Torfaen Democratic Forum

This website was created in the interests of democracy in Torfaen.

From The dictionary

Democracy n., pl. -cies.

1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2.A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4.Majority rule.
5.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

but a better and more complete definition, is perhaps best made using the words of Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address

... government of the people, by the people, for the people........


Comments on this Blog and the website http://www.torfaen4us.co.uk/ (Torfaen Democratic Forum) are invited here.

I copy below a seies of comments from another thread, which are better followed up here....

not a plaid supporter anymore said...
It is my opinion that the change of time is to restrict opposition attendence. The Labour/Plaid coalition have come close to losing a vote sometimes, when one of theirs is otherwise engaged (pulling pints at Glastonbury is a recent example of Plaid Councillor Fiona Cross)Plaid continue to vote with Labour in every vote. Plaid are laughed at by the Labour group & come the next election, will be disposed of. They will have cooked their goose with the general public because of their turncoat behaviour.I voted for Plaid Cllr Rees BECAUSE he knocked my door & told me we needed to get the Labour group out of power. He then manouvers Plaid into receiving paid jobs for supporting Labour. DISGRACEFUL.....it has & will not be forgotten. EVER
19 September 2009 22:13

Torfaen Voter said...
It shows the rubbish standards this whole joke of a website has when they hold up an anonymous comment as a cause for an elected councillor should respond to. This comment could have been made by anybody, it could have been made by the people behind this website, we have no way of knowing. If a constituent has a grievance, the councillor can be contacted leaving their name and contact details. It is not democratic to assume that this website should demand a response from Councillors based on unverified comments on a blog. This website speaks for the authors behind it only, not the people of Torfaen.
21 September 2009 13:07


Frazer said...
Dear Torfaen VoterOne absolute guarantee I can give you is that the comment you refer to was not written by the people behind this website nor do we know where it came from! However, if you critisise this comment for being anonymous, and yet do not give your own name, how can we take you seriously? The comment was made by someone and in the interests of free speech I will not remove it. Similar comments have been made before, on this website and in the Argus. I have invited a reply from the Plaid Leader, not demanded it. I believe it would be unfair not to invite or allow him to comment.Over to you, are you prepared to reveal who you are?
21 September 2009 20:14

Torfaen Voter said...
The point is that I am not calling for a response from a Councillor. You are taking upon yourself to be some white knight, when in fact you are merely talking for yourself.Your advice to that person should be to do what every citizen can demand, a response from their democratic representatives. If they have a grievance, they can make it known properly.They do not need the help of a hysterial website such as this.
21 September 2009 22:04

Frazer said...
Dear Torfaen VoterYou offer no opinions on the subject of this thread, or indeed any other subject mentioned on the website, you just seem to want to deny people, including myself, the right to make our opinions public. Feel free to praise the democratic processes in Torfaen and defend the actions of the leading labour/Plaid/Independent Coalition; they have in the most part chosen not to defend themselves, either here or in the Press. Do you really think all the concerns of the voters of Torfaen can be resolved by writing to their councillors? Do you think it wrong for anyone to publically challenge the actions of a councillor or a council? Are you happy with the way TCBC is run?Can I also ask "not a plaid supporter anymore" if he has contacted his councillor on this matter, and what sort of reply did he get?
21 September 2009 23:47

Torfaen Voter said...
“Can I also ask "not a plaid supporter anymore" if he has contacted his councillor on this matter, and what sort of reply did he get?” Which you should have done from the very start. I don’t defend anyone, I don’t know anyone involved, but many people in Torfaen are fed up of this whining and bleating by an obsessive pretending to talk for anyone other than themselves.If you have such a big problem with the current crop, stand yourself, put up or shut up.

Hopefully future comments on this matter will be posted below.

St James Field, Car Park Planning Application

Following much activity on the Grumblesheet about this application, culminating in a Meeting in Pontypool on Monday 14th of September, we hope that discussion can continue here, and allow the Grumble Sheet to discuss other matters. Please comment on this blog topic for matters concerning St James Field.

Fuller details can be found below and here

Essentially, Park Est have applied to put an 8 place car park in the rear of St James vicarage in 2008 and were refused below taken form council's minutes:

IT IS RECOMMENDED: Refuse
The proposal involves the substantial hard
surfacing of a visually important wedge of green space.
The scheme would
significantly harm the setting of the Grade II listedSt James’ Hall, St James’
Vicarage and the adjacent Pontypool Registry office andadversely impact upon the
visual amenities of the local townscape and Pontypoolconservation area.
The
removal of the mature ash tree would also have a negativeimpact upon the
character of the conservation area.
The proposal is thereforeconsidered to
be contrary to Policies H1, H3, G1 A & Biv of the Torfaen Local Planand
conflicts with the advice of Planning Policy Wales (Paragraphs 6.5.7 &
6.5.15)and Welsh Circular 61/96 (Paragraphs 11 & 70) in relation to the
setting of listedbuildings and conservation areas.

The council asked Park Est to reduce to 3 spaces and they agreed, hence the new application. At no time did the council consult with residents before they entered into this mitigation. Under delegated powers the council approved the demolition of the rear brick addition and the refurbishment works inside. The new application is to remove the existing garden to the rear of the nursery and put in a car park, remove the rear garden of the vicarage and build a play yard for the nursery.
In order to achieve all this 3 mature healthy trees, numerous shrubs and hedgerows and grassed gardens will be removed. The residents all objected on grounds of loss of visual and residential amenity. The family who live in the vicarage have objected and are fearful of being evicted by Park Est. Mrs Helen Greenwood has emailed and said she has made her objections to Park Est and is VERY fearful of being evicted. At no time did the council consult with the family or the nursery on these new plans and they are angry and on our side. None of the residents received a letter regarding this application and have agreed to state this under oath. I have sought representation from Fred Wildgust, who refuses to assist. I have sought representation from Paul Murphy who is proactive in reducing CO2 emissions and will assist as best he can. Pontypool Community Council have strenuously objected.

Please click the link below to comment further

Is This The Last Nail in the Coffin of Democracy!

At the next meeting of the council on the 28th of July 2009 the Deputy Chief Executive, at the request of the leader, will present a report seeking to change the times of monthly council meetings from 5pm to 10:30am, with a guillotine of 4 hours long maximum.

The majority of the labour supporting councillors don't work (in fact at least one has never worked). The majority of the opposition have full time jobs and will find great difficulty attending meetings that will interfere with both halves of a normal working day. For the leader to suggest changing the times of meetings at this point in the life of the current council can only be seen as an attempt to stifle democracy.

Leading Labour councillors did not know about this until recently yet rumours have been circulating for some time amongst the opposition that this was on the cards. The last meeting on the 30th of June was exceptionally long, finishing at 11:15 pm but this was certainly unusual and the agenda was ridiculously long, maybe deliberately so. Meetings are often 2 hours or less.

An email was received from an opposition member on the 1st of July saying that there were rumours that this was going to happen. This being the case it seems unlikely that the decision to move the meetings to the morning was taken after the marathon meeting on the day before the 30th of June (11:15 finish). It is far more likely that the decision was taken earlier and the meeting Agenda was deliberately made long. The agenda for this meeting was exceptional, 29 Agenda Items, many of them with lengthy reports. The meeting before had 17 items, only a couple of those with reports. The one before had 19 items, no lengthy reports. Never has a meeting had so many items and so many lengthy items on the Agenda.

Is the inclusion of 29 items in the last meeting another one of those amazing co-incidences? After years with a full labour majority with meetings starting at 5pm, and everyone was happy, there is now something like a balance of power. The majority of the opposition have other jobs and the majority of the leading group supporters only do councillor work. The proposal to change the council meetings to 10:30am comes at the latest the day after the very exceptionally, predictably long meeting! Hmmm!

IF YOU THINK THIS IS WRONG contact your councillor NOW and try to attend the meeting on Tuesday the 28th at 5pm!

UPDATE

At the meeting on the 28th of July the 4 hours guillotine idea was withdrawn by the leader before the debate but the proposal to change the meeting times was supported by the "Usual 23" and got through. See Minutes here, page 13

See a report from Ian Williams on the Peoples Voice Website here on what happened at the meeting.

Comments from people of all opinions are welcome here.

MAKING ALLOWANCES

(Leader finds an £8K extra allowance for yet another Labour Councillor)
With all the media attention focussed on politicians allowances and expenses, perhaps the last thing you might expect is for a cash strapped council to create a new committee with the primary purpose of giving an extra allowance to one of their councillors. However, on the basis of evidence received, that is just what has happened in Torfaen.

The reply from Torfaen County Borough Council to a freedom of information inquiry indicates strongly that the primary reason for forming the new Policy Co-ordination and Development Committee at the Annual Meeting on the 19th of May was in order to create an additional Chair with an allowance of £8,304 per annum. If the new position had not been created then the leader would have been in the embarrassing position of having to choose just one labour councillor who would be denied an SRA (Special Responsibility Allowance).

FULL REPORT HERE

Conclusion

Accepting that some form of collection of councillors to discuss some sort of issues had been in the leaders mind for some time, and that the MCWP (Members Constitution Working Party) had touched on it, it is clear that the preparation, timing, haste, lack of consultation and short cuts used to present this report at the Annual Meeting were because of the SRA (Special Resposibility Allowance) involved. The willingness of all those 23 councillors who receive an SRA to accept, without question, the recommendations of their leader (and paymaster), is sadly an indication of a much wider problem.


The above extracts from the full report are added here to allow everyone to comment on this subject. Please have a good read of the full report first! We are particularly interested in comments from councillors who voted for the new committee, what did they know beforehand and so on.

Should Fred Wildgust put up for Parliment?

Your comments are invited on the prospect of Pontypool Councillor, Fred Wildgust, standing as an independent candidate for Torfaen in the next general election, which must be held in the next 12 months or so. Comments that are simply abusive will be removed but we hope for constructive comments for and against him standing against Paul Murphy.

Naturally we will welcome comments from Paul Murphy and Fred Wildgust himself!

Comments so far, to our Grumble Sheet have not been positive.

Update

Fred Wildgust put up for Pontypool Community Council on September the first this 2009, the results were as follows

ADAMS MARK Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales 47
HARRIS JOHN EDMUND The Labour Party 130 "Elected"
OVERTON RICHARD FRASER Welsh Conservative Party 31
WILDGUST FREDERICK THOMAS Independent 69

At the Torfaen council election in May 2008 Cllr Wildgust got 291 votes from the same electorate, but with twice the percentage of people voting. This does not appear to be a good indictor for success at a general election.

Were Cllrs Cathcart and Cunnington right to vote for the New Committee?

The Annual Metting of TCBC took place on the 19th of April. The following is an extract from our report on that meeting.

Bob Wellington then went on about a chat he had with Duncan Forbes, head of Bron Avon Housing, about grant money that they could get which the council could not get. Then he mentioned parking problems in housing estates, with roads often blocked so that service vehicles could not gain access and so on.
All this was a preamble to a proposal to form a new committee "Policy Co-ordination and Development Committee" with a special responsibility allowance for the chair. It was being introduced now as it was hoped to appoint the chair of this committee at the annual meeting.

Cllr Veronica German, Liberal, accussed the leader of creating the new committee as there would otherwise be just one of his supporters without an SRA. All the talk had been for less committees not more and there was now one less scrutiny commitee, so why create this new committee now? Many other comments followed, with labour members supporting the proposal and condemning the opposition for not welcoming the opportunity to take part in policy making.

Elizabeth Haynes proposed defering the decision, pending further information. See her statement here. This was seconded and on a recorded vote this ammendment was lost by one vote, 20 to 21. Tom Huish voted for the ammendment (ie to defer the decision), together with Peoples Voice, Conservatives, Liberals and the independent group councillors. Labour and Plaid voted as one against the ammendment but this time Councillors Cathcart and Cunnington, normally supporting labour, abstained. However when it came to the vote on whether the committee should be formed the famous five, including Cllrs Cathcart and Cunnington, voted with Labour, and it was decided that the committee would be formed by 23 votes to 20. (New Mayor Tom Huish voted against the formation of
the new committee.) "

Our first "Dear Councillor" letter is to Cllrs Cathcart and Cunnington, questioning why they voted the way they did. Cllr Cathcart has not replied but Cllr Alastiar Cunnington has done. The original email and Cllr Cunnington's reply are copied below.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Email From: Chris Harris
To: Alastair Cunnington ; Peter Cathcart
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 9:53 AM
Subject: Your recent vote in Council.

Dear Cllr Cunnington and Cathcart,
I am concerned with the report to council at the last meeting headed "Agenda item 10 ESTABLISHMENT OF A POLICY CO-ORDINATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE." and the outcome of the discussions and the vote.
Some weeks ago I was musing about the change in Mayor, the election of the New Deputy Mayor and the resignation of Tom Huish from the independent group. Someone pointed out the difficulty for the leader persuading any of the labour group to take up the position of Deputy Mayor as they were all on £8000+ SRA's whereas the Deputy Mayor only got £5000+. So where could the new Deputy be found? If not someone from the labour group, maybe allow the opposition to propose a mayor? Plaid? One of you two?
Of course my best bet was Tom Huish, noting that he was the only opposition member to vote for the recent pay rise. This was indeed the case, Tom Huish was Bob Wellington's Choice.
Then there was the problem of the outgoing Mayor, where was the SRA to be found for him? He would not be happy to be the only one without an SRA? There are just one too few SRA's to go around.
Then this Agenda Item 10 appears on the Agenda for the 19th of May Annual Meeting, a report by Bob Wellington, to change the constitution, add a new committee and add an extra SRA allowance!
Where did this come from? Bob Wellington. When did you get to hear about it? A few days before the meeting if that. When did the labour cabinet get to hear about it? A day or two before you at the most. Where were the background papers mentioned in the report? There were none. Yet you, plaid and labour block vote it in.
If it had come in as a recommendation from the Constitution working party then Lynda Willis would have presented the report.
You must agree that the justification and timing of this report/vote is extremely dubious. It would take a lot to convince me that this committee was not created to justify paying an extra SRA because otherwise one labour supporter would be left out. If you think otherwise then I am prepared to listen, honestly, but everything just seems to be too convenient.
Bobs introduction to this report was a lot of waffle, chatting to boss of Bron Avon, they could get money that the council couldn't, parking was a problem in most parts of the borough. Oh and this committee might be an opportunity for opposition members to gain experience? (I later find out the committee is balanced politically so that there is one conservative and one independent seat, so no more experience than any other committee)
I see that you both must have had some doubts, as you both abstained on the amendment to postpone the decision pending further discussion. So if you had doubts, why did you not vote for the amendment rather than abstaining? It was not throwing the scheme out altogether, just requiring more consultation before finally deciding, but you, obviously together, decided to abstain. Can you see how this might look to me as if you are just trying to appear as independent but not rocking Bob's boat too much. Can you explain how I can convince myself to view this any other way. Especially as you then vote for the substantive motion, ie bringing in this committee, when a few moments before you expressed doubt about it. The two votes do not lie well together. Once again you are appearing to be part of Bob's well oiled machine. The recent vote on increases in allowances is another similar case.
The introduction of this new committee seems so divisive. It just seems like a demonstration of how cock sure the leader is of his support from his paid flock, how impervious he is to public opinion, or any other opinion, in his position as leader of an out-of-date, hedonistic regime.
Please can you take this opportunity to explain to me, the people of your ward, and the people of Torfaen why you voted for this new committee? I will publish this letter, and your replies, on the web site.

Kind regards
Chris Harris http://www.torfaen4us.co.uk/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply From Cllr Cunnington 25th of May 2009
In reference to your paragraph:
"I see that you both must have had some doubts, as you both abstained on the amendment to postpone the decision pending further discussion. So if you had doubts, why did you not vote for the amendment rather than abstaining? It was not throwing the scheme out altogether, just requiring more consultation before finally deciding, but you, obviously together, decided to abstain. Can you see how this might look to me as if you are just trying to appear as independent but not rocking Bob's boat too much. Can you explain how I can convince myself to view this any other way. Especially as you then vote for the substantive motion, ie bringing in this committee, when a few moments before you expressed doubt about it. The two votes do not lie well together. Once again you are appearing to be part of Bob's well oiled machine. The recent vote on increases in allowances is another similar case."

It would be impossible for me to explain to you - how you could convince yourself - since that choice can only be controlled by you.
In respect of the vote, I can't help what people "make" of my decision (...or make up...) that is entirely their choice, but the clue is in the word "doubt" which I immediately corrected with the substantive vote which leaves all options open.
I happen to think that the position is a reasonable one - and furthermore I hope its successful. It's a pity that we live in a society with so many people actively willing projects to fail - but with that naive outlook, perhaps such consistently critical people are not after all fit to be in control of a council, particularly when the very ones complaining, fail to hold together a simple thing like a coalition and in some cases fail to attend meetings. On that basis alone I am not surprised that the same people failing in imagination, would have equal difficulty in the concept of a cross part working committee since it involves participation and co-operation.
As for your statements of - appearing to being part of the well oiled machine - make of it what you will invent. I know what I believe and its not what you suggest, suffice to say however, thus far I don't have any significant problems with the current council policies. Furthermore, I would rather be part of a well oiled machine which works - than one lacking lubrication which causes it to seize at the first opportunity..
I can't help further noticing why you have not focused on the members of the opposition who continually rant on the issue of expenses for the benefit of theatre and the press... yet presumably continue to draw theirexpenses - in my view - since they do not "have" to draw them, would it not be an act of supreme leadership on their part if they simply refused to draw their basic allowance to allay any thought of duality...after all - no one is "forcing" them to take the allowance. But I cannot see this happening...human nature etc...In retrospect, I applaud the example set by Cllr Stuart Evans of the coalition by championing an earlier motion not to take up the allowance available for the position of Opposition Leader, to which they all gave full support.
Also to your final comment on voting allowances - The vote was a simple issue, I wouldn't want to tie the hands of the council in the future by restricting the allowance to another member ( from any party ) if their circumstance in life required it. I have not taken the increase, neither do I claim daily milage or telephone internet expense since its too much bother - which you are free to check...funny how no one seems to point out these facts...or perhaps they are not newsworthy.
If you are impartial, as an excercise, why don't you check for example say - any other members to see if any have actually taken the increase or if any claim other monies above the original basic allowance, or is it the intent of the website to only continually seek easy targets like me for simply supporting what they believe to be the right cause...and incidentally if we had a "Swingometer" last years vote was 23 - 20...this years vote changed to 27-16...does that say something ?
Thus far the only repeatative critisism is on the same few blogs with the same few topics by the same few people which turn out to be I suspect afew councillors with a personal axe to grind, hiding behind strange blog names - and the same career bloggers who would complain if they wonfive million on the lottery because thay had bought two tickets, thereby wasting a pound on the one that didn't win.
I'd be happy to see comments from all the bloggers who supported the various campaigns, marches and petitions put forward by the maverick Member - who was ultimately kicked out by all the (now) other fragmented groups. Also what do they now think about their Coalition which they "championed" as the best thing since sliced bread, which fell apart due to arguments, different policies etc...do they still think that a liason "that strong" which fell apart at the seams would have been a responsible group to be in charge of a local authority, where peoples welfare and peoples jobs are involved...I don't think so...as I predicted at the start.
And heres the best one...can all the people that voted for their independant who is now part of a Group...please explain how those alleged Independant Councillors who have now formed themselves into a registered political group called strangely "The Independant Group"...( and this is even better )...with a Leader and Deputy Leader and who meet specifically to agree a block vote...are Independant?...or are the members unable to form a decision themselves. What happens when one member argues for a cause in their own ward which conflicts with another project in the ward of one of their other members...will they split up and reform again or flip a coin to see which project they support.

Regards
Alastair

-----------------------------------------------------------

We invite your queries and non-abusive comments. Please keep your contributions reasoned and reasonable.

This Is Not Democracy!

It may be that just one of the appointments that Bob Wellington, the labour leader made in May 2008, was illegal, because the chair of the audit committee should be elected by the councillors on that committee. I think that the way the other appointments are made, probably legally, is totally wrong and undemocratic.

The appointments are made by the leader, they are voted for as a package and as the majority of the councillors are included in the package, which includes over £8000 per year extra allowance for each of them, they vote for it. Then, to keep that allowance, they, almost always, vote for every other thing in the way that the leader recommends. Historically anyone who seriously rocks the boat on any major issue is excluded from positions offering an extra allowances and sometimes deselected and/or excluded from the labour party. (Alastair Cunnington can testify to this)

The leader is in a job for life. It is virtually impossible for someone to challenge him. The last leader was decidedly dictatorial, largely disliked and not respected by even labour councillors, let alone the rest of the borough. However so strong an influence has the leader over the lives of his flock that the only challenge made to the previous leadership was doomed to failure, with the challenger sent to the naughty step, with reduced allowances, for a considerable time.

The three Plaid and the two independents who are currently supporting the labour leadership are, like it or not, whether they admit it of not, supporting a virtual dictatorship. They say that their support is "to ensure the supply of essential services to the people of the borough" or other such expressions, but that is the officers job. If the ragbag of independents, Liberals, conservatives etc had taken over in May 2008 essential services would not have suffered, officers would have seen to that. I suggest that within weeks that ragbag would have developed into a co-operative bunch of decision makers, the diverse political opinions ensuring that no one person came forward dictating decisions to the rest of the group, (which is what we have with the present leading group).

The deadwood and loudmouths would have been quickly left aside, where as in the current labour regime that deadwood and those loudmouths are paid SRA's amounting to over £8000 each to do little and sing the praises of their leader, or say nothing. Without an opposition this has worked smoothly over the years. BUT IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

I invite comments from all sides.

Update 21st of July. The creation of a new committee, at the May 2009 Annual Meeting, apparently with the main purpose of creating an SRA for a labour councillor (Details here) should bring this matter back into the limelight. On all critical votes, with few exceptions, the split is between those that receive SRA's, who vote with the Leader, and those that receive only the basic allowance. Is there anyone who thinks that this is acceptable?

"Assembly members consider pay rise" (Argus Article)

Email received from "DT" concerning an article in the Argus on the 15th of May (see here)

"I read with interest the comments made by Torfaen Labour AM. Lynne Neagle. The way her and Husband Huw Lewis juggle there expenses so they can maximise their claims, together with her comments lead me to believe she really believes in the saying charity begins at home and will pocket every last penny? and I expect hubby Huw has been given his instructions.
They are probably already browsing holiday brochures. Or are they in Curry's looking for that third washing machine? One purchased 29 August 06 another purchased 29 September 07 will there be another sometime 08 but then they are claimed for on expenses.
Has this poor woman been forced to take in washing to make ends meet, that could be the explanation for what seems an excessive washing machine claim? This couple seem to have more bookcases than Ikea. Why all the half claims, half a bed, half a wardrobe etc. after all they are both claiming for the same second home which must be some pad with a mortgage that well exceeds one assembly Members expenses and so could in no way cover any of the second home council tax and day to day expenses?
Anyone who has the effrontery to claim for a second home and all the furnishing, television, broadband, Telephone and all the other general running costs that are involved, when their place of work can almost be seen from their home in Cwmbran, will have little or no compunction about acceptance, I am therefore not at all surprised Mike German AM. is taking the rise. I would have thought Mike German AM and his Councillor wife are doing very well already out of the public purse but it appears they have a desire to do even better. And as for Huw Lewis and Lynne Neagle they could well feel they have won the lottery.
I believe once an Item has been purchased it then becomes the property of the AM to do with it as they will. And so once they have purchased one, or a second item one could quite legitimately go to the main residence? At this moment in time peoples trust has been so seriously damaged by politicians and their behaviour, It even makes one suspicious of their neighbour.
I would like more information, I am not concerned that they are permitted to claim. I would rather have the details of the Assembly Members claims for what seem, unexplained excessively large sums for meals and subsistence.
At home or at work the vast majority of an Assembly Members constituents have to pay their own.
Exactly how many times per annum is the second home, in all honesty, justifiably required for members who live within the same or even shorter commuting distance than the many thousands who have to commute at all times of the day or night? Nurses, Steel Workers etc.
Is it possible to have more detail, example: Lynne Neagle AM. hire car £313.62 petrol.
Travel claims for regular journeys explanation and reason?
Some of these claims are vague and mean very little to any Assembly Members constituents.
I suppose in a lot of cases the second home could well be a very good investment and although the tax payer has generously contributed to this and the politicians lavish lifestyle we will see no reward."

Fred Wildgust will stand for Parliament against Paul Murphy

Fred sent out the following email today....

Dear Group Members

In today’s Freepress you will see an article about me. It is publicly announcing that I intend to stand as an Independent Parliamentary Candidate in the Torfaen constituency, I didn’t inform you prior to the announcement in the press as I am well aware that some members of the group feed information directly back to the Labour party. I had to keep this as quiet as possible both for political and financial reasons. The timing of the announcement has been critical because by May 10th 2010, there will have to be a general election called by the government. This gives us a maximum of 362 days to change history and make a Torfaen, a better place to live and work. I ask you to pledge your support to this campaign in anyway you can… Please call me 07852268419, email me, stop me in the street or just knock on my door, let’s do this together. I have no serious money to fight this campaign it will be done on a shoestring and with lots of physical effort on my part. On May the 18th there is a community meeting planned where residents of Torfaen are welcome to meet me and discuss issues that affect their lives, the meeting is an open forum and commences at 5.30 at the Ponypool Civic Centre.

It has always been my intention to stand, the day after I won my seat on the council I had made the decision to stand against Paul Murphy. I have even made a point of telling him face to face to prevent any doubt. I have been informed that he does worry about things, so why not give him something real to worry about other that how much more he can squeeze of the parliamentary expenses system. Paul Murphy is a good man, but he is a bad local Parliamentarian. He is so wrapped up in his ministerial duties that he does not deal with the needs of Torfaen, this is compounded by the fact that he is so closely linked to the Torfaen’s Labour Council he will not challenge them or hold them to account. If he had the interest in Torfaen at heart, he would be confronting this council over the mess they have made of it over the past twenty plus years since he took his seat in Westminster.

You may be thinking why should I support Wildgust, he will be just like the rest.. Well you are very wrong, I know the value of a pound, I know what needs to be done to develop Torfaen and I actually care about people…. Our local political representatives have completely lost touch with reality, we need a fresh start a politician that is free of party politics and will listen to the voice of the people, represent their views and then act in the best interest of Torfaen and its residents…

No longer can the party politics be allowed to control our lives without the people of this fair land being able to challenge a clearly bad decision. It is important to note that over the coming weeks and months I will be attacked in the press, I will not react by entering into personal insults and mud slinging… There are better ways to win, its important just to focus on the real goal of a free Torfaen.

I await your thoughts

Fred

See also Argus Article Here

Please comment

This man is a Hero!

For those that don't recognise him this man is Stuart H Evans, Independent Councillor for Blaenavon. Since May 2008 he has been leader of the opposition and has to be congratulated for his dignity and integrity in carrying out that position.



However the main thing he should be congratulated for is his refusal to accept a position on the cabinet, with an extra allowance of £13000 plus.

It may look like a liberal idea to offer a cabinet post to the leader of the opposition but it is one of the most divisive aspects of the constitution, giving the leader of the council effective control over the opposition leadership.

For the £13000 the opposition leader hold no portfolio and has no specific duties, it is basically just a perk, almost hush money. They just have to turn up to some of the cabinet meetings. They may have a say in theory but after a while they realise they have no effect on decisions so they say very little. Then, when it becomes time to challenge the decisions in the council, they do not, because, although they had little say, they feel they have been a part of a collective decision.

It worked for years with Margaret Pead, a conservative member who led the opposition, she said virtually nothing in Council, and offered no effective opposition.

Stuart refused to be put in this position. This decision will have cost him personally over £50,000 in the four years of this labour administration. This man is a hero, a man of principle, someone you can trust. We need more like him in power.

Who will be Deputy Mayor?

Update 20th May 2010: At the Annual meeting last night Tom Huish, Independent Cllr for Blaenavon was nominated by The Labour Leader for Deputy Mayor. He was elected by 28 votes to 16, the other candidate being conservative Margaret Pead.

The AGM of Torfaen CBC will be held on the 19th of May, at 5pm and should prove interesting.

Nye James is retiring as Mayor. It is usual for a retiring Mayor to be given a position of extra responsibility by the leader but the rumour from the ranks is that he will be left out in the cold, having been a bit of a loose cannon over the last year (all to his credit I think, but he does get a bit confused at times).

Bob Jones, labour member for Upper Cwmbran is taking over and he is apparently a bit apprehensive about the role. It is a much more difficult job now, with a real opposition, than in previous times.

So who is going to be deputy Mayor? This has a Special Responsibility Allowance of (SRA) of a mere £5534 so none of the cabinet are going to accept that as their current allowance is £13,839. Similarly those labour members with scrutiny chairs get £8,304 SRA, as do the Chairs of Planning and Licensing, so they won't be happy with a reduction.

So who is left out of the labour members who is likely to accept the position of Deputy Mayor?

No-One!

In fact to be offered the position of Deputy Mayor this time or last time will be or indeed was AN INSULT, not an honour it might appear. In a stretched labour coalition you don't put your best troops in the firing line!

So the labour leader might have no other solution than to offer the post to an opposition member. If he does I am sure he will make out that he is doing it in the interests of democracy and listening to the people but WE will know better. Of course it will do no harm to democracy if the mayor in one years time is not from the leading group.

What are the other possibilities? Buy some more labour support from the opposition group like he did after the last election? Possibly, I am sure there are a few more there who will bend their principles for the extra cash. What about Alistair Cunnington or Maria Graham for Mayor? Who knows?

Interesting times (all information gratefully received).

Councillors Vote Themselves a Pay Rise

It came as little surprise in the end, but, at tonight's meeting on 31st of March 2009 the council voted by 23 to 16 to reject a conservative amendment to freeze allowances because of the present economic crisis.
Ordinary Councillors will now get a basic allowance of £13,030 per annum. (Backdated to last January)
All the labour members present and the three Plaid members and two independents who support the labour controlled council all voted for the full pay increase whilst all but one of the others, voted to freeze the allowances.
So apart from Independent Blaenavon Councillor Tom Huish all those who voted to increase the allowances will get, in addition to the £13,030 per annum a special responsibility allowance which varies from an extra £5,534 per annum up to an extra £27,679 for the leader. Cabinet members will get a total of £26,869pa plus expenses, the leader will get £40,709pa plus expenses (he claimed £5,651 last year) and everyone who voted for the increase will now get a minimum of £18,564pa plus expenses. They also benefit from a pension scheme, and many of them are already retired and in receipt of a pension or pensions.

Discuss?

UPDATE

Monmouthshire Councillors voted NOT to take the same payrise.

"Monmouthshire councillors rejected the increase at a meeting of the full
council, with leader of the council Peter Fox saying the acceptance of such a
raise would be ' wrong and immoral '. "

See Argus article here

Making the Right Decisions!

(The following is a response from Cllr Cunnington to the news that The Independent Group - Torfaen is leaving the Torfaen Peoples Coalition. It is copied here with his permission.)

Following the election I was criticised by some of the newly elected councillors for not joining the Torfaen Peoples Coalition and was agressively jibed at for having the forsight to choose, in the interest of stability - to form a different strategically balanced coalition with some current Labour Councillors, another Independent Councillor and three Plaid Cymru members.

This has proved to be a stable situation where democracy is actually working following; the much needed re-working of the Labour Group, a “new listening man change of outlook” by the Leader, sound advice and sensible ideas from the Plaid Cymru members and some fresh ideas and experience from Peter Cathcart and myself.

For myself, I considered that following an initial pre-meeting of the TPC, it was clear that the main interest of the group was to “settle old scores”. It was also apparent that with so many people pulling in different directions that it was doomed from the start for disaster.

More importantly, I can confidently announce that - I am more convinced now than I was at the start that I made the right decision, since having heard first hand some of the ludicrous proposals that have been presented in the last ten months of council - and I firmly believe that had the Coalition been successful - Torfaen would have been wrecked and become a laughing stock as with some of the antics by its members.

Initially, this became apparent when, after Cllr Wildgust’s failure to campaign and organise an Historical Overturning Petion ( promising thousands and thousands of signatures by dissatisfied voters) and mass marches, (presumably bringing the streets to a standstill) - when after just two months as an Independent, he then decided to join the Peoples Voice party!. After several months, he then “left” the Peoples Voice Party and unsuprisingly has recently left the TPC as well - and is currently in the wilderness, I am not aware to date of any other party that he would be able to join, presumably after such memorable proposals like building a new Incineration Plant…baring in mind that after years of campaigning the good people of Torfaen have only just got rid of Rechem!

Since it was only a matter of time, as per my initial prediction; I now present the latest farce with the publication by Cllr Liz Haynes of the much awaited press statement, as follows:

“Statement from the Independent Group - Torfaen.

The Independent Group have reflected on their membership of Torfaen People’s Coalition.

On Monday 16th February 2009 at 6pm, at an Independent Group meeting, the decision was taken to withdraw from the Coalition.

In May 08, a Coalition was formed with the sole purpose of ousting the Labour Controlled Administration. Due to the decision of 5 newly elected members, this was not to be.

The Independent group are strong and focussed and we wish to step back from the Party politics that is currently evident in this Council.

As an Independent group, we will continue to work hard in our communities, whilst scrutinising the decisions within Council.

We are still opposition Councillors and even though not a Coalition, we will
continue to hold the Labour administration to account.”

It is apparent that the infighting within the TPC group has caused it to fall apart at the seams, yet still it persists in trying to blame the 5 councillors with any sense who didn’t join…with its failure by not being members ! - thereby acknowledging and confirming that the 5 councillors that they criticised initially have made the right decision. With statements like “scrutinising the decisions within the Council and holding the administration to account”, I would have to point out that thus far they can’t even hold themselves together let alone claim that they could run a council.

This alone confirms that a gung-ho approach, inexperience and personal ambition is ultimately rewarded with failure.

To date, as a result of lack of cohesion, direction and poor leadership, not one sensible proposal has been presented by the TPC, save for endless rhetorical questions and political diatribe in the council chamber much to the weary dismay of people in the public gallery…and councillors & officers. The subsequent current dissolution of the group will be a magor benefit to the people of Torfaen since presumably any remaining floating councillors with any forsight and sense will see fit to actively join in with business rather than theatrically voting against every proposal simply because they are in opposition.

Unfortunately, due to the initial lack of forsight and following a farcial 10 months where they have achieved absolutely nothing, manifest in the Coalition falling apart, it is difficult to to forsee any sensible councillor wanting to form an alliance with any of the former members of the TPC now posing as new Independent Councillors (Group?), since I am sure they would not want to be aligned with the same track record, or lack of it and its only a matter of time when the “new group” will fall apart when greed and ambition take root.

Thus far in council the TPC will only be rememberd for wasting ten months with continuous critisism, repeated pointless questions, monthly policy change proposals and taking up space.
Sadly, as a badly fragmented collection of groups with no direction or leadership even the largest formation of members as a sub-group will have little or no effectiveness since no one will take them seriously, given the nonsense thus far.

I can’t help saying - I told you this would happen….actually I did at the first meeting

Alastair Cunnington 19th February 2009