want the positives here.
Fran
Milton.
KATIE PRICE SAYS:
I agree wiv everthink yoo say Tone and I think that gary is a twa…cos he won’t marry me an fu….. my brains out!
I fink that globaw warmink is the biggest probs we have tonight. Just look at Japan where them Japanese hang owt.
They buid a newclear plant on a geolgkal fault line and wunder why a suenami broke it.
I hate anyone who doesn’t luv labour cos labour loves me.
Colonal Gaddaffy should be shot for not letting them people with guns kill people in their way.
Them protestors in London the uvver day broke windows and should be shot as well and them stewdents.
Why protest about losing your job, just get your ti$s out like me 4 the lads.
You r a wise man Toney and yu should go far and print the City magazine for Laybor and doo there internet for them.Cash talks. Tell me about it!
Anyway got 2 go now cos Im tweeting.
By the way Toney:
GREAT ARTICLE AND A FANTASTIC READ THE BESTEST IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD WORTHY OF HIGHER PUBLICVACATION.
Gary says: Find me a more negative article with more vitoil and malice than this one and I’ll buy a round in.
Jackie from Miggleport says:
Gary, you have printed off 20,000 leaflets to go round Tunstall slagging off labour for shutting services. You are a tw$t!
Gary says: and your point is?
Donald from Disneyland says: Quack quack..we want good honest upstanding ducks who will shut our care homes down with pride!
Gary says: I don’t.
Mark M from ‘Birches Head’ writes: I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth-so help me God”.
Gary responds: Tell it to the Judge Mark.
Ross from Trentham writes: Gary you ARE a tw£t and nothing will convince me otherwise.
Gary: No-one’s trying-SCHOOL KILLER!
Gary writes: So Labour won’t attack the Conservatives and Conservatives won’t attack Labour and no-one will defame anyone else.What sweet little things they are being bullied by nasty opponents out to sack them.
It’s a crime I’s call it.
Yeah.
As I’ve said, I agree with the thrust of the article.
Having said that, I don’t think its fair to pick on Gary and his allies in particular as some have done here.
I’m sure that they feel hard done to by the Labour Party-and I don’t blame them for it. Naturally they have some scores to settle and issues to put to rest.
If this were the ONLY reason for them standing-to harm the Labour Party-then I agree it would be unwise.
But Gary, Barry Stockley and others have also surely got other reasons to stand. They stood for Labour for many years until their falling out and presumably had entirely community spirited reasons for doing so (even if I disagree with their choice of ideology).
Yes local politics is a party political battleground at election time, but on the whole it is also a place where genuinely interested local people come forward for genuinely good reasons to serve their local community.
I will argue with Gary, Barry Stockley and others for as long as they like when it comes to their ideology. But I would never question their committment to do what they think is best for the city…even if they are wrong and misguided
Gary has given me some valued and friendly advice in the past which I have taken note of, so I hope he will allow me to return the favour.
So I say to Gary and his allies: don’t be deflected. Keep saying what you think has to be said and doing what you think has to be done. But the wise man will not let themselves appear obsessed with personal grudges to the exclusion of all else.
I’m sure Gary and his allies are generally wise. They’ll put some positive cases to voting for them when the time comes.
Fran from Miwton:
My shrink says I AM suitable for public office-now that I’m ‘cured’.
Just for the record, in all Countries that rig and fix elections (Stoke-on-Trent/Sunday Telegraph, Sunday Times,Guardian, all online e papers, BBCTV, CH4,ITV,CH5,All BBC Radio, Le Monde etc…)
All opponents of fixing,rigging elections and imposing candidates to thwart local democracy, are considered mental and put in a mental prison.
In Stoke, we accept it as the norm.
Nb. Stoke is the laughing stock of the UK.
Gary.
You kind of prove my point here don’t you?
Why don’t you reply to the points raised in the article instead of rambling on and on?
I notice that you don’t deny any of it.
Thank god Abbey Hulton will have to put up with you. Seriously do you expect to receive public support when you post rubbish like this?
Also, why do you ridicule other commentators? You don’t own this site. I would imagine people are put off by your nastiness.
Gary, you my mate have just made yourself look the biggest Richard Edward this site, no I’ll take it further, this city as ever seen. No one cares what Labour did to you or any bugger, you don’t like the party line and leave, you do it with a bit of dignerty. The last think you do is spout the bull crap you just have, and you have been spouting it for coming up to over a year now and, I’ll tell you something, we are pig sick of hearing the old garbage.
Now, as I have said on other posts today, I have gone down the civic centre this morning and made it official, I’ll be running, so help me God, in the ward of South Meir or Meir South or whatever they want to call it. I’ll now gladly state my reasons, witch are far better then having some axe to grind away with anyone. I think that this city, controlled as it is by a council totally obsessed with parties can not work in that way and that good people who what to represent an area are controled by these parties.
I have thoughts that are very much Labour, I will admit that, I have also seen Libdem thoughts in my thinking, in some ways, I agree with some things the BNP have to say, in that we need to look at aid being given to others when our own are haveing there own problems and we need to get a better grip on who is comeing into the UK, if only to protect what jobs we have. I have never had Consirvative thoughts that I can remember but there you go, I was always in a job under Thatcher (spit) and Major, so that can’t be to bad can it.
I don’t like polities, but if you ignore it, you will get nowhere, the city suffers because of it, but its the way the world runs, and diffracies in the way we do things will always be there.
I’v never been one who likes to be told ‘you do this, this way’, its what makes me me. I just would not fit in with a party, thats why I never joined one, simpel as that.
Now, I feel I have a lot to offer this city, I care for its people, I was born hear, I grew up hear, god dame it, I love Stoke on Trent. I don’t want to see it hurt any more, that’s why in stepping up to the plate, not because someone said this or someone did that, because it needs people to sit on a council, and them people need to be voted on. If you just walked in and started making talking, hell I’d have been doing it years ago.
And yes Terry, I’ll want at lest some money for the work I’ll do if I get in.
I’m Spartacus or a member of “ËœOriginal Labour’ anyway; although I’m not sure there is anything to be a member of actually.
As I understand it we are more of a discussion group of like minded individuals than a political party. Some people who attend, not me this time, are standing as candidates in the local elections as independents, there is no Original Labour ticket.
The name is pretty much a giveaway, we did all belong to the Labour Party and have been vocal in our criticism of its practices and policies, but I’d don’t get the impression that anyone is out to smear Labour or anyone else. However if there are awkward questions to be asked it is only right that a candidate for election does so.
As for our ideology, the Kremlin isn’t returning our calls these days so we have indeed had to revert to an “Ëœoutdated ideology’, one that has been causing trouble since the time of the ancient Greeks; it’s called democracy.
Old vs Nu this election will now clearly show if Nu Labour have completely lost its grass root connections.
Labour supporters will finally have the choice of voting for local old skool labour and not the Nu imported centralised Labour that has been forced on Stoke.
This should have happened long ago
Terry who’d do it for nowt and as he is as thick as pig shit, it’s the only way he will get to do it.
Here we go again.
Just where have I said I’d do it for nowt.
Lets stick to the truth for a change.
There was a time we did not pay our councillors, they did it for the people.
The quality of councillors has shown up on the front pages of the Sentinel,and not in a good light, Worldgate,Cultural Quarter, Stoke City, Westcliffe, and a city that resembles a bomb site etc etc, the list goes on and on.
So paying them as not been a great success has it.
As I have said many times, until we get councillors that can work together for the good of the city irrespective of political party, we will keep going down.
Lets see how many officers and councillors survive 4 years without getting locked up???
Well done Tony excellent piece and very true.
If ‘nu’ Labour has no grass roots then ‘old’ Labour are weeds, or at least in Garys case he must have smoked a lot of it!
When ‘old’ Labour candidates stood at elections last year they got derisory numbers of votes. How did Gary Elsby manage to poll fewer votes across an entire constituency (399 in Stoke-on-Trent Central) than Mick Williams did in a single ward (429 in Hartshill & Penkhull)? It was one hell of an achievement, Gary must have really had to work at it!
Ian – can you tell me the difference between Independents, City Independents and Lee Wangers Independents4U because I can’t fathom it? And I’m wondering why have you never spoken out about the child porn conviction of Lee Wanger, I wonder if he’s got something on you!
This is sad but not surprising , a sad part of the political game , no doubt these are the same people that when they ruled the roost held the city back by never getting investment in , preferring to play games whilst many other post industrial cities moved on .
People should only join the council to serve the people and improve the city for the greater good, service not power should be their motivation
Stokie John Henry, is there a difference? to me there all the same independents who all believe in “voting for the person and not the party”
for example their are CIG members I personally would never vote for but a lot do hence their election, and some I would vote for and admire.
Child Porn, rape, murder all bad, don’t do it.
I’m now in a position to respond to the malice posted in Tony’s article.
1. The point of standing as Original Labour is fantasy and that name does not exist.
2. The intended ‘smears’ that Tony writes of must mean a legitimate challenge put out by other candidates fighting a ward where they may claim a breach of the rules. Tony’s lack of knowledge of these matters may bring him to the assumption that it is wrong for one canddiate to question another’s legitimacy in the election. I gather ten Labour candidates are to be challenged with the City legal department.
3. I count, upi to now, around 4 definites and possible ten others who are former Labour members not standing on a Labour ticket. Get over it.
4. Barry Stockley is a loyal Labour Party member who is not allowed to stand for Labour for the next three years. He is busy putting out ‘Vote Terry Crowe’ leaflets around Berryhill.
5. One former Labour Councillor is to stand in the ward where he lives and has served on the Council for 20 years. He says: “I have done more public service in this City in one day than Tony Whalley has done in his whole life.” (oooooooohhh that hurts!)
6. The claim of Labour having no manifesto on which to stand (as last year-before joining up with the Tories) still stands and can easily be rectified.
The claim that Labour’s NEC has again imposed candidates without members voting is correct.
7.Each one of the none Labour members who are attacked in the article above, has stood in elections in this City, almost every year for 30,30, 20, and 4 years. What is different this time Tony?
8. Are you being paid by this Labour/Conservative/Liberal/Independent Council for any service you kindly offer? Is it a proposal to pay you by this Conservative/Labour/Liberal/Independent Council?
9.I am standidng in this election. Get over it.
I was the first person to put my name down. So what?
Smear a Labour candidate? Do you mean inform the residents of what they are voting for?
10. Original Labour? No. True Labour? Nearly. Any Labour? No. Smrear Labour? As if.
11. You wrote the article above because you somehow give the impression that everything is OK in our Governance intervention, Boundary changing, Transition board, basket case City that is a bombsite. In other words, you shit yourself in public on behalf of those that did it.
You blame us and me (I blame Mick Williams standing in Birches Head).
12. I was ‘nailed’ by Tristram Hunt supporters for filming a BBC2 Documentary in Middleport.
“Shame on you Gary for making Stoke look like a shithole and a bomb site and just showing boarded up houses. Our City is lovely”
I offered a prize if they could show that the BBC were somehow wrong.
There were no takers.
Andrew Neil spoke to around 50 people who gathered.
The Sentinel ran the story of our ‘lovely City’ yesterday.
Personally, I think the article is offensive, has no grounds for complaint and is intended to ‘nail’ a few people who wish to represent their communities.
Juvenile politics and very very sub-standard.
The un-named critics are assumed, as always, to be of the same keyboard.
Gary, that’s interesting. Mick Williams is standing in Birches Head, you say, nowhere near where he lives, and in a place he has absolutely no connection and has done absolutely nothing for that community? Presumably so that he can purely spitefully stand against Labour’s Mark Meredith, who incidentally also does not live in that ward and has done absolutely nothing for that community. Rather proves Tony Walley’s point, don’t you think?
Are you suggesting that candidates should only stand where they live?
My understanding is that Mick William’s agent lives in that ward and was the original choice to do so.
Mick Williams chose that ward way before any other candidate made an offer.A final decision will be made next week.
The only two people who didn’t know where to stand was me and one other.
I’m known in two areas the UK and Baddeley Green so it was much more difficult for me.
I take your point of Mark Meredith and I didn’t realise he was from there, but Paul Breeze an Elected Mayor sycophant will be our entertainment over there.
If you dodn’t know Mick Williams, then I can assure you, Mick Williams will decide where he stands and no-one else.
Yours in Democ…….
Gary, have the guts to run anywhere south of Longton Train station. Go on, see what bloody well happens.
With the ward changes and reduced Cllr numbers it not going be possible for every one to stand in the ward they live.
Much as that would be ideal situation
Paul Breeze – elected mayor sycophant? Don’t be ridiculous. He believed in and supported the elected mayor system as a principled position, and stood by his principles by leading the city wide campaign to keep it. How does that make him a sycophant? I know Paul very well; he lives in the ward where I live, and I supported him when he stood was a mayoral candidate in 2002, and I support him now as a no party candidate in this local election. This election is not about ‘entertainment’; it’s about choosing people, as Tony rightly says in his article, who are dedicated people who will work their socks off for the people in their communities. Paul Breeze is exactly that sort of person. I don’t want embittered ex-politicos with a grudge constantly trying to score points. Mick Williams won’t stand a cat in hell’s chance in Northwood and Birches Head.
Then listen to Paul Breeze’s radio Stoke interview of which he describes the following in glorious technicolour.
Tristram Hunt
Norsheen Bhatti
Gary Elsby
Terry Follows
Brian Ward
Simon Darby
The Liberal who wouldn’t speak
The SWP person
all other candidates.
Not a sycophant ex-politico and without a grudge?
You must be joking.
Paul Breeze one utter …………..
By the way, the only people up to now who are running a vindictive and spitful campaign against candidates is this blog and nonymous ‘guests’.
Some lesson.
By the way Warren, I don’t know who rattled your cage, but the only way I’d stand in Longton is if those great Councillors and MPs you bang on about, painted that bridge.
If I stood in that ward, that bridge would be done and dusted inside six months.
I mentioned that Longton should be pedestrianised and guess what…..
When I speak the richter scale responds.
I’m not sure about the richter scale, but I know global warming watch stations around the world’s alarm bells ring when you speak. The methane monitors go off the scale!
Gary, just take a look again at the General Election results for Stoke Central 2010 and tell me who has the biggest grudge of them all:
Independent Paul Breeze 959
Independent Gary Elsby 399
City Independents Brian Ward 303
Independent Alby Walker 295
Trade Unionist Matthew Wright 133
Speaks volumes, don’t you think?
ooh that hurt webby.
I think I’ll cry.
Sure Gary, just keep wheeling out trucks of bullcrap. Your idea to pedestrians, yours and how many others, half the population of the south of the city, that’s all. Have you been involved in talks with Network Rail about the bridge, or have you talked to anyone involved, without talking down to them or spout the normal shit. You will find out its a lot more complicated then it first sounds, . By the looks of Saturdays paper mate, your not even in control of your own damed area, scream and yelling about this that and the other all the bloody time, then going OTT with anyone daring to give another side of the problem. You have bloody well lost it big time you have.
Ian Norris – I am a strong Labour supporter but also vote for the individual.
For example, in 2005 when the General and Mayor elections were on the same day I voted for Rob Flello but abstained in the Mayor election as I did not rate Mark Meredith. Labour chose the wrong candidate for Mayor and it was later proved they had.
But why do you sit on the fence over your pal Lee Wanger? He was done bang to rights by a court of law for child pornography. The twisted thing is that our election system still allows someone with this kind of conviction to stand for public office. Those who vote for him must be sick in the head.
Have you q link to interview or share it on YouTube.
Painting a bridge.
Complicated.
I hope you realise how ridiculous that is to a man of my quality.
If Labour wanted it closed, it wold be closed tomorrow, if not today.
That’s how shite it is.
“Please don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying vote Labour in this post.”(Tony)
As if we thought it.
I have watched the discussion on the website,and never fail to be amazed, the people will vote whom ever they choose, and that is democracy, that is the way it should be!I am not taking sides for any one person, or any “Political Party” i only hope that the good people of this City never vote for the once Elected Mayor Mark Meredith, it would be disasterous for this City, it was a corrupt system, that he embraced with vigour,and it left question marks, over this City`s future for years to come.Yes i campaigned against the system, that i thought was undemocratic,and succeded to a certain degree,do not give him the opportunity of taking us back another five years.
So this ex-labour group you report on say labour “are definitely guilty of fielding candidates that are not legitimate” But if that does turn out to be the case, it is a good thing that somebody addresses it because we voters deserve legitimate candidates. If it’s not the case then the labour candidates have nothing to worry about.
Isn’t the rule that you have to either live in the city, or work in the city (or rent a business address to make it look like you work in the city) in order to stand in the local election? Am I right on this? (I’m not completely sure.)
On the Alison Wedgwood issue, if she doesn’t live in the city then I would have thought this is something to be very seriously considered by the electorate. Do they really want someone from outside making decisions that affect them but not her? In that ward there are bound to be some good candidates who not only live in the city but live in the ward. Obviously I don’t know who all are standing until the lists are published but there might actually be a danger on the independent side of too many similar independent splitting their vote. Of course the other reason not to vote for Alison Wedgwood is she’s labour. I say that with my blatant anti-labour bias, but I have that for a reason, because labour in general have dictated and spun and followed the party whip to the detriment of the electorate. Look especially at how they’ve screwed our entire local voting system over.
“I’m not saying vote Labour in this post.” Glad to hear that Tony.
“we will be stuck with them for four whole years. If we vote in the wrong calibre of person we will be able to repent at leisure.” Couldn’t agree more!
“I find myself pleading with all communities to use their votes wisely.” Me too, very extensively and especially in my ward.
“Their leaflets would be flushed down the toilet so that it can meet the other sewage that lurks in the city’s drains.” I used to do something like that with leaflets from those I didn’t like. But now I don’t recommend that. In fact I recommend the opposite, especially following the Mervin Smith labour lies incident, keep the propaganda! Keep it because if they do get elected and don’t follow through with their election promises you have the evidence to protest and expose them to the electorate. Even if they don’t get elected you may want to keep it in case it’s needed for future reasons.
I have long sat on the fence with respect to negative campaigning, but I have just taken a leap off and am actively embracing the idea that negative campaigning can be valuable. Don’t get me wrong, I am a great believer in positive campaigning, knowing what candidates believe in and what they want to try to do for their wards. That’s really what we need to vote on, but provided it’s the truth! In a nice world it could well be all we need. But the world isn’t nice. So if candidates have lied, not represented their electorate, or are inclined to vote with their party whip, or another party’s whip, as a priority over their electorate, then it’s a good thing for voters to know this or be reminded of it. And it’s a valid thing for those who know it or have been affected by it to have their say. What candidates have done in the past is a good indicator of how they are likely to behave in the future, despite the spin they may put out about “Ëœlistening’, that old cliché.
To labour listening just means pretending the electorate have their say, telling them what they should believe, if they don’t agree – “Ëœexplain’ it to them again, if they still don’t agree – impose it dictatorially. To tories “Ëœlistening’ doesn’t really exist but if it does it means telling us what will happen to us because they are so superior and know best and we should just leave it up to them. That’s labour/tory in my nutshell.
I’m not very interested in party fallings out from a voting perspective, issues which are relevant to the ward and the city are far more important in deciding how to vote. But a councillor being willing to vote for the people rather than a party is very important.
“you somehow give the impression that everything is OK in our Governance intervention, Boundary changing, Transition board, basket case City that is a bombsite.”Â
On that Gary I certainly agree it is most definitely not OK, it is what labour has done very wrong, not only internally which is of less interest, but of real detriment to the city. Undemocratic.
So if neither of them live in the ward or have done anything for it, the electorate may well be better to vote for others who have. The trouble is those electorate who will just vote for the two labour candidates without thinking. What we need is for the electorate to think who is best for their ward.
Lol webby!
Good God Gary, please get a grip.
Just have a look at yourself and read back your postings.
Have you read the other posters comments? Have you seen just how much in the minority you and your group really are?
The message is loud and clear, not just to you Gary, but to all those who seek to represent us on a bogus ticket. We don’t want you! We want people who will fight for us tooth and nail and by God we will fight for the right to vote for that very person.
I guess you are on the outside of the Labour Party? Well go and take up your differences with the local MP’s or even Ed Miliband himself. Just leave us out of it yeah? We want truly local representatives, helping truly local communities.
If you are bitter and twisted about the Labour Party then take it up with them and stop being immature on this site.
Stand up and be a man for god sake and stop acting like a petulant child who needs his bottom smacked!
Bloody hell! Just have a look at the comments on this thread.
Is the lad Wally not entitled to his opinion without being absolutely mashed by Gary Elsby?
The meesage in this blog as i read it is to look at who you are voting for and on what set of principles they are standing on.
Anti-Labour and i aint interested me ducks,
Warren if I lived in your area i’d be tempted even as a Labour supporter because you have the community at heart.
I just think that Tony tells it as it is. You can agree or disagree but there it is.
Gary mate listen, you need to find another way of geeting your shit out there man because you go way over my head. Not having a go hear just saying how I see it.
Fran ‘from milton’.
You have one vote. Use it, or stand in the election and tell us what you will do, then rip me off in all of your leaflets.
Please do. See what happens.
Up to now. This blog has been proven wrong by everyone who challenges it.
I am losing the will to live quite honestly.
Gary, I don’t want to stand I want to vote – understand?
I am 48 with grown up kids and I just want to vote for a person with genuine credentials, is that too much to ask?
In my opinion, you are not worthy of my vote and I would never vote for anyone like you.
You come across as just me, me, me and I want to vote for someone who’s message is we, we, we.
This blog proves that there are people, like you and your cohorts who care about their grudges first before public duty.
The electorate should have no part in that and I Don’t think you are convincing anyone to the contrary.
Mick from ‘fegg hayes’.
I’m told 20 former Labour Councillors are signing up to my campaign and that a major city organisation is to publicly back me.
I like furry animals and any type of guinea pigs.
I also will do everything for pensioners like increasing the winter fuel allowance to £600 per annum (£700 in the winter).
I also think working tax credits should increse with age.
The gold hoard should be melted down, sold and spent on a childrens charity or given to fegg hayes social club ‘and market’.
Motgages should be free until the recession is over.
The police helicopter should give free rides for children (of voting age)(in my ward).
Bingo should be free with a minimum prize of £10k.
Allotments should be free with free greenhouses.
Critics should be given £100 and give advice of what they think of other candidates who disagree with the idea.
Thank goodness for ordinary decent clear-headed people like Fran from Milton who can see right through the likes of utter bile and nonsense of Gary Elsby and his ilk. Elsby and his cronies will be utterly wiped away in the elections and hopefully that will we the last we hear from them again for another four years because their credibility will be seen and proven to be NIL.
[quote=Nicky Davis]issues which are relevant to the ward and the city are far more important in deciding how to vote. But a councillor being willing to vote for the people rather than a party is very important.[/quote]
Which is the most important the City or the Ward? I think it must be one of the most difficult aspects of Councillors’ roles to square that particular circle if these interests collide. With an all out election, as well as electing a local representative voters have a direct influence on the overall control of the Council – which should they favour in making their decision how to vote? For example, if there is a major issue in your ward and you agree with an independent candidate’s position on that issue do you vote for them – even if you don’t agree with them (or they don’t have any position on) on City-wide issues?
Personally I think there is a strong argument for using a Mixed Member Proportional Representation system for local elections that gives you two votes, 1 for an individual locally and a Council-wide vote for who you want to control the Council which would be used to ‘top up’ seats won in individual wards. This would mean that the majority of Executive Councillors would be able to act strategically without worrying about parochial concerns (this is obviously in an ideal world!).
I know its a well worn furrow, but I also think that all out elections are preferable to voting by thirds. Whilst you can only vote every 4 years, you at least know how you vote will make a difference. We have an election in Newcastle that, barring some improbable upsets, will not see a change in control – is that worth the expense and disruption to Council business three years out of every four?
Mick…..Fegg Hayes, will you come to South Meir dude and tell them that, I’m on the level hear. I’m wanting in and its not to ‘nail’ someone, its not for the cash, its to try my damnedest, working my b**ls off and pull this city and my area up by its boot straps. The longer it goes on, the more I talk with people, the more it sticks me I’m up for this, I can do the job not only now for my area, witch I never doted, but for this city. We need 45 people who want to work on a council to turn this mess round, I’m one and there must be meny more like me. It don’t matter what party they are in, or whos done what to who in the past. we don’t need that sort of spite that the likes Elsby show, it will only get in the way of the job in hand.
How am I sitting on the fence? are you claiming I’m a member of independents4u?
Think your questions be better focused to those in independents4u.
It wasn’t proven wrong when you lost your deposit in Stoke Central.
To stand for public office suggests you have enough self confidence and belief to think that you possess more than the average political and organisational skills…
really Gary?
What are we lacking that the exceptional Mr Elsby can bring? Is it right that you are standing in the Abbey? Why not Baddeley Green, that des res with urgent anti social problems?
I can’t put it any simpler Gary – my enemy’s friend is my enemy. When I hear you attacking the Tories… when I hear you attacking the Lib Damned… I might listen. Don’t expect me to have sympathy because those speeches, carefully choreographed in front of the mirror, never came to fruition. My class is way BIGGER than you.
As for your masochistic electoral tendencies – what ever floats your boat my mate.
Waren, of the 45 people you want who need to turn this mes around, how many are already in?
Up to now warrren, your entire campaign is to show how shite I am, and I’m not standing in your ward.
I have the second biggest team in the City and I will have the biggest come the next General Election
and my funding will out-match the Labour/Conservative/Liberal Party put together.
Not bad for someone useless.
BRIAN WARD:
Yesterday’s Sentinel consisted of a story of Vanguard, the Consultants Company and the savings it’s identified.
The story runs: ‘Vanguard paid £350,000 but saves £600,000.
Brian Ward is quoted: “If I paid someone £1000 and they gave me £2000 back, I would think that is good”.
Can you spot the real story here?
Some consultancy work is needed and valid, we can’t forget that.
BUT, and it’s a huge but, with VanGuard, they’ve been there a long time, doing the work that highly paid execs and higher paid officers should be doing in the first place.
I realise that I should listen to people like you more often and completely stop litening to those voices inmy head.
I am standing in the local election this time, not a general election and so the whole process is so much different.
I am standing in Tunstall with 3000 people (2 days leaflets) as against the entire Constituency of Stoke Central of around 50,000.
Labour had 12 Months to accomplish what they set out to do. I had 4 weeks and so all failings can be explained easily.
I now have another 4 years to put everything in place. I secured massive funding 4 weeks after the General Election and I sit on it with more to come.
Because this is a local Coucil Election, I could do with your help. Unfortunately, you are not in my ward but if you wouldn’t mind, I am putting together 20,000 differing leaflets that I will shove out with my massive team very soon.
I need to know what you are thinking and I need to know what you see as the diference between all the major players in Stoke.
Labour/Con/Lib/City Ind.
I think you want me to hammer the Tories (Ross Irving)but the electorate will want me to differentiate between them.
Please feel free to give me some advice.
Gary Elsby, you should call yourself the Riddler because you talk in riddles. What is the real story -please enlighten. And as for having the biggest team in the city – biggest team of what? Utter tossers? Never in the annals of human blogging as so much shite been spouted by so few for the suffering ears of the many … It’s truly beginning to look like you haver ascrew loose somewhere
[quote=Gary Elsby]I have the second biggest team in the City and I will have the biggest come the next General Election
and my funding will out-match the Labour/Conservative/Liberal Party put together.
Not bad for someone useless.[/quote]
Yes Gary”¦.
Gary, Gary, Gary”¦”¦. wake up Gary.. Time for school
Sorry mum I was dreaming”¦.
Yes Gary
It seems that each time I write, I am condemmned for what I write.
Take the nonsense form Mike above.
I have informed Tony of this matter.
It is not a riddle I write of.
This was printed in yesterdays Sentinel and is a big story.
I could go on about electioneering practices put out by Cabinet members, We will hear quite a lot of good news stories coming out over the next four weeks and I’m sure most people will know this is happenening.
I’m more than sure that Pits n Pots contributers have enough skills by now to spot a deliberate good news story (please vote us all back in).
What made me laugh was not the good news story but the sums.
Get your calculators out and do the sums with no interference from me. I just spotted a contradiction in both the Vanguard story and Brian Ward’s version of it.
Remember, this Council of 60 has just cut £36m and the new Council of 44 will cut £20m at least.
On another note, I take issue with the Sentinel Leader column (unknown writer maybe Mike Sassi) who reads: “Only a political opportunist will suggest no cuts”.
‘Political Opportunism’, £36m cuts and the suggestion is no alternative to those cuts.
Oh, yes there is! And it can be proven easily.
[quote=Gary Elsby]It seems that each time I write, I am condemmned for what I write.
Take the nonsense form Mike above.[/quote]
What nonsense? Do you really expect me or anyone to believe that you will have more funding than all those other parties listed? Good luck with that..
Prove it and I’ll give £50 to a charity of your choice.
[quote=Gary Elsby]I have informed Tony of this matter.[/quote]
And what are you rambling on about now?
If you just concentrated on running a campaign in what ever ward it is you wish to stand in, rather than saying you were the person who designed the pedestrianisation of the Strand in longton (a town you show utter hatred towards) or that you would do what people have not managed to do for 50 years and get the bridge painted within 6 months
or any of the other Walter Mitty thoughts you come out with, you maybe just maybe will get to keep your deposit this time, although I’m not going to hold my breath on that..
Can Cllr ward provided evidence of savings. Yesterday overview meeting reported housing repair being £2milion overspent
You can stand where you like Gary, I don’t give a stuff, and that goes for anyone. Everyone as the right to stand.
I don’t want to rubbish you at all, you have got me angry with your constant goings on about this that and the other, but I wish you luck in getting a place on the council. You have good ideas, and deep down in that heart of yours, you care. Politics is a dirty game, we know that, if you can higher yourself over the shit, and act like an adult and not a ten year old, it makes it better.
I see you set a question for me and I gladly answer that, saying it was put in a polite way.
There are people on the council now that I hope stay and are good people. I’ll got as far as listing them.
Two are going and not coming back, the loss to the council of Denver Tolley and Mark Davis saddens me.
So hare we go with the main list.
Jeremy Dillon, Joy Garner, Tom Reynalds, Ruth Rosenau, Paul Shotton and Matt Wilcox. Labour.
Randy Conteh, John Davis, Terry Follows. City Independent.
Abi Brown, John Daniels (and there is a large intake of breath in shock, but yes, he’s as won me over.), Mark Wright. Conservative and that other name they call themselves locally to hide the fact…lol, don’t meen it.
Mick Barnes (of course), PKB, Mick Salih. Commuerty Voice.
Kierain Clarke, David Sutten. Lebdem.
Now, I know there are 6 Labour council members on there, but saying that ladour is the biggest group on the council by far, don’t think other did to bad doing 2s and 3s.
I know there is one group missing, but hay, if it was not for Ruth, see I’m thinking, Big Mick would have made the list. No matter what you say about him, and with the red mist in front of me I have said some dreadful thinks without thinking to much, much as I have done to you at times.
Unlike Labour who have been completely upfront about where it is standing and who the candidates are, we’re yet to know where these heroes of “original Labour” are standing. That is apart from Mick Williams who’s pursuing a rather bizarre vendetta against Mark Meredith.
So where are you standing Gary? And what about the others?
Whatever Gassa.
The List you wanted fella,
Labour.
Jeremy Dillon
Joy Garner
Tom Reynalds
Ruth Rosenun
Paul Shotton
Matt Wilcox
City Independents
Randy Conteh
John Davis
Terry Follows
Conservative
Abigail Brown
John Daniels
Mark Wright
CV
Mick Barnes
PKB
Mick Salih
Libdem
Kieron Clarke
David Sutton
Sad to see Clive Brian, Denver Tolley and Mark Davis leave the council.
No BNP on there, reason being, Mike Coleman would have made it but it looks like a two way with Ruth, and out of the two, Ruth by a mile.
So that’s 6,3,3,3,2. Not bad saying Labour are by for the biggest party on the council.
Mike R, are we on that block think again.
oops,
Remember I only speak of Stoke Central and not the UK.
I calculated that Labour spent £25k at the last general election. Expenses returns show very much less.
I remain calculated on £25K for Labour alone.
I would assume the Conservatives will fund very much similar and the Lib Dems less.
I took reciept of a very large sum four weeks after the election and I still have it. It will go up towards the Election. It is not beyond reason to surpass the total amount of all the three major parties.
The reasons 100,000 Labour members left are still being put into practice and of course, I am now one of those 100,00.
I will be standing in the 201? General Election and have the funding to do so with a proper 12 Months Campaign. If you didn’t know, I was down to a one hour deadline in a Wolverhampton Office. That’s how close it came to not being in the race.
Sure enough, it was not enough.
To put it into context, Paul Breeze had all of his election material delivered to my door BEFORE I left Labour and announced a candidature.
Next time is different.
No-one has ever contradicted my organisational skillss, but please don’t confuse them with winning and losing.
200 candidates will stand this year and only 44 will win. It would be unfair to call all unsuccesful people,tossers.
I expect to encounter criticism from all quarters for having the gall to stand against Labour (whatever that means) and I expect more abuse from those who believe I shouldn’t stand at all. Libya?
I have infomed the blog owner of my team. If it comes to pass, then so be it. If not, then so be it.
On my campaign, of which you again offer insults, I can inform you that it is well under way and I will fulfil my ambition to out-leaflet and canvass every other single candidate in the City.
In fact, my team are busy as I am at work.
There is no deposit in this election to lose.
But I note that it is yet further abuse you hurl at a candidate who has the guts to stand.
What’s with you? Lie down and get over it.
Where is your proof that I show “utter hatred” to the people of Longton? That’s a new one.
I don’t like Longton Town centre at all or in the slightest. I wouldn’t shop there in any instance.
Absolutely awful.
Yes, I did suggest it be pedestrianised and did so in here on Pits n Pots. I also designed a new one way route.
The bridge? Six Months.
It’s not called Original Labour as some members felt offended by the term. I read the Dandy.
It is called ‘Non parachutes, OMOV, and no-one imposed by the NEC and not told what to do or say-Labour.
That’s my newest suggestion but I think it will get short shrift because a part of it is a but ridiculous.
The word Labour is the stumbling bloc.
As I said before, Mick Williams chose Birches Head when his political agent stood down on health reasons Months ago and before Mark Meredith entered the ring.
I am standing in a 3500 single member ward of which I consider a doddle. Half the work, half the cost and where I’ve spent most of my time in the last 30 years.
Tunstall.
I can do this in two days.
Tunstall is a good place to be.
It is the second best shopping area in S-o-T.
You can get anything you like here and it is the gateway from the north.
Brilliant access to everywhere in Stoke in 15 minutes. 1 hour to all airports.
Great new by-pass (sorry Ian).
The highest business rate paying area outside Hanley.
I love Tunstall.
If heart is where the home is, then Tunstall is my home.
I pay more rates that any domestic council-tax payer in the City.
I put my money where my BIG mouth is!
Tunstall will look lovely when I’m finished with it.
Roads, businesses, schools come on-bring it on.
Burslem-getting a bit better.
Fenton-well, what can I say. At least I didn’t forget you.
Hanley- I love TESCO.
Stoke-needs a new shop!
Longton-no thanks.Bigger than Burslem but what’s the sell or point?
Oh Jesus, Gary, your getting worse by the moment, will you please just tell these good people what ward you are standing for election in in May, for lord sake, because we will know when the lists come out or you get yourself out of the padded cell and start romeing round the streets yelling ‘as anyone seen my buggie’. One more word about Longton or the surounding area I’ll be down on you like a ton of bricks. We don’t rightly give a fig how much money you lot have to waste, and I would think Labour got the founding to match it. I mean, what are you going to do, bribe folks. I’ll give you lot a name if you want ‘Old Crocks’. Anyway everyone Gary said the other day that he was running in his own ward and he lives in Braddley Green, what warg that fall in I don’t know, you can always find out. Now, I’v got better things to do with my time at the moment then then do idiot watch round hear.
If anyone see Tony W, tell him give me a ring.
“will you please just tell these good people what ward you are standing for election in in May, for lord sake, because we will know when the lists come out”
Didn’t I see a letter in the local press recently from Gary talking about the problems of the Baddeley Green area? Sounds like an opening shot in a platform to stand in Baddeley,Milton and Norton to me.
A Labour member drops in to say ‘Hello….is it me you’re looking for……’
There are several things which strike me about this debate and perhaps Gary, Warren, Terry, etc etc would like to put their views on this.
1. The position of City Councillor is just that, CITY COUNCILLOR, and as a CITY COUNCILLOR your duty is to make the decisions which will benefit THE CITY and not just the locality or ward where you were/are elected.
2. As a WARD representative on THE CITY COUNCIL you should at least have some knowledge of the issues which are particular to your ward and which policies would adversley affect those who live, work, own property or have any other significant interest in the ward for example those who travel in to use the facilities such as parks, swimming pools etc. etc. That knowledge should enable you to make a properly considered contribution to policy making. However, this is not always the case when PARTY or SELF INTEREST is put before those of constituents.
3. As a CITY COUNCILLOR you role is POLICYMAKER/POLICYSHAPER not COMMUNITY WORKER, although these two are not mutually exclusive and many City Councillors are tireless community workers.
4. The current system of Governance in this City relegates the City Councillor’s role to bystander/protester. Overview and Scrutiny is a joke and we need to change the system so that COUNCILLORS DECIDE AND OFFICERS ADVISE. That does not mean going back to the bad old days of PATRONAGE. OOps did I say going back I really meant to say that we need to ensure that there are appropriate checks and balances in place so that Councillors hold senior positions on MERIT not through backroom deals and co-alitions.
5. If you agree with the above points then you must agree that NATIONAL PARTY POLITICS has no place in local Government and that Councillors should have the freedom to speak and vote without fear of recriminations from PARTY or GROUP.
A SPECIAL MESSAGE FOR WARREN.
I live in Meir South. I have only heard of you through your comments on Pits’n'Pots. However, I have heard a lot about the work that alleged Labour Candidate, Debbie Wheldon has done for the community. Tell me why you think I should vote for you.If you give a good reason you may get my vote.
There is an Asian lady candidate standing for Labour in Blurton.
She is working hard in the ward. A mate of mine met her while she was out leafletting. According to him she is a very nice, confident young lady who is very well aware of the issues our area faces.
I hope she gets elected, she will be like a breath of fresh air after some rather lacklusre City Independent representation.
Gary, may I just say that you seem unsure where best to stand. Abbey? Baddeley Green? Tunstall? May I offer a suggestion?
Try…….. Cheshire East!
I have not seen one word by Gary Elsby on this thread about the serious issues that our city faces , FFS wake up your time is over go quietly the Labour Party of your era failed the people badly , who knows if the new ones will do any better but give them the chance to do so
Desiree, I have been active on the Hillside estate in the ward of South Meir for some time time now, It only a small area but we have had problems with general untidiness of streets, state of the roads, a bit of petty damage to roadside trees, speeding, that sort of thing. I took over the chairperson-ship of Hillside RA in May last year, and I’v pluged away at the problems in conjunction with sitting council members since. My latest thing is convincing the council to bring speed signs cams onto Grovsner Road for a time. I know the area very well and I can at times foresee problems on Hillside.
As for the rest of the area, I get round it well and cover a lot of ground. I love the area and lived hear for 7 years now, before that I lived in Normacot and spent much time in the Meir South area visting friends and relations.
All I what to do is to stand up for people and represent them. I’m well trained and well use to this. I was a nurse for 13 years until ill health convinced to might not be the best thing for me, and I was always know as a person who put the views of people in my care at the very heart of what I did and how I went about my job. When I lift nursing I went into retail, and worked on the night team of a large supermarket in Longton, you know the one, beginning with T. I got to team leader there and did a lot of training with my union, USDAW. I’m a union rep and an health and safety rep for them. Ill health came again in a big way a cupple of years ago, after a heart attack, open heart surgary, pacemaker and lots of other surgary, I returned to work part time 4 afternoons a week at the supermarket on the tills and I also do some customer services work and deliver some under age sales training to other staff. I fell the working in the way I do with the public would help me in representing my ward and this city.
Yes I agree with what you say about the council members representing the city, although one must not forget that an area of people put there hopes in you to represent them, and you must always think of them first. Thats why I have not ran for council before, I have thought and spoke about it for years. I have taken time to learn how the city runs, how it works. Although my political thinking is very much Labour, I like the idea more of having free hand, one without a party whip or mandate to meet. I wish to work within a council full of ideas for the city, and I can not see how having members all sticking to the party line can get this.
Some things appear to never alter. Vote for nobody, and if you must go out, vote ‘no’ to AV. Not that it matters.
What Stoke really needs is unbiased reporting of the elections.
Report the facts and let the people make the decision on who to vote for, that is what journalism is supposed to be about.
There are enough people on here who will twist the facts without the PitnPots reporters doing it as well!
Hang on a moment Roland, whos twisting things hear, not me, I will not report on political matters, all bar my 500 words and my interview, witch anybody running can take up, while I’m doing what I’m doing. I will put a view on reports commenting if I like, but thats open to others to challenge if they wish, I welcome that.
As for others twisting the facts, its not going to happen, Tony and Mike will do most of the work on this subject and know how to keep it balanced.
Hey Roland,
The article is a ‘comment’ article or an ‘opinion’ piece, not a news story.
News stories are completely balanced on this site more than any other you could mention, I should know as I trawl through the Internet looking for far right commentators to attack! Long live NorSCARF.
I disagree with this article but I totally agreed with the article on the far right England First last week. That is the very nature of comment or opinion pieces.
What can’t be argued is that both were brilliantly written by a person with his finger well and truly on the pulse of Stoke-on-Trent politics.
You are from Stafford and yet you choose to comment on this site which says quite a lot about the interest that this site has created. Everyone, including many from outside know about PitsnPots.
You concentrate on finding something else to do after May because take it from me, you and the rest of you racist BNP followers will be wiped off the political map once and for all.
Rather like a really annoying hemorrhoid!
I have no problem with accepting Desiree’s questions and I have always been up front in answering them.
Sure, there are many types of Councillor, some more advanced and some less so and more community entrenched. The careerists scare me.
These are the people who will be told what to do and say and are patted on the back with a shoo-in somewhere.Say the wrong thing and the door is closed.
I kick those doors in nowadays.
I have my own version of where this City should be and it isn’t where it is now.
The Elected Mayoral system is dead but is very much alive in this Leader Cabinet system.
10 Cabinet nodders and 50 Councillors not able to do what we want them to do.
!0 demi Gods getting it wrong and 50 mostly helpless to stop them.
I’ve stood in 3 elections and all of them were on the enhnanced commitee system and this election will be the same.
Councillors with power and pride and able to contribute properly.
This curent set up has deliberately hit the headlines with cuts to simplistic services and they grabbed the headlines with joy and I will remind the City of their work.
The system of local Government that we have in S-o-T is wrong for S-o-T and Labour/Cons and Liberals prove it every day.
My own view of what I see so far of the lists doing the rounds, suggests to me that 95% of the names is more of the same.
They always blame people like me, with not a single days service, served. That’s how bad they are.
Should National Parties have a role?
According to our ‘saviour’ the Local Governance Commission, yes.
The transition board and Boundary Commission listened to no-one and like the GC, they screw us.
The point you make is a slightly different one of ‘fear’ of voting or speaking against a group decision.
History records I am fearles and will act on a decision made to instill fear, corruption or privilege. History will also record any future attempts to do so in my presence, come what may.
I know that Labour is corrupted in this City. Evidence given to P&Ps proves the Conservatives are now corrupted. 20,000 leaflets are being forklifted to me detailing what crap this City is being led by and how it’s done.
Those that aren’t interested, plese bin.
I enjoyed writing them all the same (names, dates, times, crimes, phew! Sue me, come on let’s not piss about.
Labour are being told what to say.
This has only gone on for the last ten years, but the last five have been overzealous in their openness. We all know the real stories behind the reasons to close things that are now kept open.
If you are of a mind that a decision being made is wrong, but then go on to support a collective decision that is wrong and later on proven wrong, then the weak will destroy and the strong will and should conquer by allowing their conscience to win over.
In other words, the decision to shut Shelton pool is made by weak people. I could push onwith this all day.
Vanguard in place wih 50 councillors not alowed a full role in the City that allows the strong to rise is a sham of democracy and is illiterate economics.
Vanguard does allow, the yes men to rise and claim justice.Complete rubbish.
No-one yet is answering my point of Vanguard finding £600K in savings and the joyous Brian Ward paying out £1k and receiving £2k in return. No wonder we’re f********.
Hilarious.
44 No
60 yes.
80 accurate
Enhanced committees
Power to Councilors (I accept no other role or job upon victory and never will).
Anyone can be a candidate in politics, but to be a paper novely as is the case with Labour this year, tells me that Labour is not serious this year, as it wasn’t last year.
Long live the Miners
Up the Potters
Forward Stoke-on-Trent.
“Which is the most important the City or the Ward?”
What is good for the city should in my grass roots view arise from what is good for the wards. Perhaps this is an easier approach for those of us with a socialist tendency as we believe in things like caring about eachother and working cooperatively for the benefit of all. I accept sometimes this is not easy but one of the qualities of a good councillor is to be able to tackle this kind of thing.
However the situation we are in in practice is unfortunately very different. Many of the apparent conflicts just don’t need to be and in some cases are incited, if they can, by the evil labour lot, so they can divert problems from themselves. They tried to do this a lot over bsf, pitch one community against another unnecessarily, which happily they generally failed on. We all want the best for everyone so we don’t need to be in conflict. If we do need to be in conflict it is with the labour leaders and their tory/libdem/cig hangers on who do not consider communities enough and in that sense the good ward representative is crucial.
I agree with some sort of proportional representation system, but again in practice we are far away. The referendum is only for AV, which I think is far better for the voter than FPTP, but it is only being considered for parliamentary elections. It should have been considered for locals too.
I’m still for thirds. Again for voters it is better. We have the chance to hold the council to account more often. And it can effect change. The fact that it won’t make much difference in Newcastle just means confirmation of the mandate, the important thing is electorate have their say. I think democracy is one thing that it is well worth specding our money on.
Nikki
I do disagree with your suggestion that in Newcastle having elections in thirds allows a confirmation of mandate – particualry with reference to this year.
Currently the lay of the land in NUL is 5 UKIP, 14 Labour, 16 Lib Dems and 25 Conservatives. We currently have a Lib Dem and Tory coalition.
The likelyhood is that the Lib Dems will lose a number of their seats to Labour with the Conservatives & UKIP also losing a couple.
The electoral maths means that Labour would have to win all 20 seats [succesfully defend 4 and make 16 gains] just to have enough to have half the Council. That sort of electoral success will be unlikely, but it is absoultely the case that Labour will make gains.
Yes, it is likely the existing Conservative and Lib Dem will still have enough Councillors after this election to retain control – albeit with a much smaller majority and without ‘winning’ any seats other their their greatest strong hold (Loggerheads, Maybank, Westlands for the Tories and Halmer End and Thistleberry for the LDs).
So – despite not winning the popular vote and despiter being rejected you would consider this a confirmation of their mandate.
That I do find odd…
Sorry, but I’m going to have to have a little whinge here.
Where on earth does Nicky get all of this teary-eyed romanticism about “us with a socialist tendency as we believe in things like caring about eachother and working cooperatively for the benefit of all”!!!
What nonsense! The socialist (as with most governments of all tendancies) believes in the language of equlity as a political weapon, but some are notable more equal than others.
The romanticism and the reality just don’t mix, Nicky.
And can we take a second to think a little bit about the AV referendum before we go off and cast a vote based on instinct and very little fact?
In what way does AV “which I think is far better for the voter than FPTP” actually benefit the voter? I’d love to hear it. It certainly doesn’t give smaller parties a chance. It doesn’t affect safe seats at all. It doesn’t make results more proportional. It doesn’t make MPs take more notice of the voter. It doesn’t even achieve the stated aim of making sure MPs are elected with over 50% of the vote.
It DOES give more power to the main three parties. It DOES produce greater instability in results. It DOES mean that successful candidates will have to appeal to extremist 2nd preferences to get elected, or else the main three parties will have to abandon all their differences altogether and become one big indistinct mass.
It DOES mean that if had been used in the 1980s then Margaret Thatcher would have faced even less opposition to her.
It DOES mean that in the 2000′s Tony Blair would have faced even less opposition to him.
Please do tell me where the advantage is? As usual, I suspect that Nicky like all those supporting AV at this referendum is doing so not because they genuinely support AV as an electoral system but rather because they know that it will not urvive longer than a few years. They are voting to deliberately and maliciously break our existing electoral system so that they can force upon us a second referendum in a few years time for full blown PR.
Why can’t the AV supporters just be honest and say so?
I will be honest enough to say that I’m voting yes in the AV referendum because I hope its a stepping stone to PR. Not to ‘deliberately and maliciously break our existing electoral system’ but because I think it is more democratic mainly because it gives more people the opportunity to influence the outcome of elections.
I live in Stoke-on-Trent North – in terms of affecting the outcome of the general election there was no point in me voting, Joan Walley was always going to win. Under a PR system of whatever kind my vote will always be worth more. As I’ve said about I favour a ‘mixed’ system to keep a local link with List PR used to ensure the overall allocation of seats is proportional. Yes it will undoubtedly lead to more coalitions but I think we will have to learn to live with it as a trade off for more people having a say.
Elsewhere on this site, people are warning against the dangers of a one party state c.1996 – look down the road to Stafford. The Conservative party won 79% of seats on the County Council in 2009 with 43% of vote – how can that be democratic?
I maybe phrased it a little too strongly when I said it was a fact, I was just saying if as multilimbed implied there was little change it would be confirmation of the mandate. I am not claiming myself to predict what may happen in NUL, I’m sure you know more about that than I do.
Shaun,
People may accuse me of many things but romanticism isn’t normally one of them. But I agree with you that reality is very different. I was trying to make that point too. I just think it’s good to keep in the mind what we may want an ideal world to be like, but I do agree it is probably not a lot of practical use given what we actually have to live with.
“In what way does AV “which I think is far better for the voter than FPTP” actually benefit the voter? I’d love to hear it.” I can answer that but you have to bear in mind what I as a non-party voter consider important is quite different than what you as a(n) (ex)party political type consider important. So for example I’m not bothered about how it may or may not affect various parties or about wanting to pick a system that gives a particular outcome or would have given Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair more power (though I don’t see how you can predict that as they were elected on FPTP, you can’t know for sure what would’ve happened under AV).
As for “the main three parties will have to abandon all their differences altogether and become one big indistinct mass” – they already have!
I am more concerned about good democratic process, or at least less bad. I admit I prefer PR but I’ve said that before, I’m not hiding it, but now I’m refraining from romanticism and concentrating on the choice we’re being given in the real world. There is nothing malicious in my AV preference, it is just a genuine opinion.
So, AV is far better for the voter than FPTP:
1. The voter gets to express a more complete opinion about what they think. Therefore more voice. Being restricted to picking just one candidate is much too simplistic. It only works well when there is a choice of only two!
2. The voter needs to think carefully about their choice if they want to vote for all candidates (which I would). We would have to do this to know what order to put them all in. I thoughtful vote is far better and may encourage looking into issues, policies and examining the candidates more deeply. This surely is a better approach.
3. The voter can be completely honest and does not have to face the possibility of choosing between voting the way they really think or voting strategically. So if there are three candidates and normally A would poll most votes, B a lot and C very little. Suppose I like C the best and really am fed up with A. In AV I vote in order CBA, honest and logical. In FPTP I either have to vote honestly for C and waste my vote or vote B strategically in the hope of getting rid of A. FPTP is far more nonsensical.
4. The split vote is avoided. If I don’t like A but I like B and C pretty much the same, because in fact they are pretty much the same in policies etc., under AV I put some careful thought into which of B and C I want most, decide say C, then vote CBA. Under FPTP I have to try to second guess how others might vote and put up with all the propaganda telling me what might happen, in order to vote alongside others who would vote for which one of B or C has the most chance, to keep A out. After all that it might be that B and C get 33% and 31% of the vote and A gets in with 36%. So if others like me liked B and C similarly there would under AV have been loads of CBA and BCA votes. So if C had been eliminated as the lowest, B would have won and most of the 64% preferring either B or C would end up happy with the outcome. FPTP would satisfy just the 36% preferring A. We really need this AV in local elections. That way as many independents as you like, and parties, can come forward as candidates without treading on eachothers toes. It involves more candidates and electorate in a honest competition.
5. We can give ‘outsiders’ a bit of a chance. We can vote for someone new and different who comes along who we like the sound of, without wasting our vote. They may not win but we can express our view and it will let everyone know (assuming the rounds are publicised) how popular the outsider is. When they are eliminated we still have a say in the outcome amongst the others.
6. More people would vote, in my opinion. Those who think what’s the point voting in a safe seat may come out and vote because with AV if there is enough opposition amongst other candidates it could make a difference. The safe seaters may not like it but it’s got to be more democratic if it increases the chance a little of making some difference. Those who want to keep their tradition of just voting for one person can still do that, but the others who want to have more of a say are catered for too.
In short, with FPTP as a voter you may end up having to get involved in political games you’d rather not, to try to get an outcome you want.
With AV you just tell the truth and the whole truth.
Well thank you for being honest on that point, multilimbed.
But you see, you are admitting that you don’t want AV. But you are voting for it because you hope it leads to proper PR. I can just about accept your views on PR (although I disaagree with them), but you really should be voting no in this referendum and then campaigning for a seperate referendum on your preferred system.
By voting for AV because you know it will not work, NOT because you asupport AV but because you want something else that is not on offer then you are indeed seeking to deliberately and maliciously break our existing system.
I can see your point on Staffordshire…I notice you don’t mention Stoke as an example which has had this problem of disproportionality for so much longer. However AV will not help to prevent that problem in ANY way. Indeed, its possible that under AV the Tory majority in Staffordshire could have been as high or even higher (because parties that are doing well under FPTP can do VERY well under AV if they get the 2nd preferences).
How can that be democratic?
OK I’ll not go on about the socialist romanticism. I’ll leave it at that.
“So for example I’m not bothered about how it may or may not affect various parties or about wanting to pick a system that gives a particular outcome or would have given Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair more power (though I don’t see how you can predict that as they were elected on FPTP, you can’t know for sure what would’ve happened under AV)”
I should have thought that somebody who claims to care about the principle of democracy and a strong opposition would be VERY bothered if a government were elected with no opposition and therefore no democratic choice?
Electoral experts whose job it is to extrapolate past general election results fought under different systems have shown that in 1983 for example the Conservatives would have won a majority in parliament of over 200 rather than the 144 the they actually got. Labour would have won closer to 150 seats rather than the 209 they won and the Alliance over 100 rather than their 25. So at that election you would have had a BIGGER Thatcher majority and a more divided and therefore weaker opposition. Indeed, Labour may well never have recovered from that weakness.
I’m not saying you should care about which party is advantaged or not. But you should really care about strong oppositon (whoever is providing it) and the principle of democratic choice.
“1. The voter gets to express a more complete opinion about what they think. Therefore more voice. Being restricted to picking just one candidate is much too simplistic. It only works well when there is a choice of only two!”
Why? I don’t follow that logic. Sounds like a ‘wouldn’t it be nice if’ argument. How can being able to cast a vote for every candidate increase your democratic choice? Theres still only one winner. Preference voting may work under PR systems but it is a nonsnece under majoritarian systems such as FPTP and AV.
“2. The voter needs to think carefully about their choice if they want to vote for all candidates (which I would). We would have to do this to know what order to put them all in. I thoughtful vote is far better and may encourage looking into issues, policies and examining the candidates more deeply. This surely is a better approach.”
Again why? you would vote for a complete nutter far right candidate whose policies include (hypothetically) ethnic cleansing just so that you can say that you voted for every candidate? Or are there limits to the candidate you would vote for?
As I said above, this only works under PR. Under FPTP or AV you may as well just vote for the one candidate that you want to win.
You can spend an hour in the polling booth ranking all your candidates if you like, but you really only need to kno which order they will drop out in so that your vote is redistributed. The final votes will still be going to Labour, Tory or Lib Dem!
“3. The voter can be completely honest and does not have to face the possibility of choosing between voting the way they really think or voting strategically”
Nonsense. There strategic voting will just be done in ranking their candidates instead of voting for a single candidate to beat another. As I said above, at the end of the day it still comes down to Labour, Tory or Lib Dem. Presumably your vote will end up with Labour or Lib Dem and mine will end up with Tory?
“The split vote is avoided. If I don’t like A but I like B and C pretty much the same, because in fact they are pretty much the same in policies etc., under AV I put some careful thought into which of B and C I want most, decide say C, then vote CBA”
Yes thats right. This is the single reason why AV was introduced in Australia, to assist the centre right Liberal and National parties and prevent Labour from winning on a split right wing vote.
But I thought you claimed above that you don’t care about how it affects the various party politics involved? Seems that in fac you do care in some sense if you’re worried about a ‘split vote’.
“5. We can give ‘outsiders’ a bit of a chance. We can vote for someone new and different who comes along who we like the sound of, without wasting our vote.”
Yes and then that person can drop out in the first round and your vote can go o a candidate that actually matters.
“6. More people would vote, in my opinion. Those who think what’s the point voting in a safe seat may come out and vote because with AV if there is enough opposition amongst other candidates it could make a difference.”
ha,ha,ha. Which is why the turnout plummeted when AV was introduced in Australia, and why they subsequently had to introduce compulsary voting.
This turnout argument is one that the Lib Dems keep trying to peddle. We’re told that if we get rid of FPTP the turnout will shoot up immediately because people’s votes will really count.
Thats why the EU elections fought on PR have had consistantly low and FALLING turnouts. Why the Scottish, Welsh and London assembly elections fought on PR can never match general election turnout and why Scottish local elections fought under PR saw a steep turnout decline.
In short, all of Nickys reasons are on closer inspection almost exactly the same and do not actually stand up to any logical analysis.
She didn’t even mention as one of her reasons the claim that candidates would be elected with over 50% of the vote-which is just as well because they wouldn’t-but this is often the one argument thae AV campaign can come up with in their defence.
Can anyone try again for me?
She’s ‘nice’.
She gets my vote, even if I don’t live in Burton.
If she loves fluffy bunnies, I’m moving house just to vote.
[quote=Shaun Bennett]But you are voting for it because you hope it leads to proper PR. I can just about accept your views on PR (although I disaagree with them), but you really should be voting no in this referendum and then campaigning for a seperate referendum on your preferred system.[/quote]
I have wrestled with this point myself and I do actually have some sympathy with this point of view – from my perspective AV is a poor substitute to genuinely effective electoral reform. However, I have come to the conclusion that, from a pragmatic point view, there is more merit in voting positively for change (even if it is far from ideal) than joining supporters of the current system.
I am sure that – should there be an overall ‘no’ vote – supporters of the existing system would argue that it would be a rejection, not just of AV but of the notion of electoral reform as a concept. (Or am I being cynical Shaun??)
I would have preferred a two stage referendum like in New Zealand (when they switched to the mixed system I advocate above). Question 1 – Do you want to change the electoral system, Question 2 (advisory) – Which of the following do you prefer (List PR, mixed system, STV etc.). But to quote the Rolling Stones – You don’t always get what you want…
I am bothered about democracy of course, just think we disagree about how best to work it.
I haven’t really heard you put forward advantages for the voter for FPTP over AV. I’m not necessarily going to give the ‘AV party line’, I merely give my opinion as an ordinary voter. I think it’s logical, just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean it’s illogical, just that your opinion is different.
Don’t follow your logic on 1 either.
On 2 it’s not just voting for, it’s voting against as well, in fact probably more so. It’s a list. Those at the bottom of your list you are against and if you’re lucky there may be one or two at the top you’re for. So I don’t see it’s so wrong to put the genocide supporter last and the capital punishment proponent second to last, doesn’t mean I like capital punishment, just that I like genocide less. I’ve done these list ballots many times in votes as a union member (STV), I always order them all. For goodness sake I wouldn’t be spending ages in the polling booth, I don’t work that way, I would have thought it through ahead of time. Even if you think I’m whacky it doesn’t stop you just popping in and voting for your one candidate.
3. “Presumably your vote will end up with Labour or Lib Dem and mine will end up with Tory?” Wrong. They’d all be near the bottom underneath my representative and protest votes. Labour would be last (out of those three) on the basis I find them fascist liars. Libdems would have been pretty high up before, but not now after their lies. I do hate liars. Tories aren’t great, waiting to see how the health service pans out, some lies there too so none of the lot of them any good, but tories least bad in the honesty stakes anyway, on a national basis.
6. I think turn out is falling in Euro elections because the EU doesn’t do enough good for us and costs us way too much.
Anyway I’ve given my reasons (you agree on split vote) as requested. You have your opinion.
I will vote yes to AV. We are given two options, I vote for the one I like best.
WE do disagree yes because I don’t think you actually know what the consequences are of the different electoral systems. I ‘m not sure you understand what AV would do as opposed to FPTP and I’m not sure you’re actually all that bothered whether it makes our present system better or worse.
So many people are just intenting to cast prejudiced ballots against FPTP at this referendum not because they like the alternative, not because they know where they want to go but because its ‘a change’ from what we have. Change for changes sake is the order of the day here.
But change to a system that has not been fully thought through is always worse thsn no change at all.
I won’t go over old ground again with you, you will be relieved to hear. But I am fascinated by your weird suggestion that voting for the fascist at the bottom of your ballot is a vote ‘against’ them.
It really isn’t. Not voting for them at all is a vote ‘against’ them. What you would be doing is voting ‘for’ them by putting a mark in their box. You might be able to bring yourself to vote for extremists and thats something you’ll have to justify to people yourself. I for one will not be.
And I question the validity of your vote when you are preference voting for everyone from far left to far right including everyone in between as you have stated you will do.
I would also like to point out to you that although you say “Wrong. They’d all be near the bottom underneath my representative and protest votes” when it comes to your vote going to Labour, Tory or Lib Dem in the end, this shows that you deeply misunderstand how this system works.
It would be easier if I illustrate.
Supposing your ballot looked like this (not saying it will, just humouir me for a moment):
Independent 1
Green 2
Socialist 3
Lib Dem 4
Labour 5
Conservative 6
UKIP 7
BNP 8
Remember that this is for a GENERAL election, not a local election. Supposing first preference votes equal out like this:
Lab 15,000
Con 9,000
LD 5,000
Ind 2,000
Oth (together) 1,500
Now then, your first preference vote has gone to the Independent. All your other preference votes can immediately be scrapped except for those for Lib Dem, Labour and Tory because all the other parties your have chosen are BELOW your first preference candidate and more than likely will be disqualified before them.
So we get to the 5th or 6th round or whatever. Suppose the results are now like this:
Lab 15,700
Con 9,200
LD 5,300
Ind 2,300
Still noone has 50% plus. So your Independent candidate is disqualified and votes redistributed.
YOUR vote now goes to the Lib Dems (4th preference based on the sample ballot above).
And if there is still not a candidate with 50% and the Lib Dems drop out, then YOUR ballot then goes to Labour (5th preference based on the ballot above).
So actually, as I said, your vote has ended up with Labour, Lib Dem or Tory.
The only way it would not is if your first preference candidate had been challening for one of the top one or two slots early in the electoral rounds…and as we already know, they wouldn’t because this is a general election and AV does nothing to help minor parties.
You can vote for AV with great pleasure if you like. Nobody’s going to stop you. I simply say to you to think very carefully that this is the system you want and that you accept all of the consequences of it.
Don’t take a leap in the dark and risk what we DO have!
For goodness sake Shaun you do tend to let your arrogance get the better of you. Little point going further when just because someone disagrees with you in your view they are being malicious, illogical, don’t understand, haven’t thought it through, not bothered, prejudiced…
I do care about the best form of democracy, out of these two, not a lot of choice but it’s the one we’re given, I’ve thought it through, I understand it and make a free choice about what I think works best out of the two options. I prefer AV.
This arrogance that the Johnny Walker wisdom mistakes for nous is quite irritating Gary.
You see… most of us really are concerned about your mental health.
Why – sorry, that’s a capital WHY? are you standing in Tunstall? You can be clearly seen in the Sentinel last week claiming to be Baddeley Green born and bred and determined to tackle it’s anti social behaviour problems. Why not stand in Badly Green? I mean, it is well heeled and quite desirable (allegedly).
What do you know of Tunstall? It’s not even in the Stoke Central constituency you contested last GE.
Could it be that you think the greasy haired, leg warmer, Jezza Kyle types are dim enough to vote for anyone who wears a red rosette and shouts “up the miners”?
Or are you just trying to get as far away as possible from those dirty bastards in Stoke South?
OK walk away. If you don’t have an answer that will stand up, you don’t have to go into a huff about it.
Gary, Should National Parties have a role?
According to our ‘saviour’ the Local Governance Commission, yes.
Over 8,000 voters voted for a National party.
Do we say that these 8,000 people have no right of say in the system?
These people voted this way because our “so called” leaders (nationaly and localy) did nothing but take,take, take, and give sod all back but misery.
As I have said many times, party’s will not cure the ills of this city, people interested in the city will.
As proof go down to the Lib/Lab/Con headquarters and ask them what they think about Stoke-on-Trent and they would not have a clue.
Unfortunately this will not happen as the stench of party politics and corruption is too deeply embedded in the city.
Your position is a reasonable one, multilimbed, and I will not attack you for it, even though I disagree profoundly with you.
You are probably correct, a vote against AV will be billed as a vote against any form of electoral reform by those that want to maintain FPTP. Its not being cynical though, why should you expect any other response? I have no doubt that in the wake of a no vote, the electoral reformers will be spinning that it was ‘AV wot lost it’ and that a full PR system is what people want. Again, I disagree, but I fully expect them to say it.
I just think that you can’t vote for a question thats not on the ballot paper. You can’t make up your own question or pretend that its something other than what it is. AV is what is on offer. You don’t support it, but you are going to vote for it in the hope that it DOESN’T work so that we can get something else. That I say is a dangerous course of action. It won’t take much to bring our carefully balanced political stability crashing down around us.
What you should be doing is voting no to AV and making the case for a better system next time! That would be the responsible thing to do.
Finally, its interesting that you mention New Zealand. The people of New Zealand thought they were voting for an electoral system which would give the voter more influence and the politicans less.
The first election though resulted in a coalition between the centre right National Party and the far right New Zealand First-two parties which had spent the campaigning promising that whatever the result of the election they would NEVER work together.
That coalition was voted for by literally not one single voter in New Zealand.
Over a decade later, New Zealand voters have realised that their new electoral system has perversly given MORE power to the politicans and less power to the voter. Furthermore, the New Zealand people don’t like their new electoral system and would like to change it.
Now the New Zealand system is not on offer here, of course. But it serves as a lesson to us. They made a mistake and voted for something that they didn’t understand and now no longer want. We need to be very sure what AV is, what it does and whether it is the system we want before we go out and vote for it.
Don’t take a leap in the dark.
It won’t be long now before the lists come out and we all know who fancies what for whatever reason. All I can do is agree and echo Tony when he says whoever gets in as to serve for 4 years. There is no going back and no way of bringing in anyone then the person who who sits on council on 6th May. We need a united council that will question every move and work to improve life in the area bring in investment and jobs. Are the politics of misscheff and heat needed, no its not. Also, Stoke on Trent is testament that a single party council don’t work, we need a balance. We can discuss and fight all we like, end of the day, thats the truth.
I’m surprised Long Tall Sally has not given out he names already?
Terry, nice to see you front-paged,letters-paged and middle-paged by the Sentinel recently.
Nice stuff.
You’ll be on the back page soon!
You’ve come across as someone shouting up for your community.
More of that is needed and yes, we know the immigration issues of this Country.
You’ve got good PR going there so don’t waste it.
Gary, That’s all I’m interested in at the moment (apart from having a pop at the council,s mismanagement ).
I believe that its going to take nothing short of a miracle to sort Stoke out,so will leave it this time.
I get more enjoyment working in the community, good luck to those standing.
Lets hope they can work together and sort out the mess we are in.
They can start by taking control of the council away from the Finance office and the parasitic high earners.