Saturday, 11 October 2008

HAS THE MAYORAL SYSTEM BEEN A SUCCESS OR A DISASTER FOR STOKE ON TRENT?

Mr Mark Meredith was elected as Mayor in May 2005. He has held this position for 3 years, and 4 months. Do the people of Stoke on Trent think, he has been a success or a disaster? Have we the public not given this person enough credit for the work that he has done, have we been to harsh and ctitical?

He has formed a Cabinet Style Alliance, the idea being that all political parties work together. If all parties are speaking as one, then do we see it as the Coalition working as one big party, and then we have the BNP standing on their
own. Has this confused us at the elections. Is this why the BNP have gained the ground they have? Have people voted for the BNP, as there has been no other alternative? Have the parties lost their individual voices?

He has formed an Executive Members Board, consisting of Councillors, Irving, Clarke, Garner, Knapper, Lyth, Bowers, Bell, Gratton, Ibbs and Pervez. All these Councillors have specific Portfolio Holder responsibilites. Any recommendation from any Scrutiny Committee will be passed to the EMB, for them to review and pass. Now my concern is, that even if the EMB decide that a decision is wrong, they do not have the power to say no, this cannot go ahead. This is because the final decision rests in the hands of The Mayor. Is this really a democratic system?

Now lets have a look at what the Mayor says his priorities are:-

To tackle crime and anti social behaviour. Well, I can only speak for the area where I live, and that is the Meir Hay/Weston Park estate. There was a period of time where you did not feel safe to walk the streets, or pop to the local shops. Large gangs, were having confrontations all over the place. In fairness, this has been addressed excellently, by the Local Police, Councillors, and with a big input from Rob Flello. So I give a thumbs up on this one. What has it been like across the City though? Mr Meredith wanted to engage the public on schemes such as Stoke Won't Stand For It. Can anyone give me more details on this scheme?

Developing budget proposals in line with inflation.

Improving the quality of education through the controversial BSF Programme. The majority of us, would not argue that the education for all pupils across the City has to improve. Some of the decisions that have been made, have been very unpopular, and that is an understatement. Councillors such as Roger Ibbs, who has served his community very well, for as many years as I can remember, has now become extremely unpolular with his voters. This could be said for a few other Councillors too. Are we being too harsh on these people? Should we criticize them if they are only standing by what they believe will be in the best interests of our children?

Continuing investment in housing, and improving service.

Delivering the Housing Market Renewal Programme.

To engage the public in politics, through his Green Papers, on issues such as climate change, housing and sport.

Improve Adult and Social care, focusing on elderly mental health, and rehabilitation.

Continue the regeneration of Stoke on Trent, to achieve the milestones set out by the Elected Mayor, in the North Staffs Regeneration Partnership Delivery Plan. Well, some areas are already taking on a transformation. You only have to look at the new homes being built around the Joiner's Square area, and just up the bank from the canal. It is a vast improvement, and we cannot disagree that some areas are desperate for a makeover. We have the prospect of Hanley Bus Station being redeveloped. These are all positives, so we should give credit for this.

To improve transport.

To improve new ways of working with the community and voluntary sector.

My question is, has Mr Meredith really done such a bad job? What do you think?







46 comments:

brooneyes said...

Without doubt, the potential that the mayoral system has to give, remains to be tapped.
It isn't the system that is at fault, more the way it has been abused by those that form the controling clique of the council, but a big part of the potential lies in how the cabinet members can affect change directly, rather than Meredith and his council manager deciding what the 240,000
people of Stoke-on-Trent will be given. Empowering councillors to have more of an effect on council matters is exactly the way to go about resurrecting our demised democracy.
As things stand at the minute, anything you want to know about the workings of the city council has to be discovered by applications through the freedom of information act. Rather than this, why not make each department
responsible for its own budget spending, and then at audit time, publish a list of what each department gets in the way of funding, how it spends it, what surplus or debt there is. In this way, candidates preparing to run for councillor can produce their own budgets on how each dept should be run, people with an interest of the councils workings could regularly make suggestions and recommendations as to how to improve efficiency in all areas of
council responsibility.
Wolfe was a disaster, Meredith has been an even bigger disaster,
and still the mayoral system hasn't produced a fraction of what it is capable of, and that's because the wrong people keep getting the vote. Tony had a moan at me because I made light of the fact that both of these men bat for the other side, but there really is a serious side to such things. What we need is to have a
family man/woman as mayor, someone who understands first hand the problems with recreation and education, someone that has seen the lack of facilities for youngsters, and sees the effects of that.
I honestly don't know how anyone that claims to care about this city, could even for a second, consider the idea of leader and cabinet. This will produce the sort of local politics from 30/40 years ago. This will be about funny handshakes- don't believe me, check on how many are masons-
deals done behind closed doors because the bribery going on would turn your stomach, but the biggest drawback to this system is that the
people don't get to choose, but councillors; at least half of which aren't fit to be there, get to pick for you.
Democracy is what's best for this city, and the mayoral system is far more democratic than leader, and like I said before, take a look at who is likeliest to get in through each system, and consider your choices from there.

ian norris said...

Again it is written "Any recommendation from any Scrutiny Committee will be passed to the EMB, for them to review and pass. Now my concern is, that even if the EMB decide that a decision is wrong, they do not have the power to say no, this cannot go ahead."

And Again I ask Name ONE decision where either ELECTED MAYOR has gone against the recommendations voted through in Full Council, or even agaiinst a recommendation made by a Scrutiny Commission?

Helen said...

Craig

Once again, now this is fast becoming a habit, I agree with your thoughts & views on this topic.

The mayoral system has a lot to offer but as you say it is having the person man or woman with no ego, no political bias & only the good of the city in mind. It is in my opinion only when or IF we find a person like this, could the mayoral system work to the best of its ability.

Meredith has abused his position as Elected Mayor,promising so many things & delivering on none.

Take the BSF for example, after the last lot in charge 'consulted' or rather came out to Longton High & Mitchell & dictated how the schools would merge, Meredith in his Mayoral Chambers discussed the situation & 'listened' (well pretended to)& then promised that no 'consultation' would ever take place like that again in the city. Well, what happens next? SERCO, no 'consultation' again we the residents are dictated to, no asking what would we like to see happen with BSF but told what will happen. How is that consultation? So Meredith failed.

Too much ego, too fond of his cushy salary & perks of the job (5* hotel was it in Cannes??? that they stayed in). There are caravan parks galore around the area & using one of those would have been much better use of public funds, bet it wouldn't have been 5* if he'd have funded it himself!!

It is a tricky one, deciding between the mayoral system & a Leader & Cabinet, both are open to corruption & ego but soon we have to decide.

the joker said...

Why do you need a mayor to do any of that?

It is a fact that 99% of all other SUCCESFUL authorities have no mayor.

Why the adulation?

brooneyes said...

Helen, I agree with nearly all you have to say, apart from the bit about,
"The mayoral system has a lot to offer but as you say it is having the person man or woman with no ego, no political bias & only the good of the city in mind. It is in my opinion only when or IF we find a person like this, could the mayoral system work to the best of its ability."
Trying to seperate a political position from the affects of party politics will prove to be an impossibility. Whoever will be selected as mayor-on the presumption that the referendum chooses this path- will have political ties, and a political stance. They will also have to handle councillors with a variety of political viewpoints.

Helen said...

Craig
Again I agree, anyone who wants the positon of Elected Mayor will have some political connection one way or another.

Unfortunately neither system is perfect but at least the residents of the city have the chance to vote on their option of choice.

brooneyes said...

That's the one point that makes all the difference Helen, at least you get to choose who represents you.

Helen said...

Trouble is look who was chosen last time & it will all depend on who puts themselves forward for the job in the future.

If we knew which candidates we would possibly have to choose from it may make the decision of which option to choose from easier.

Saying that, not any better off with the other option are we?

brooneyes said...

First the system, then the candidates. We get to choose though. I understand all the negativity surrounding this, but I can also see the potential.
This time will be different Helen, because this time far more people are aware of the vote, and far more people have been hurt by Merediths decisions. Hopefully that means a good turnout.

Alison said...

Yes but surely if we choose the Elected Mayor system, Meredith, or another just like him, is likely to be elected.

That's leaves us at SQUARE ONE again, doesn't it?

I really would like to know who I am voting for, but at least having the opportunity of voting for the system is a start.

I personally don't think Mark Meredith has done anything for this city except make it a laughing stock.

He has stumbled from one egotistical decision to another, not listening to anyone in the city, least of all the local taxpayers and hardworking public.

The sooner he goes the better, but unfortunately I don't share Craig's optimism for the Elected Mayor system being different next time - can you explain Craig?

I understand why you think there might be a better turnout, but surely everyone will just think - the Mayor was crap, so let's vote for a Leader and Cabinet?

Decisions, decisions....

brooneyes said...

Alison, you are so nearly there!
The whole point about this time round is that we are much wiser!
Once bitten, twice shy!
Let's presume for a minute that the referendum chooses a mayor and cabinet. This happens in October, the elections don't happen until May of the following year. This gives us all time to pressure the different candidates in to telling us what they will do for the city, and how they will do it for the city.
We will have 6 months in which to listen to what they have to say.
Any that refuse to speak, don't vote for. Any that say things you don't agree with, don't vote for.
Pick and choose, make the candidates tell you what their plans are! This way, even a low turnout has a high chance of picking a good candidate.

ian norris said...

Any decision made by the Elected Mayor is subject to being Scrutinizied by the Councillors on the Scrutiny commisions. We have Councillors sitting on scutiny commissions voting through issues, and then crying that they didn't have all the information they needed..... basically they failed to fully scrutinizie ( yes I'm referring to Dimensions and City Farm)

brooneyes said...

The problem is Ian, the councillors have no power of veto, all they can do is make recommendations.

nicky said...

Some excellent comments on this topic here I think.

Here's one I prepared earlier (kept in a word file) as a comment I posted on the Sentinel last night to a letter by Gareth Snell over in Newcastle:

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/letters/Democracy-means-people-trusted-decide/article-387685-detail/article.html

"The problem with the no campaign is that although it seems more democratic because the people get to elect the mayor, it is less democratic once the mayor is in because they have far too much power so you end up with an ‘elected dictator’. Importantly there is no way to remove them within the four year duration, whereas with a leader, a vote of no confidence within council is always an option. If a vote of no confidence in a mayor were also provided for then I think I’d prefer the mayor option, but it isn’t and I think this is so important that I consequently prefer the leader option.

It is not so much that the people can’t be trusted to elect someone, but they have so little to go on, all they can do is take note of the election campaign promises and do the best they can to choose the right person. Trouble is they don’t know what is around the corner and how their mayor may tackle it. Prime example is your labour government’s ‘building schools for the future’ program. We weren’t to predict how that would be implemented and as it is Mayor Meredith is presiding over a disaster of closing too many schools (including the highest performing non-selective school in the city!) so that in the long term it is not providing places for all the under fives currently in the city once they reach high school age. Furthermore he plans the fewer replacement schools to be in locations remote from the communities they are meant to serve and is imposing academies on us, despite the fact that some of us prefer other school types that your government claim to also be promoting but we are not being allowed.

Mayor Meredith no longer represents the people in my view. I also suspect if you talk to your labour colleagues over this side of the border, you may find a certain level of dissatisfaction amongst them with what Mayor Meredith is doing in the labour name.

You seem happy with your leader and cabinet system in Newcastle but seem to think we should stick with a mayor system. I don’t think either system is perfect and neither will solve Stoke’s problems, but we only have the choice of the two and I think leader is better.

We are debating this issue over at:

http://pitsnpots.blogspot.com/

plus a whole lot more besides. Please do come and join us."

Of course the Sentinel censored this off (I put an edited version with the Meredith bits and all the decent facts removed on tonight, but won't know if they accept it as yet).

Nita in your blog you ask "Have people voted for the BNP, as there has been no other alternative? Have the parties lost their individual voices?" Well I say absolutely yes on the second point and possibly a bit yes on the first, or they may just be voting for BNP rather than against the rest. I suspect I'm inclined to be a voter against locally because the labour/tory/libdem alliance are such tossers, or at least are being forced to be, that you couldn't vote for them could you, well I couldn't. But it doesn't necessarily have to be BNP as there are a large number of independent councillors who are available also.

You also ask if we are being too harsh on Roger Ibbs. No, no, no, it is not possible to be too harsh on Ibbs. You also say "Should we criticize them if they are only standing by what they believe will be in the best interests of our children?" I say we absolutely should criticize. How dare he pretend to know what's best for my children? I'm the parent, I know. Besides it's not to do with the children or education. It's all about the land on which THS sits and wanting to sell it at a tidy price so it can have houses built on it. And doing a deal to allow developers to build on the entire New Inn Lane green wedge if they provide a school on part of it. Why that school must be an academy however I'm not sure whether that is an Ibbs thing, it may be more of a Meredith thing. I like that title "Stoke Won't Stand For It", stand for what? The labour/tory/libdem tossers party?

Craig you make some truly excellent points when you're not sidetracked by sniping at Gary.

"Empowering councillors to have more of an effect on council matters is exactly the way to go about resurrecting our demised democracy." Couldn't agree more, just don't see how the mayor system does that when the mayor has so much power. And I would've thought the funny handshakes are happening under either system because you've got the same masons there.

I take your point about wanting someone with experience of families in charge. But whoever you get, they can't be expected to have experience of everything. So the important point is they have to consult properly with people and really listen to them. It's fine to have a gay bloke (or woman) in charge, but as there are so many of us heterosexuals out there with families, it is particularly important to listen to us about what we need.

Helen, I agree with the great points you make, re BSF, Meredith and SERCO.

Craig, when you agreed with Helen by saying "It is in my opinion only when or IF we find a person like this, could the mayoral system work to the best of its ability", you have hit the nail on the head. Therein lies the big problem. You also made the other crucial point that the councillors have no power of veto, all they can do is make recommendations.
If we end up with the mayor system, I agree wholeheartedly with you that we need to put the pressure on the candidates to get detailed statements (not bland wimpish stuff) out of them about what they will do for us. Or at least I as a floating voter would need to do this. Wouldn't you simply just vote for the BNP candidate?

Hugh said...

It seems as if we're damned if we do and damned if we don't!

Those promoting the Leader and Cabinet model say everything will be much more democratic. I'm not so sure.

The HoHH group were contacted by a group in West Yorkshire for help in fighting the proposed closure of their school (which is in much the same state as THS: best performing school, oversubscribed, etc., etc.). They come under the Tory-controlled Kirklees Metropolitan Council, which has a Leader and Cabinet. The following is a piece from The Mirfield Reporter newspaper:

Published Date: 02 October 2008

It comes as a local councillor has said the decision on the future of education in North Kirklees should not be down to a handful of people.
Coun Paul Kane (Lab, Dews East) says the £200m Schools for the Future scheme is too big to be decided by just a small coterie of councillors in the cabinet.

Instead, he says, the decision should be made by all 68 Kirklees councillors. And he wants the Labour group leadership to put pressure on the Conservative administration to bring this about.
He said: "This is a massive investment of £200m. It is too big a concern to everyone for it to be down to just nine people.

"But we can't just sit and moan about this. I put my trust in the Labour group leadership to put pressure on the administration to bring this about.

"We only get a scheme of this magnitude once in a generation and we have to get it right."

The authority's position is that the schools scheme is a matter for the nine-strong cabinet rather than full council.

But area committees, they say, have a role to play by helping with consultation and passing on concerns or suggestions about the proposals.

Coun Kane, a member of Dewsbury area committee, said: "This internal piece of legislation is one of the biggest things we have done in the last 30 to 40 years.

"To complaints about the decision-making the council could say: 'Well, you voted for the cabinet system'.

"That's true. But we never thought it would be used to make such a massive change to the whole community."

It seems that the Leader and Cabinet model, in this case, is just as dictatorial as our current Elected Mayor and Council Manager system, or the potential Elected Mayor and Cabinet system.

The problem, as I have said before, and will continue to assert, is that the Cabinet, whichever system we end up with, is appointed, and is open to political patronage. We won't necessarily get the most able Councillors being appointed to the Cabinet. We will probably get a Cabinet full of those with the most political leverage.

Each model produces a huge democratic deficit. Whichever system is chosen is with us for at least the next ten years.

I had been swaying towards the Leader and Cabinet model, but now, once again, I'm not so sure!

brooneyes said...

"If we end up with the mayor system, I agree wholeheartedly with you that we need to put the pressure on the candidates to get detailed statements (not bland wimpish stuff) out of them about what they will do for us. Or at least I as a floating voter would need to do this. Wouldn't you simply just vote for the BNP candidate?"

Cracking post Nicky, and you highlighted the vast majority of the problems with the mayoral position. If you believe that the
mayoral position has too much power, push for reform, make them devolve power to the lowest practicable level!
I will vote for the BNP candidate, but not blindly!! I have the good fortune to know some of the policies the party would like to implement, and how we take on certain challenges IF this is the system the people choose. If they decide they want a leader, that's a whole different kettle of fish!

nita said...

I feel that the two choices on offer, Leader or Mayor, are not that much different, apart from the fact that with the Mayor and Cabinet, we get to choose who this person is. The Leader and Cabinet is, they say, the more democratic of the two systems? Can anyone tell me why this is the case. If the Leader is not successful, they can be voted off, so this has got to be better than the Mayoral option. I just want to know, what actual input the Councillors will have in decisions, under the Leader and Cabinet system. If they are allowed to say what they think, and even if the vote is a majority in favour of a decision, will the Leader have the final say? Will he/she be allowed to go against the general opinion? If so, this is no different to the Mayoral system. I personally, cannot decide between the two, as I think there is good and bad points in both systems. I do feel that the Mayoral System, could work if you get the right person, but if you don't, a total disaster, is it worth the gamble, Im not convinced.

brooneyes said...

Nita, you can't select a system because it's easy to get rid of the leader, that kind of negativity will kill it before it's had a chance. The position of elected mayor can be changed by the likes of you and the others on here!
If there is something in the position that you consider unfair or undemocratic, pressure them into changing, tell them they will not get your vote unless the rules are changed!
You can do this, apply pressure to the most effective parts, and those parts are the votes.
No change, no votes!

nita said...

I agree, is it a good enough reason, to choose the Leader and Cabinet option, just because the Councillors can get rid of this person, if they feel he/she is not doing a good job. In this case, you may have a Leader who is popular with the public, but if he/she does not fit in with the Councillors, it will be easy for them to remove this person. Would you like to be this person, knowing that if the Councillors feel you have made the wrong decisions, you could be out the door. I would go for the Mayoral System, if, this person did not have so much power. Yes, it is okay for this person to be allowed to make final decisions, as long as he/she does listen to what the Councillors, Committees recommend, and does not just work to their own agenda. I would prefer a non political Mayor, but I don't think this will happen.

brooneyes said...

Nita, the problem with the leader and cabinet is the threat of removal if the cabinet don't agree with you. But what if the electorate agree with you, but the cabinet don't?
There is an in-built instability in the position of leader. There is an in-built protectiveness built in to the position of mayor, no matter how many times you mess up, you get to do the four years?
Bring about the changes prior to voting anyone into that position.
There have been rumblings in the Civic Centre that say Roger Ibbs has been forwarded as the choice of
the present cabinet, as leader.
Now I don't know about you, but the thought of this Tory 'Arfur Daley' running this city, fills me with absolute dread! The other top contender, Joy Garner, brings about similar feelings of unease.
You and the others have the power to get the successful candidate in a mayor and cabinet system, to sign up to certain things before you vote, and make them physically sign! Make them stick to the promises that will be made during this period of campaigning! The way to bring about permanent change for the better lies in your hands, overcome
the doubt and make it happen!

ian norris said...

brooneyes said.. "the councillors have no power of veto" Have the Councillors ever needed to use the power? I cant remember a decisions made by Commissions the Mayor has ignored, or a decision recommended by the Mayor the Councillors have voted against.

brooneyes said...

I would have thought there had been numerous times when members of the exec wished they had the power of veto.

warren said...

The problem is not with office of elacted mayor, the problem is the person who holds office at the moment. With an elacted mayor, we as voters put he/she there and they are, or should be held to account by us. This is where it falls down as Mr. Meredith seems to have a lack of understanding of this, surounding himself with a kind of inner circal of bubieys and other usefull council members sutch as Roger The Dogger Ibbs...lol. Its not the office that failed, for near 3 1/2 years its never had the chance to show truly what it can do. The office must stay, thats why I will vote that way in a few days time, but come voteing time for mayor, Meredith needs to be gone. More power must then be given to the council members and the elected mayor must be a kind of figerhead, promoting the citys good points to power it forword.

ian norris said...

brooneyes: can you name ONE?

brooneyes said...

If the councillors on the exec had the right to veto, then I would think the carry on over Dimensions would have been quashed by them. The problem is, as it stands, Meredith is surrounded by
yes men, so whether they had the power to veto or not, they wouldn't because they are in his pocket.

ian norris said...

Brooneyes: sadly no, Officer have been trying to privatise Dimension since 2001.

Go back and read minutes of "Improving Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Thursday, 31 January 2008" where the chair "expressed his view that the proposals amounted to privatisation through the back door. He expressed deep concern about the future of swimming pools within the City and envisaged a future where swimming pools were run solely by the private sector."

If Councillors or the EMB were really against closure they would have said so then and Recommendeed it was removed from the Budget. But no they let it past. Either the Councillors hadb't read the reports? councillors were unaware of uproar, or they wanted to blame the Elected Mayor for the Decision and then make huge public display... Its anyone idea as I have yet to hear a reason why chair simply voived CONCERN at them closing (oh the chair then moves the motion for referendum to remove mayor)

T COPE said...

Meredith has a lot to answer for.
What about fraud in the excutive.
What about the dodgy Audit books.
What about trying to silence people, trying to get at the truth.
He is ultimately responsible for the actions of his council, but acts like the three monkeys, deaf, dumb, and blind.
As for the Audit Committee members who signed off the Accounts for the Year, they should be ashamed of themselves.

ian norris said...

T Cope: if those are true they are based on the Person and not system, a leader could hide the same facts ( see Cultural Quarter )

Gary Elsby said...

Craig, contiunues to speak up for the position of elected Mayor by saying all it needs is the right candidate. Of course, it goes without saying, that his perfect candidate MUST be a racist.

The model of Government, naturally lends itself to elected leader and cabinet, just as the prime model rests with Government itself.

The idea of Elected Mayor has been an experiment that is quite perverse to Democracy that Stoke finds itself in, namely UNELECTED Council Manager(No1) and Elected Mayor (No2 in that order of seniority).

The Mayor suporters ask for change and of course they are right because they are being FORCED into that change by LAW.

The notion that John Caudwell, Sir Stanley Mathews or Captain John Smith would make great Mayors because they were/are great men is totally ludicrous.

A great footballer, a brave man or a great phone seller means nothing at all to me in this role of POLITICS!

Mike Wolfe was heroed with nothing more than being the CAB chief. Why this was the case, baffles me.

A politician should be the leader and that leader chosen via a majority of view, whether that process is by the majority voting party, or a simple majority of councillors (two methods).

It took Mike Wolfe 2 years (massive campaign by the sentinel) to gain 5000 signatures to run for the Mayor.
It has taken D4Stoke 18 HOURS to gain 10,000 signatures for its removal.

The current Mayoral 'system' (a gagging term) has not and did not listen to the voice of the people, or (a) political party, or used common sense in leading.

In fact, the 'system' totally bypassed the whole of Democracy and this will be called 'strong' leadership or some other uneccessary macho term that script writers spin with.

I lost faith when Parents became angry and became angry at my party who remain totally innocent of all charges.

Tony said...

Gary,
That is the issue with the BNP. Time and time again the far right posters on this site call for the city to return a mayoral system on the 23rd.
When it is pointed out that if this city had a BNP mayor, no major company would invest in this city which is needed to bring jobs to the area, no! it would not effect investment they cry! Fact is no employer can by law discriminate but the BNP openly discriminate of racial grounds. This is the main reason why a BNP mayor/leader can never work.

brooneyes said...

Tony, you are a liar!
Let's get some things straight from you and bloody Elsby.
You say companies will refuse to come here under a BNP led council?
Where's your proof? Let's see the letters of refusal from big business to come here? You're full of it.
No employer can discriminate but the BNP openly discriminate?!
Bullsh*t!
For a start, that mad woman Harriet Harman has passed a piece of employment law that says it is alright for employers to discriminate against vwhite, working class males!!
As to the BNP being discriminatory
that's just another pile of what was mentioned earlier!
The BNP can't hold a private meeting and criticise islam, without the lefties dragging us into court, so the chances of us being discriminatory and getting away with it are zero, which is apparently the figure that makes up your Intelligence Quotient!
Now, put up or shut up. Prove your scurrilous accusations or shut your gob.

Gary Elsby said...

Craig, which Black or Asian councillor do you think is up to the job of being Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent?
Which black or Asian member of the BNP (councillors included)could perform the role?

Tony said...

Craig,
I run a company and deal with Blue Chip companies everyday. I know of their recruitment policies, many are signed up to the "Investment in People" standard (look it up) By law they can not discriminate, by choice, by policy you and your party does. I lose count of the number of times i hear your politicians both locally and nationally describe how you stand up for the white people and how to be a member you must be white. Companies can not do that and this city if it were run by the BNP would not fit in with their employment portfolio and ethos. That is not a slur on you or your party but is my opinion and again because my opinion differs from yours, you resort to personal insults. We are a blog for debate and opinion not for trading insults if you want to throw insults out may i suggest that you try the link to Guido Fawkes on the left hand side of the blog.

brooneyes said...

Tony, companies follow profits,
not political agendas. If there is profit to be made here, the companies will come.
Why is it you howl about us
representing the indigenous people of this country, but I never hear your kind complain about the Black Police Officers Association?
Or the Black Socialists Society?
Why don't you go and ask Keith Vaz
how many white members there are in that?
It seems that every race is entitled to bodies that will stand up and defend them, apart from white British people. I don't understand what your problem is with your fellow countrymen, but I'm fed up of having to point out just how hypocritical your observations are. Either we are all racist, including the blacks, asians, eastern europeans, etc, or we all have a fundamental right to support and campaign for our own people. It is ridiculous that you say it's all right for all these other bodies to form solely by nationality, but the people whose ancestral home these islands are, cannot!
It's not me that needs to shape up or ship out Tony, you're the one with the blinkered outlook on life, not me.

brooneyes said...

You know Tony, it's funny how these employers can't come here if the workforce is going to be white, but they can if it's asian, or black, or best of all, if it used to be indigenous until the Poles came along, at which point, all the indigenous workers get sacked, and your "racially aware"
employers take on the Poles in their place because they work for half the money!
Ethos?! The only bloody ethos that exists out there in big business is "How much can I make?"

ian norris said...

Gary : you say "I lost faith when Parents became angry and became angry at my party who remain totally innocent of all charges."

Why did your Party not Vote against SERCO at full Councill, Who was the Mayority when failing schools foreced the Government to send SERCO in?

Tony said...

Craig,
I think you must be struggling with this one. I am saying that in law a company is NOT allowed to discriminate OK? But your party does discriminate and you openly admit that. In my opinion a company is less likely to invest in a city that is run by a party with extreme views. Now understand this Craig because it's important..... this is MY OPINION based on MY experience. I may be wrong (i don't think i am) but it's my view. Of course companies follow profits, but if they could invest in a city that is run by a BNP mayor (or leader) or a city similar but, run by a main stream candidate, i think i know which one they would choose. It's about the PR and being seen to negotiate with a party like yours.

brooneyes said...

Tony, once again you're back to insulting comments and vague, unfounded accusations!
How can you say by law companies
are not allowed to discriminate, when that mental bloody woman past it as law?! It is alright for employers to discriminate against white workingclass males! How plain do you want it?
Tony, we've seen what happens when your so called mainstream
candidates get in, it's all we've had for over half a bloody century,
and look at the state the place is in!! This place would have been better off having the Teletubbies run it!
No industry, and no investment in industry, despite Merediths jaunt to the south of France, and despite the fact that Labour have had 11 years as national government to at least do something about it.
What have they done Tony??
They've buggered about, lined their own pockets, sat back and watched this city crumble, they've talked a lot, but said nowt, but they haven't achieved one result that sticks in your mind!
Don't believe me? Ask anyone. Ask them what it is that this council have done that sticks in their mind and I'll bet you that damn near every answer talks of something negative.
You are entitled to your view Tony, but if it is wrong, or even if it is just at odds with what I believe, then I have the right to challenge it. But don't stick to it for the sake of it! If it has been proved that your opinion is wrong, you have to change it. Where is the sense in going through life knowing that what you believe in is wrong??
I want you to think long and hard about this situation, and then on October 23rd, I want you to




VOTE BNP!!!! lol.

Tony said...

Craig,
That's it I'm beat!! Tinky Winky for Mayor!
I'm LOVIN the debate dude!! lol

Anonymous said...

I find it very strange, that YOU Craig Pond make these comments below, so vehemently, When you and your close pal Mr T Cope, keep trying to be elected to this same council, that you say is so corrupt !!

I take it the "half that are not fit to be there" are often the very Councillors democraticly elected instead of you!

"This will be about funny handshakes- don't believe me, check on how many are masons-
deals done behind closed doors because the bribery going on would turn your stomach, but the biggest drawback to this system is that the
people don't get to choose, but councillors; at least half of which aren't fit to be there, get to pick for you.
Democracy is what's best for this city, and the mayoral system is far more democratic than leader, and like I said before, take a look at who is likeliest to get in through each system, and consider your choices from there."

As a leader is a democraticly elected member of the council and so is the mayor, the democracy balance is argueable, on that point.

This quote is the clincher for me:
"take a look at who is likeliest to get in through each system, and consider your choices from there."

Since with the mayor system, the voting will be polarised on to one person, then the sick probability of a racist, faschist BNP mayor being elected is very strong.

So I will clearly be voting 'YES' to have a leader system to which your vile BNP policies will never get to see the light of day!

brooneyes said...

Anonymous, you really don't understand, do you?
Myself and Terry ran for councillors in order to change the corrupt system that now exists!

You are nothing but a rabid, lefty fascist, baying in panic because you know that on a local level, all the destructive work you've done will be put straight by a BNP mayor! When you reach the point where the only point you make
is name calling, you've lost the fight!

deputy mayors dead dog said...

Ian Norris: Everyone knows that Labour around here voted against the idea of City Academies.
Everyone knows that Gordon Brown wants 400-500 academies in the Country.
Stoke was considered a problem and our kids were deliberately failed so that outsiders could be brought in, SERCO. Their job is to deliver a quota of academies using the Mayoral system and ignoring locsl opinion.
Getting shut of the Mayor sends a message back!

deputy mayors dead dog said...

Ian Norris: Everyone knows that Labour around here voted against the idea of City Academies.
Everyone knows that Gordon Brown wants 400-500 academies in the Country.
Stoke was considered a problem and our kids were deliberately failed so that outsiders could be brought in, SERCO. Their job is to deliver a quota of academies using the Mayoral system and ignoring locsl opinion.
Getting shut of the Mayor sends a message back!

Alison said...

Sounds like a good idea to me - get rid of the Mayor, sends out a message. The people of Stoke are fed up of being dictated to.

As I have said previously on this site, if the Mayor's lips are moving, you know he is lying!

I for one hope that, if the vote does go in favour of the Mayoral system, that Meredith doesn't stand again, or if he does, he doesn't get any votes. Also, we need to make sure that whoever stands in the Mayoral elections in May have to give us chapter and verse about their ideas and vision for the City (and tell us whether they will listen to the people).

The Leader/Cabinet model tells everyone that we want change.

Having said all the above, I think I am leaning towards the Leader idea. I really can't bring myself to vote for the Mayoral system and risk another Meredith style dictatorship.

ian norris said...

deputy mayors dead dog : all 60 Cllrs voting against SERCO would also send out a strong message but they didnt' those your paranoid/conspiracy theory fails (basicly because Labour didn't vote as you say they wanted to)

D4S said...

I want to ask a question. Surely, in terms of democracy, it is far more democractic that 60 people; 60 local representatives make the decisions of the council than one person?

Those 60 elected throughout the city coming from every community so that everybody's voice is heard.

Tony Blair created Elected Mayors in the hope that there would be 400 mini-me Blairs running about. The truth is leader's are born not created. If somebody is truely destined to lead the city then they will lead whatever the system. Having 60 councillors making collective decisions at least means that more weight is behind the direction of travel.