Wednesday, 22 October 2008

Sentinel letters on election eve.

There are a lot of letters in the Sentinel today about the referendum tomorrow.

Mark Breeze, from Hanley

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/letters/People-vote-yes-democracy/article-417207-detail/article.html

makes the obvious point. He wants a NO vote just so the people get to elect any mayor and do not have to be led by a councillor. But he thinks a mayor will mean no closed door deals and no murky alliances! Just what planet is he living on at present then?

Mo Chaudry, from Waterworld

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/letters/progress-stop-going-old-days/article-417204-detail/article.html

wants a NO vote because he thinks a mayor is better for regeneration. He thinks with a leader system there would be more fighting, scheming and power playing. But we’ve got the scheming and power playing now, it’s just it’s all in the hands of one mayor. There might be more fighting under the leader system, but bring it on, get the debate going. It’s far better than the labour/tory/libdem twits alliance just blindly voting according to whether the mayor gives them the thumbs up or thumbs down.

Councillor Pervez, Burslem South ward

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/letters/Dire-warnings-Stoke-Trent-referendum/article-417188-detail/article.html

wants a NO vote because he thinks it will give investors more confidence in Stoke-on-Trent. He points out that the governance commission’s report highlighted a need to re-engage with communities. But this report was written under mayor system, so it shows how badly it is working. You just need to look at the schools reorganisation issue to see that. If power were given to communities it would be sorted out in no time, but with a mayor, admittedly this mayor, it is a complete shambles that communities do not want.

Now my letter

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/letters/Mayor-privatisation/article-417198-detail/article.html

addresses a different angle, picking up on the point made by Councillor Barnes in our PASSION ON THE POLITICS SHOW blog, that SERCO is a corporate partner to the New Local Government Network, which campaigns to have more elected mayors and for more services to be privatised. It makes me think this could explain why SERCO is forcing academy schools, controlled by private sponsors, on the people of the city and why Mayor Meredith continues to insist that academies are the way forward despite all the evidence to the contrary. I suggest that to vote YES for leader system may mean that we could seize back control of our schools for the benefit of communities.

Now just by the way, there is a great letter by T. Latham, from Trentham

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/letters/distraction-Trentham-council/article-417196-detail/article.html

who, like so many of us, was outraged by Ged Rowney’s comments

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/LL/article-409807-detail/article.html?cacheBust=Ppx7wdtHOQfc&authid=c7TChL3iOxFfTYHoLPrzz551KsYYWPRhvOiLKOGhV7jBa3O7VN1224334209605#community

against the people of Trentham and their forward thinking vision for their school and their community.

There were a couple of good letters yesterday.

Mr Chadwick, from Trentham

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/letters/good-candidates-mayor/article-413563-detail/article.html

admitted to changing his mind from a NO vote to a YES vote after giving it some thought. It shows to me that the YES vote is the thinking persons vote! Mr Chadwick thinks there are some councillors who will listen properly to the people of the city and has less faith that a mayor would.

D Brown, from Stoke-on-Trent

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/letters/Voting-mayor-year-gamble/article-413565-detail/article.html

wants a YES vote because we get to elect councillors every year and they are in the best position to choose a leader. The point is made that with a mayor we take a 4 year gamble.

I have presented these letters in a biased way because I want a YES vote. But now it’s over to you, you can say whatever you like – so go ahead!

4 comments:

Paul Breeze said...

DEAR ALL,

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!!!

The Radio Stoke half hour debate regarding the referendum is available to be listened to by clicking on the following:
Listen: Referendum debate with Stuart George

Please get AS MANY people as you can to listen to this because it adequately explains most aspects of the issue and EMPHATICALLY reveals why we MUST VOTE NO, and why ALL OF US have a RESPONSIBILITY not just to ourselves but to OUR children and the NEXT generation to VOTE NO. Those councillors - ALL OF THEM, EVERY SINGLE LAST CRAP ONE OF THEM who called for this referendum by recommending a return to a TOTALLY FAILED Leader and Cabinet system should be ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES. THEY ARE AN UTTER DISGRACE TO OUR CITY - EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WHO VOTED TO DON THIS TO US. I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THEM WHATSOEVER.

All the rest of us MUST now GET OUT THERE and MAKE SURE that the people of OUR CITY OF STOKE-ON-TRENT VOTE NO to SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY and OUR CITY!!! DON'T SIT ON THE FENCE!!! DON''T SIT BACK AND WAIT TO BE DISENFRANCHISED!!! DON'T SAY YOU'RE TOO BUSY!!! THIS IS OUR CITY, OUR DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO CHOOSE IS AT STAKE.

WE HAVE ONE DAY. TWO DAYS AT MOST IF YOU COUNT REFERENDUM DAY. I'M GOING TO BE WORKING MY BALLS OFF EVERY SECOND OF THAT TIME TO KEEP OUR DEMOCRACY, OUR CHOICE. SO SHOULD YOU!!! DON'T BLOODY COMPLAIN AFTERWARDS THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE.

COME ON! COME ON! COME ON! WHERE ARE YOU!!!

DON'T LET THE COUNCILLORS TAKE CONTROL. LET US KEEP CONTROL OF OUR OWN CITY BY MAKING SURE WE

VOTE NO

Mike Barnes said...

Mark Breeze is Paul Breeze's son.

Mike Barnes said...

Just wanted to thank everybody for contribution.

Whatever, the result - thanks - your blog is great. :)

PS - HOTNEWS - D4S is not finished after Referendum - School reorganisation!!!!!!

nicky said...

Mike Barnes, I'd like to hear more about what democracy4stoke can do for schools reorganisation after tomorrow. Do they plan do do something regardless of whether it's a leader or a mayor? Are you labour lot finally going to start thinking with more than half a brain cell and do the schools reorganisation the way communities want it done? Here is something the council has to do. The CYP O&S committee recommended the federation of Trentham & St. Joseph's and to take Trentham off closure list and put on refurb list. The EMB promised to consider this and report back, they still have not reported back. Michael Coleman has asked for the report and the EMB must give it. So first thing to do is get that reported back. And if a couple of brain cells are fired up and working the report back would approve the recommendation. After that next thing is to stop Ged Rowney getting in the way of Trentham's plans to become cooperative trust school, he won't stop us but we do find him an irritating "distraction". As for the other schools, Tony and I sorted all those out on the other blog on Trentham High. Only sticking point still is how many really need to be academies. My recommendation would be none, but then again if the communities in other areas wanted academies it should be for them to say, not me.
Oh and the other thing D4S can do if we do get leader, is make sure it isn't going to be Ibbs.