real whitby facebook group

Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Is The Labour Party Non Existant In Whitby ?

101 Things To Do In Whitby

Dear Secretary, The Labour Party

It is quite clear that those two hatted councillors serving both NYCC and their District Council have claimed twice for IT expenses, ie broadband connection.

It must be very very annoying for those honourable, honest stand up councillors who did not take advantage of the tax payer, having to sit side by side with those councillors who claimed IT expenses twice, ie additional £500ish.

In some cases I believe there are examples of a married couple serving on both councils claiming multiple IT expenses each!

It must be exceptionally annoying for those real stand up honest and honourable Councillors who already have broadband connection and a computer at home who do not claim any IT expenses, saving the tax payer £1000ish if they were to claim from the District Council and NYCC.

Would it not be an honourable gesture if all those double dipping Labour Councillors did the right thing and paid back any IT expenses they claimed for twice?

Would it not be an honourable gesture if all those double dipping Labour Councillors did the right thing and perhaps gave back any money they received over and above the actual cost of their IT expenditure?

Is it not time for those Labour Councillors to lead by example, set an example?

Having read the attachments regards York Potash, ie see section I’ve cut and pasted below, why has the Labour Party in this impoverished, low paid, low skilled pocket of North Yorkshire failed to make any headway against the Conservative party?

An accurate measure of a poverty stricken area is calculated by how many families are in receipt of free school meals.

Is the Labour Party for Whitby and Scarborough aware of how many families are in receipt of free school meals?

Please see extracts below. Basically this area and those people who live within it are being hammered by the Conservative Party and there is a lot more hammering yet to do.

Yet the Conservative Party rules OK and those Whitby SBC Councillors who decided to change allegiance, chose not to join to the Labour Party! They went and joined the CONSERVATIVE PARTY!

Now in 2013, despite all the stories of neglect in Whitby in the local press and the Real- Whitby on-line website, despite the Labour Party being fully aware of the dire situation faced by many families,

some Labour councillors pocket what amounts to a winters fuel bill to your average family!

Please can the Labour Party set an example and request that those double dippers refund the IT expenses they claimed for twice and better still give the change back instead of pocketing the difference over and above what they actually pay for a broadband connection.

Imagine what would happen if ALL two hatted councillors now decided to bang in a second claim for IT expenses?

Tom Brodrick
The Reading Room
24a Flowergate
Whitby
North Yorkshire
YO21 3BA

Posted by on January 9, 2013. Filed under Arguments Yard,Featured,News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

32 Responses to Is The Labour Party Non Existant In Whitby ?


  1. kathleen parker Reply

    January 9, 2013 at 9:49 pm

    The earth will freeze over before that greedy bunch pay back what they dishonestly took! Soon be voting time!

  2. admin Reply

    January 9, 2013 at 9:56 pm

    But what is to stop you voting in another bunch who will do just the same. Is it the rules or the people to blaim. Maybe all candidates should be asked on their thoughts about double dipping prior to the elections.

  3. Nigel Ward Reply

    January 9, 2013 at 9:57 pm

    I must, in fairness, point out that the fifteen ‘double-dippers’ caught out by the Corruption Busters thus far (and there are many more throughout N Yorks, whom we will be challenging shortly) none – that’s right, NONE – are Labour Party members.

    That said, it must be allowed that it is true that SBC Labour Group Leader Councillor Eric BROADBENT did ‘double-dip’, during his stint with NYCC. (If you disagree, Eric, let’s here your point-of-view on here).

    My information is that several prominent members of the Scarborough & Whitby Labour Party feel that Eric is allowing a golden opportunity to slip by here. His ‘overpay’ amounted to about £1,200, the return of which would prove a very cheap price for Labour to consolidate the moral high ground and go on the offensive.

    At that point, the entire local Labour Party could set about the Cons and the Indpendents (whom many view as ‘closet’ Cons) with a very big stick indeed as we run up to the County elections on 2nd May.

    The will be seats there for the taking when the next stage of our Corruption Busters campaign unfolds.

    If the David PARSONS case down in Leicester is anything to go by, they will all have to pay it back anyway. Then Eric’s £1,200 goose will be cooked, and worse, and Labour will come out of it looking just a sleazy as the Selfservatives.

    So I must applaud Tom Brod’s call for some integrity in the Labour Party – and it is a win/win situation for them – even if they did it for all the wrong reasons:

    “Please can the Labour Party set an example and request that those double-dippers refund the IT expenses they claimed for twice and better still give the change back instead of pocketing the difference over and above what they actually pay for a broadband connection.”

    • Tim Thorne Reply

      January 12, 2013 at 6:17 pm

      “His ‘overpay’ amounted to about £1,200″

      The information at NYCC only now shows Cllr Broadbent’s allowances for three years. If Cllr Broadbent paid back the £765 to SBC that would draw the matter to a close for me.

      If all the double-dippers did the same it would draw the matter to a close and I wouldn’t feel the need to mention it so many times in this election year. :D

  4. Brian Dodds Reply

    January 9, 2013 at 10:35 pm

    I agree it is a win/win situation for the labour party, but it will take people with strength of character and genuine integrity to reform this corrupt system that allows such things to happen in the first place. There should not be a fixed allowance in place, councillors should be made to produce the necessary invoices/paperwork for their broadband supply and be reimbursed the said amount. When it comes to a case of a two hatted councillor, they should be made to declare whether or not they have already been reimbursed by one or the other councils. It would be interesting to know who set the levels of these allowances, I have never heard of anyone paying that kind of money for a broadband service, £500 is over £40 per month and a good broadband connection is widely available now for less than half that. This situation of council members making free with the public purse has gone on far too long, especially when they are telling us there has to be cuts in services because they don,t have the funding.

  5. vanda inman Reply

    January 9, 2013 at 11:05 pm

    Only Colin Challen stood up against the double dippers at the scrutiny meeting. I understand he suggested they be asked to pay the money back but this was ignored.

  6. Stakesby Legs Reply

    January 10, 2013 at 12:13 am

    Oh, they’ll pay it back all right. Five’ll get you twenty they’ll not get re-elected if they don’t. Mebbe not even then. You watch….

  7. Richard Ineson Reply

    January 10, 2013 at 10:29 am

    The local Labour Party and the Councillors who supposedly represent the views of the Labour Party, have had numerous opportunities to expose the seedy activities of the Conservatives, all of which seem to have been missed.

    What did they have to say about the appalling and scandalous manner in which the public purse was raped by the North Yorkshire Police Authority whilst under the Chair of Miss Kenyon?

    What did they have to say about the appalling mismanagement of the North Yorkshire Police whilst under the NYPA Chair of Miss Kenyon?

    What have they had to say about the corruption of the democratic process by the iniquitous use of the STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUP system whereby unelected, unmandated, anonymous and unaccountable groups of people, hold secret meetings, which are not minuted, and to which members of the public are not admitted, and who represent various,vested interest groups, are allowed to make decisions involving the expenditure of public money?

  8. sarraceniac Reply

    January 10, 2013 at 11:54 am

    I’m afraid that S&W CLP has always been rather lax about pointing out the misdemeanors of individual councillors. They seem to rely more upon the other parties just becoming unpopular through crass taxation and poor spending policies. They do not point out how individuals have behaved.

    When Peter Popple, one of the current double-dippers, left the Labour Party to be an Independent, they did not tell anybody outside the General Management Committee that, after my own resignation, he became Constituency Treasurer but was actually ‘asked’ to leave when it was discovered that, after about a year, the books were in chaos and had not been updated for the period of his office. I only found this out myself when Ian Stubbs chatted to me whilst I was having an evening out and he told me the story. He did not suggest that anything illegal had occurred, just incompetence.

    In general I would prefer to no longer vote Labour except that there seems no alternative at the moment. Locally so many of our council are just in it for their own pocket and nationally I cannot go along with the Coalition’s ignoring all of Keynes’ theories and re-introducing monetarist fiscal policies, especially after David Cameruin declaring, before the election, that he was not a Thatcherite. Certainly he and this Chancellor are, at least on economic matters, and the Lie-Dems seem to have, on the economy, gone more to the right than the mainstream Tories have. Many of Danny Alexander’s statements are reactionary to the extent that I believe, if he knew he could be elected as a Tory in Scotland, he would join them like a shot.

    Locally (which is I suppose what this thread is about) I always found an attitude in the local LP that it was dirty politics to attack the other side too much. This has been a tradition from all sides for years in the Borough (except for the Lie-Dems when it suits their own purposes). My own belief is that if someone is genuinely misbehaving then go for their throat, whatever party or group they belong to, otherwise work with them for the community. By the way, I got the sarcastic nick-name, when on the Parish Council, of ‘Sweetness and Light’.

    I don’t really like the current Eastfield P.C. who are misbehaving like crazy but only have an opposition of one and the South Branch of S&W CLP seems to be ignoring the current lot’s running the estate as if it were their own fiefdom.

    • Tim Thorne Reply

      January 10, 2013 at 12:33 pm

      “I cannot go along with the Coalition’s ignoring all of Keynes’ theories”

      From the little I’ve read about Keynes’ theories and taking a simplistic view of them, his theory is that when times are good you save for a rain day. When times are bad you spend what is in the bank at such a rate as it will run out when you think times will be good again. The problem is that the current opposition ignored those theories whilst times were good and never saved for a rainy day. Anyone fancy giving Ed Balls a second chance?

      • sarraceniac Reply

        January 10, 2013 at 2:44 pm

        Tim. Your reading of Keynesian theory is exactly the same as the current treasury who deliberately mis-state it for political reasons. Mr. Balls was almost equally wrong. Osborne is translating them as you are, Balls is translating them as an excuse to spend what he likes, when he like. Nobody today is advocating true Keynes, with the possible exception of the present US govt. and certainly the US during the New Deal and also Macmillan’s ‘one nation’ conservatism which acknowledged the ‘saving for a rainy day’ bit but also agreed that you have to borrow to invest, something which Mr Balls is now playing on and Mr Osborne is totally ignoring. I don’t actually relish the idea of giving Mr. Balls a second chance, thus my reluctance to vote Labour, but you obviously did not read what I was saying (or you didn’t understand it). I think Mr Balls is less of a danger to the economy in the current climate than Mr Osborne. If genuine Keynsian economics work, as it did in the FDR era in the US and in the Macmillan era here, then he has a better chance of turning the economy round than the Tories do. If we then get some money in the kitty, then get rid of him quick before he blows the lot.

        • Tim Thorne Reply

          January 10, 2013 at 7:07 pm

          “I think Mr Balls is less of a danger to the economy in the current climate than Mr Osborne.”

          My point was just the opposite. It is difficult to criticise the Conservatives for the state of the economy given mess they inherited. Criticising them for what they have done to try and fix it is a different matter. Trying to apply Keynesian economic practices to an economy that is on the rails with no money in the bank is more or less pointless. They just have to muddle along, being reactionary and having an effect where they can and hoping their long term growth plans come to fruition.

          I agree with the view was held in 2010 that the Conservatives would be in for one term only. It was the classic poisoned chalice. They’d give everyone austerity, be universally hated for it and Labour would be back in power in 2015. I’m looking forward to seeing the results in May 2013 and hoping that UKIP will make some big inroads, hopefully building to a more interesting 2015 General Election. Perhaps we may see a Labour Coalition Government.

          • sarraceniac Reply

            January 13, 2013 at 4:53 pm

            Just one thing to point out Tim. The coalition are talking only about the deficit not the national debt. It doesn’t suit their purpose to do otherwise. The deficit is a current thing that leads to debt. This they have successfully reduced by about 25% if you believe their figures, or 20% if you believe the economists analysis. The National debt has gone up from c. 700 billion to 900 billion in the last two years, i.e. an increase of about 20-25% but actually more in terms of cash than the deficit has decreased. It is predicted to rise to 1.5 trillion pounds in the next few years if current policies are pursued. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Despite the spin, we are getting deeper into debt. Somebody who has read no, or only a little, Keynes will fall for it.

            • Tim Thorne Reply

              January 13, 2013 at 5:10 pm

              “The coalition are talking only about the deficit not the national debt. It doesn’t suit their purpose to do otherwise.”

              It doesn’t suit the UK’s bank balance to deal with the national debt now. I would just can our nuclear weapons, institute massive cuts in public sector bureaucracy to fund cuts that could pay off the national debt in the medium or short term.

              • sarraceniac Reply

                January 13, 2013 at 7:10 pm

                You’ve missed the point. They are reducing the deficit by increasing the national debt. They may not be able to reduce that but it is galloping up to reduce the deficit that is the point . DOH!

  9. Andrea Smith Reply

    January 10, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    I cant really blame The Labour Party for not wanting to cross swords with Jane Kenyon, many strong characters including heads of police forces have wanted to take on Jane Kenyon over the years, but all have kept quiet for fear of what she may do to them, her and her husband had the whole of NY Police in their back pockets. Only Nigel Ward, an evidently fearless man, or a man with nothing to loose has dared to cross this lady in recent years. In direct response to Tom Brodricks letter, I would say – Yes, where are the Labour Party in Whitby and are they for or against double dipping ? Would be nice to know before we go out and vote for any of them.

    • Richard Ineson Reply

      January 10, 2013 at 4:22 pm

      Well said Andrea, it’s a simple question, ‘Are the Labour Party for, or against, double dipping?’ I wouldn’t have any difficulty answering this question, so what is the Labour Party line on this? And don’t bother to tell us that you haven’t seen the question, because we know that all of the political parties,and all of the Councils, and the NYPA and the Fire and Rescue and many individuals, presently, in influential positions, read every word that is published on Real Whitby. So what is the Labour Party stance on double dipping? I think that we should be told.
      Trebles, sorry, on this occasion, I think it more appropriate, if we made it doubles all round, this time.

  10. vanda inman Reply

    January 12, 2013 at 9:58 am

    As a member of the LP I have a lot to say, but as most of it locally is negative, this will have to suffice, for now:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html

    I think Colin Challen, who is the only real local Labour party contender against Goodwill wrote about the Scrutiny of the ‘double dipping’ on the S & W Clp website – which I have to say I have been censured from. lol.

    http://www.labour4scarboroughandwhitby.net/?p=205

    • Nigel Ward Reply

      February 6, 2013 at 11:23 am

      If you mean ‘censored’, Vanda, then I am deeply shocked. I hope it was nothing to do with your views on the Sirius project – a topic on which I have important revelations to disclose, at my own prerogative.

  11. jgh Reply

    January 24, 2013 at 11:05 pm

    ‘non’ is not a word, the correct spelling is “nonexistant”.

    • rahjibugha Reply

      February 5, 2013 at 11:01 pm

      non-existant

      • sarraceniac Reply

        February 6, 2013 at 9:12 am

        According to the Oxford, nonexistant, nonexistent, non existant, non existent, non-existant and non-existent are all equally correct. The spellings with the ‘e’s instead of the ‘a’s are favo(u)red mainly by U.S. dictionaries. The spell checker (spellchecker, spell-checker?) on Real Whitby is clearly America biased. It doesn’t like the existant version, nor does Google. It doesn’t mind which version of spellchecker you use though.

        • rahjibugha Reply

          February 6, 2013 at 6:03 pm

          My Oxford insists on the hyphen.

          • sarraceniac Reply

            February 8, 2013 at 6:14 am

            Then trade it in on the 20 volume version.

  12. Tom Brodrick Reply

    February 7, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    Dear Secretary, The Labour Party

    It is quite clear that those two hatted councillors serving both NYCC and their District Council have claimed twice for IT expenses, ie broadband connection.

    It must be very very annoying for those honourable, honest stand up councillors who did not take advantage of the tax payer, having to sit side by side with those councillors who claimed IT expenses twice, ie additional £500ish.

    In some cases I believe there are examples of a married couple serving on both councils claiming multiple IT expenses each!

    It must be exceptionally annoying for those real stand up honest and honourable Councillors who already have broadband connection and a computer at home who do not claim any IT expenses, saving the tax payer £1000ish if they were to claim from the District Council and NYCC.

    Would it not be an honourable gesture if all those double dipping Labour Councillors did the right thing and paid back any IT expenses they claimed for twice?

    Would it not be an honourable gesture if all those double dipping Labour Councillors did the right thing and perhaps gave back any money they received over and above the actual cost of their IT expenditure?

    Is it not time for those Labour Councillors to lead by example, set an example?

    Having read the attachments regards York Potash, ie see section I’ve cut and pasted below, why has the Labour Party in this impoverished, low paid, low skilled pocket of North Yorkshire failed to make any headway against the Conservative party?

    An accurate measure of a poverty stricken area is calculated by how many families are in receipt of free school meals.

    Is the Labour Party for Whitby and Scarborough aware of how many families are in receipt of free school meals?

    Please see extracts below. Basically this area and those people who live within it are being hammered by the Conservative Party and there is a lot more hammering yet to do.

    Yet the Conservative Party rules OK and those Whitby SBC Councillors who decided to change allegiance, chose not to join to the Labour Party! They went and joined the CONSERVATIVE PARTY!

    Now in 2013, despite all the stories of neglect in Whitby in the local press and the Real- Whitby on-line website, despite the Labour Party being fully aware of the dire situation faced by many families,
    some Labour councillors pocket what amounts to a winters fuel bill to your average family!

    Please can the Labour Party set an example and request that those double dippers refund the IT expenses they claimed for twice and better still give the change back instead of pocketing the difference over and above what they actually pay for a broadband connection.

    Imagine what would happen if ALL two hatted councillors now decided to bang in a second claim for IT expenses?

    Tom Brodrick
    The Reading Room
    24a Flowergate
    Whitby
    North Yorkshire
    YO21 3BA?

  13. Tom Brodrick Reply

    February 7, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    The Labour Party Secretary has kindly emailed myself
    with a written response.

    Received 7 February 2013

    Dear Thomas.

    Thank you for your patience in regards to your e-mail of January 9 in which
    you raise issues stemming from allegations that so called ‘twin hatted’
    councillors made claims from two different local authorities for the same
    item – broadband allowance.

    As secretary of the Scarborough & Whitby Labour Party I am not permitted to
    respond to this kind of communication without bringing the matter to the
    attention of the Executive Committee of the Constituency Labour Party; which
    did not meet until February 4.

    A full response to these concerns you raised was posted on the Scarborough &
    Whitby Labour Party website on 21st October 2012. You will also know that
    our response to the Potash development is also posted on our website.

    May I remind you that as a member of the Labour Party you are entitled to
    attend meetings of the Whitby Branch and the General Management Committee of
    the CLP.

    I look forward to seeing you at one of our meetings.

    Kind regards

    John.

    John Ritchie
    S&W CLP Secretary
    2 Pinfold Close
    Scarborough
    YO12 6UZ

    Tel: 01723 366673
    Mob: 07929 046994

    E-mail: secretary@labour 4scarboroughandwhitby.net

    Web: http://www.labour4scarboroughandwhitby.net

    For urgent inquiries outside of normal office hours call 07970 485690

  14. Tom Brodrick Reply

    February 7, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    Dear Mr Ritchie

    Therefore will the Labour Party allow Labour Party members stand for election who have previously been Councillors for NYCC or SBC and who have clearly breached the code of conduct – which stems from the ‘Seven Principles of Public Service.’ and reinforced by Cllr Collin Challen’s point of view?

    Tom Brodrick

    New Standards Regime – fit for purpose?
    Posted on 21/10/2012 by Cllr Colin Challen

    I write in a personal capacity as a member Scarborough Borough Council’s Standards Committee, and as someone with experience of Parliament during the MP’s expenses scandal, when a lot of lessons were learnt the hard way.

    A few months ago, most members of Scarborough Borough Council received a letter from Robert Goodwill MP – a close colleague of Andrew Mitchell MP (of ‘pleb’ fame) – lauding the new standards regime for councillors introduced by the government. The government abolished the national standards board, which was generally welcomed since the board was widely viewed as a case of overkill. But in its eagerness to undo a Labour ‘quango’ the government went in quite the opposite direction, leaving us with a standards regime for councillors that is both toothless and practically denuded of wider independent engagement.
    The first significant test of the new system in Scarborough came with the hearing of a complaint stemming from an allegation that eight ‘twin-hatted’ County Councillors who were also Borough Councillors from 2009 had received two sets of allowances to pay for the same thing – I.T. services . The total amount each year amounted to about £750 and it was alleged that to be given taxpayers’ money twice without necessarily having to have two broadband connections, etc. to justify the allowance was wrong.
    Prior to the changes to the system, a member could be suspended from the Council. The most the new Standards Committee can ask for now if a member has been found to break the code of conduct is an apology, and suggest the member be given some training. If the member refuses, he or she can be reported to their group leader, who can be called upon to in effect remove the whip – meaning the member could lose a chair or position on a committee. A reasonable person may say ‘big bloody deal’ and they wouldn’t be far wrong.
    This relates to a code of conduct – which stems from the ‘Seven Principles of Public Service.’ These principles set a higher expectation on behaviour than simply not breaking the law, or simply not being dishonest. As far as the former goes, that would be a matter for the police in any case. The principles start with the concept of selflessness, and finish with the concept of leadership. They assume that all public officials are leaders – and must be seen to implement the principles. During the Westminster scandal, many MPs despite having broken no rules found their pleas of ‘having done nothing wrong’ met with a hail of criticism. People expected a higher level of responsibility than merely obeying the rules – which were in any case seen as self-serving. Parliament now has an independent body to oversee things.
    In some ways we now have the reverse in local government. Councillors have been told that they can pretty much police themselves. Before the changes, the Standards Committee had several voting members who were not members of the authority. Now there are none. The new arrangements mean there is officially just one independent ‘advisor,’ who along with the Council’s Monitoring Officer can sift complaints before they even get to the Standards Committee. This function was previously carried out by the Standards Referrals Sub-Committee – a body with a wider membership.

    The Committee found that there was no evidence of dishonesty (or illegality for that matter) but I wanted the Committee to recognise the ‘Seven Principles’ issue – which meant that the strict legal defence of ‘I have done nothing wrong (by the rules)’ could not be the end of it.
    I certainly agreed with the conclusion that there was no dishonesty and the rules had not been broken. But does that necessarily mean that in the wider scheme of things – and in the eyes of the public – that the right thing had been done? The simple solution would have been for the Committee to suggest to the members involved that if they thought that the identifiable sums paid (I won’t go into the arcane details of how the sum is calculated and paid) were excessive, then the difference could be repaid. I know one member said his I.T. costs exceeded the level of the combined allowances. Fair enough – there would be nothing to repay. Another member insisted that she paid for all her I.T. needs out of her own pocket, which rather begged the question of what she spent the allowances on.
    Another issue which emerged out of this hearing was that a County Council official appears to have provided at least four of the eight members with a paragraph long statement which those members then used in response to the County Council’s own investigating officer’s inquiries. This would be like a detective providing you with the answer to his own questions, and clearly this has muddied the essential independence of the officer – councillor relationship. It is a matter which warrants further investigation.
    My view is that we do have a weaker standards regime – and that is a view shared by many on the Council. We therefore have to ensure that the Standards Committee at least seeks to uphold not just the rules, but the Seven Principles which underpin the integrity of public officials.

    • Tom Brodrick Reply

      February 7, 2013 at 7:36 pm

      Collin Challen Labour

      “My view is that we do have a weaker standards regime – and that is a view shared by many on the Council. We therefore have to ensure that the Standards Committee at least seeks to uphold not just the rules, but the Seven Principles which underpin the integrity of public officials.”.

  15. Tom Brodrick Reply

    February 8, 2013 at 12:15 am

    Dear Thomas.

    Thank you for your patience in regards to your e-mail of January 9 in which
    you raise issues stemming from allegations that so called ‘twin hatted’
    councillors made claims from two different local authorities for the same
    item – broadband allowance.

    As secretary of the Scarborough & Whitby Labour Party I am not permitted to
    respond to this kind of communication without bringing the matter to the
    attention of the Executive Committee of the Constituency Labour Party; which
    did not meet until February 4.

    A full response to these concerns you raised was posted on the Scarborough &
    Whitby Labour Party website on 21st October 2012. You will also know that
    our response to the Potash development is also posted on our website.

    May I remind you that as a member of the Labour Party you are entitled to
    attend meetings of the Whitby Branch and the General Management Committee of
    the CLP.

    I look forward to seeing you at one of our meetings.

    Kind regards

    John.

    John Ritchie
    S&W CLP Secretary
    2 Pinfold Close
    Scarborough
    YO12 6UZ

    Tel: 01723 366673
    Mob: 07929 046994

  16. Tom Brodrick Reply

    February 8, 2013 at 12:17 am

    Dear Mr Ritchie
    Therefore will the Labour Party allow Labour Party members stand for election who have previously been Councillors for NYCC or SBC and who have clearly breached the code of conduct – which stems from the ‘Seven Principles of Public Service.’ and reinforced by Cllr Collin Challen’s point of view?

    Will The Labour Party enforce the ‘Seven Principles of Public Service.’ as reinforced by Cllr Collin Challen’s point of view as posted on 21/10/2012?

    New Standards Regime – fit for purpose?
    Posted on 21/10/2012 by Cllr Colin Challen
    “My view is that we do have a weaker standards regime – and that is a view shared by many on the Council. We therefore have to ensure that the Standards Committee at least seeks to uphold not just the rules, but the Seven Principles which underpin the integrity of public officials.”.

    Approximately how long will I have to wait for a reply, why can’t Cllr Challen not reply to my letter personally?

    Regards

    Tom Brodrick

  17. Tom Brodrick Reply

    February 8, 2013 at 12:19 am

    Reply to Tom from Mr Ritchie (Labour Party secretary)
    7th February 2013

    Tom, the Labour Party conducts it’s business at meetings and under the guidance of its rule book.
    I suggest that you attend one of these meetings where you will be able to raise these matters personally.

    John Ritchie
    Secretary Scarborough & Whitby Labour Party.

    • Tom Brodrick Reply

      February 8, 2013 at 1:53 am

      8th February 2013

      Dear John
      (Secretary Labour Party Scarborough & Whitby)

      Once again thank you for your reply.

      Naturally the Labour Party conducts its business at meetings and under the guidance of its rule book.

      Therefore it MUST stand by it’s decisions and by it’s leaders stance.

      Not to do so is seen to be weak and certainly not something that will gain the local Labour Party votes.

      This in part I blame for the failure of the Labour Party in this area and to try and make inroads for the good of the party and win seats on either council would take a very disproportionate amount of time and energy, perhaps a decade.

      Should those ‘official candidates/members’ have been a worthy candidate they would have been elected many times over in the past decade. Unfortunately they are just clogging up the process and will do so for a decade to come.

      There is not an area of land, not a more disadvantaged population of people in the whole of Gt Britain, ruled by so many Conservative seats, it is most embarrassing. Poverty can be measured by the number of free school meals in any one area.

      Does the Labour Party know how many people are on free school meals within SBC?

      I have read the minutes of the local meetings and unfortunately I do not feel inspired, rather more embarrassed, I’m sure yourself and Mr Challen have also read those minutes.

      Like many others in Whitby I have campaigned to improve Whitby Town and fought against some of the dreadful detrimental decisions made by NYCC & SBC.

      Unfortunately the campaigns were the inspiration of local people jumped on by prospective Labour Party candidates especially in the run up to a local seat up for election. Following the election those prospective Labour Party candidates melted away again.

      But unfortunately I fail to see what those Labour Party “officials” have done personally for the good of the area, as well as wanting to be Labour Party Councillors in the past ten years.

      I cannot see how one can only be interested and switch on if there is a possibility of a seat on a council.

      I do not recollect in the past ten years one single ounce of help or support from any Labour Party quarter, official or unofficial, regards many of the issues faced by Whitby and it’s residents.

      The Labour Party members should get 100% behind Cllr Challen and make some very very radical changes to the local Labour Party. The fact that so few Labour Party members have seats in SBC and NYCC is a huge blessing in disguise regards double dipping (not alleged I may add), and that there would only be one or two victims should the local Labour Party stand behind Cllr Challen’s and his views.

      “My view is that we do have a weaker standards regime – and that is a view shared by many on the Council. We therefore have to ensure that the Standards Committee at least seeks to uphold not just the rules, but the Seven Principles which underpin the integrity of public officials.”.

      With respect, waiting weeks on end for a reply from the Labour Party is also very very detrimental to the aims and goals of the Labour Party. Not even an acknowledgement of receipt from my initial letter many many weeks ago.

      The Labour Party nationally has never been so far ahead of the Conservative Party for all the obvious reasons, reasons that are so evident in our isolated community of Scarborough Borough.

      The local Labour Party (SBC) needs a massive radical shakeup to take maximum advantage of such a lead.

      There is no need for a response to this letter.

      Tom Brodrick
      The Reading Room Gallery
      24a Flowergate
      Whitby
      North Yorkshire
      YO21 3BA


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.