Monday, 9th June, 2014
Forgive and forget
A month ago, on the agenda of the last full council meeting on 8th May, Cllr. David Bryan tabled two rather tricky questions for council leader, Cllr. Jamie Adams.
Trousering £50k per year for his top job, you’d have thought providing answers was the least Cllr. Adams could do.
Cllr. Bryan asked for the leader’s explanation for apparent discrepancies in the accounts given by his deputy leader, Cllr. Rob Lewis, over the amount he spent – and where he spent it – promoting himself during the 2012 council election campaign. (If interested, you can read the lengthy text of Cllr. Bryan’s detailed questions by clicking just below.)
Agenda item 14 (Question #1)
At the Standards Committee hearing in March concerning Cllr. Robert Lewis, the Cllr confirmed that the contents of his interview with the Ombudsman’s representative, Mr Eirwyn Pritchard, on 7 March 2013 were correct.
In particular, in answer to the following questions he answered as below…
“So who printed?” … “Clive done (sic) all the printing.”
“the cost roughly?” … “Oh, £90 to £100, somewhere around there…”
An Inspection by 3 Councillors at the Electoral Office in Goodwick found that, contrary to those answers, Cllr. Lewis stated that (he) had spent £55.96 on materials to print his electoral leaflets, although he provided no receipts.
Can I ask Cllr. Lewis which of those statements is correct? They cannot both be true. If the latter he was obviously not telling the truth to the Ombudsman. If the former he was not telling the truth on his electoral return of expenditure.
Could Cllr. Lewis inform the Council where the invoice from Clive James is and when will it be available for inspection by concerned parties?
As untruths carry penalties under the Electoral law of our country could Cllr. Jamie Adams give a personal opinion as to what actions should be now be pursued.
The residents of Pembrokeshire want honesty in people elected to public life and they will be taking a keen interest in the Leader’s response.
Councillor D M Bryan
Agenda item 15 (Question #2)
In Cllr Robert Lewis’ statement to the Ombudsman on 7th March 2013, which was the subject of a Standards Committee meeting recently where Cllr Lewis was given a sanction of two weeks suspension, a certain point stands out as needing clarification.
When asked by the Ombudsman “did you pass on any of the leaflets to be printed elsewhere?” Cllr Lewis replied in the affirmative, quoting the printer as Clive James.
When asked by the Ombudsman “how did it work?” Cllr Lewis said “Mr James, obviously who was printing a load of stuff had the format set out and then he would change it because of the photos he would have already had of different ones”.
When asked “and then would you pay Mr James for these separately?” Cllr Lewis stated “yeah, WE sort that out with Mr James.” (My emphasis).
Anyone reading these specific questions and answers would be led to believe that other Cllrs were having their printing done by Clive James.
As evidenced by the electoral returns held at the Electoral Office in Goodwick, almost every one of the Cllrs mentioned by name by Cllr Lewis in the Ombudsman’s interview presented no invoices from Clive James. On the contrary the electoral forms signed by most of those councillors stated that they had bought cartridges and paper to print the leaflets themselves.
In a response to an email from the Ombudsman on 6th Feb 2013 Clive James confirmed he had printed many items for Cllrs and he was willing to provide a statement to that effect.
I feel it is important for the sake of transparency and honesty for Cllr Lewis to tell the Council exactly which of the Cllrs (present and also non elected) he wrote the election leaflets for on County Council computers had their leaflets printed by Clive James, despite what the imprint stated on those election leaflets.
Councillor D M Bryan
Cllr. Lewis was suspended from being a councillor for two weeks by the authority’s Standards Committee for his leading part in the Partygate scandal. During a recorded interview as part of the Ombudsman’s investigation, he said he had paid Clive James (trading as ‘Clive James Design and Print’) roughly ‘£90-100’ to print his election leaflets.
I went to the council’s elections unit and inspected the electoral spending return Cllr. Lewis filed with the returning officer post-election, where I found no mention of any money paid to Clive James or any other print house. All the Martletwy multitasker indicated was £55.96 expenditure on paper and ink cartridges, without receipts.
Accompanying his election spending return, Cllr. Lewis signed a declaration that it was “complete and accurate” to the best of his knowledge. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that Cllr. Lewis told porkies to the Ombudsman by making up the idea that he paid Clive James Design and Print to print his leaflets. Alternatively, he refused to disclose his involvement with the eponymous Clive James within his spending return. Mr. James also happens to be an employee of the county council’s printing department.
We may never get to the bottom of it because when it came to the leader’s turn to provide the answers, Cllr. Adams stood up and said: “Thank you chair, Questions 14 and 15 are raised by Cllr. David Bryan. Cllr. Bryan is not here, as is the normal course of action I will provide him with a written answer.”
Cllr. Bob Kilmister requested that the leader copied his written response to all councillors. “I’m not aware that I can” came the leader’s reply. Cllr. Mike Stoddart then said Cllr. Bryan’s absence shouldn’t matter, and suggested that the leader should give his answers there and then. It was at this point that the chief executive intervened: “It is entirely up to the leader how he answers, and he can quite properly determine to answer in writing.” There we are then.
Previously on the rare occasions when a written answer has been promised and provided post-meeting, it is placed on the public record by its inclusion within the draft minutes to be approved at the next meeting.
Cllr. Adams was in no rush. It wasn’t until a week later, and some chasing-up via email, that Cllr. Bryan got the leader’s reply – and it wasn’t exactly what he was hoping for:
“The provisions of Council Procedure Rule 9.2 limit questions to any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affects the Council.
As you are seeking to ask a question about another elected Member about whom the Standards Committee have considered and concluded, it is therefore not appropriate for me to answer.”
Cllr. Adams neglected to tell us this during the meeting. He possibly never had any intention of providing the answers, and didn’t want his blatant bullet-dodge to be seen at a public (and webcasted) meeting.
If the questions were unconstitutional then one has to wonder why they appeared on the agenda in the first place. Even the most reluctant conspiracy theorists would have to accept the possibility that the leader’s get-out-of-jail ‘written response’ was concocted to avoid answering Cllr. Bryan’s tricky questions, and to disguise that the leader didn’t fancy tackling them.
When the draft minutes of the meeting were published, I thumbed to Cllr. Bryan’s question. Normally, as you’d expect, the full wording of a councillor’s question is followed by the answer provided.
On this occasion I found an exception to the norm. Cllr. Adams’ written reply isn’t included, but, more glaringly, neither are Cllr. Bryan’s questions. All that is recorded in the draft minutes is as follows:
190. Questions submitted by Councillor D M Bryan under Council Procedure Rule 9.2 – Standards Committee decision regarding Councillor R M Lewis
[Councillor R M Lewis declared a prejudicial interest in this item of business and withdrew from the Chamber during consideration thereof.]
The Leader of Council advised that, in the absence of Councillor D M Bryan, the answers to the two questions submitted by Councillor Bryan would be provided in writing to Councillor Bryan.
The title is a bit misleading too, because Cllr. Bryan’s questions didn’t relate to the Standards Committee’s decision but discrepancies in Cllr. Lewis’ account.
I’m sure it was unintentional, but forgetting to include Cllr. Bryan’s questions and the content of the leader’s brush-off could be seen as a saviour for the leader and deputy leader’s blushes.
In any case, the embarrassment Cllr. Bryan caused by asking such impertinent questions seems to have been forgotten very quickly by the leader and his deputy – within 24 hours, actually.
The very next morning at the authority’s AGM, Cllr. Adams and Cllr. Lewis both voted for Cllr. Bryan to hold on to his £9k+ scrutiny committee chairmanship.
Cllr. Bryan’s chairmanship was in peril. It was but a ruling group’s block-vote away from being handed to a councillor from the Pembrokeshire Alliance.
I blogged about this unusual high stakes tie-breaker vote at the time. As the photograph below (any chance to use it) shows, Cllr. Lewis and Cllr. Adams either managed to persuade the majority of their fellow party members to vote the same way as them, or they didn’t need persuading, because, in his absence, and thanks to the ruling party’s support, Cllr. Bryan romped to victory!
Click to enlarge
❏On the topic of the county’s Tories and turning the other cheek, I was recently reminded of Cllr. Owen James who served as a councillor during the 2008-2012 term as a Conservative.
Immediately after winning re-election in 2012 for the Scleddau ward as a Tory candidate, Cllr. James turned his back on the party and has remained an unaffiliated councillor ever since.
Despite adopting the party’s banner for the election, Cllr. James cited the poor leadership of the Conservatives’ then-leader, Cllr. Stan Hudson, for his refusal to join the council’s Conservative group once re-elected. (There’s some irony in that for the ruling group, which, historically has featured a fair share of card-carrying Tories who stand as independents to increase their electability.)
Cllr. James also resisted calls for his resignation. Following a fruitless election campaign and the defection, the Conservatives had every right to be upset – they were down to a paltry two councillors.
However, the negative feelings didn’t run quite as deep as some might have expected, because the Tory group patched things up quickly with Cllr. James. Since then they’ve voted two years on the trot to appoint him to the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park (attracting an additional £3K allowance each year) at the 2013 and 2014 council AGMs, both times over Cllr. Phil Baker, another unaffiliated councillor who put himself forward for the post.
And there’s even more evidence suggesting that the party which holds all four national seats in the county isn’t one to bear a grudge.
PEMBS.TV made a feature of the European election count in Fishguard last month. When the Tory share of the vote was declared by returning officer Bryn Parry-Jones, whoops and cheers rang out.
The camera pans across to a sparse Conservative crowd where Preseli Pembrokeshire MP Stephen Crabb can be seen clapping in the air. A closer inspection of the proud posse reveals a character at the back, just right of centre, appearing to keep a lower profile – none other than Cllr. Owen James!
Click to enlarge
No word yet if Cllr. Sue Perkins was there to share in the Tory glory, but there’s always next year’s Westminster vote count.
Are you the forgiving sort?
48 Comments...
Have your say...
Check out and 'like' my Facebook page ↴
Recent posts…
Jacob, I think that you need to look beyond political parties to find the ‘common denominator’, the invisible or secret tie which binds these people together. I am sure that it is NOT ‘party’ politics.
You are right, Chas, to raise the question as to what really binds this motley crew formally known as the IPG – it’s money or, if you insist, Special Responsibility Allowances.
Jacob,
Perhaps you could inform us if you have had any or tried to make contact with Cllr Bryan of late regarding this issue?
Malcolm – I haven’t seen or heard from Cllr. Bryan since before the May full council meeting.
Chas. – I think this mysterious bond is well known and well documented, but Goldingsboy is “on the money” (if you’ll excuse the pun.)
Readers may be interested to read the following article from the time Cllr. James defected from the Conservatives:
http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/9728129.Calls_for_by_election_after_councillor_leaves_Conservative_group/
Paul Davies AM is quoted: “As a matter of principle, Cllr James should now resign and force a by-election so that the people of Scleddau can decide whether they wish a Welsh Conservative to continue representing them at County Hall. Refusing to give the residents of this ward the opportunity to determine who should serve them would be a democratic betrayal.”
While Cllr. David Howlett said it was “frankly a betrayal of the people who voted for him as a Welsh Conservative candidate” and that Cllr. James “must resign the seat and allow a by-election to take place.”
Time is a wonderful healer!
We are dreaming. The councillors who are not part of IPPG are powerless pups while farmer Adams has his band of merry men.
Give in, you are all shovelling water up hill with a rake. Our county has been robbed by Dick Turpin and his band of gangsters.
Is it permissible, Welshman, to carry such a name whilst waving a white flag aloft?
The ‘glue’ is a mixture of institutionalised corruption laced with a healthy ‘jus’ of ‘lodgings’…
And PCC seems to bear some resemblance to FIFA 😕
I’m sure somewhere I’ve got a photo of the Queen “lurking” behind Jimmy Savile. God knows what can have been going on at the palace over the years, those poor corgis!
Jacob it might be a quiet spell and you obviously don’t like “tories” (though a true independent should perhaps keep an open mind.) The fact is that Cllr James has been fairly active in attempting to hold this authority to account, as indeed are some IPPG members (which Cllr James isn’t.) The issue is the democratic deficit and ensuing corruption in the authority.
You rightly note the relationship between the Conservative Party and some IPPG members. I believe Cllr James’ current status has more to do with how that party determines its relationship with the IPPG, who ran against Cllr James in the last election?
Current woes for the council stem from the complete inability of the opposition to form a coherent front, they could even possibly take over if they could work together. You need people like Cllr James, so do buy that man a pint at the next opportunity.
Sue Perkins, a true blue socialist? Well Tony Blair has shown that is possible. I am intrigued here, as her supporters claim she feels she can attain socialist principles by being in power. You quite rightly hold her to account, I fear she is a bit like Jim Haggard in Sir Nigel’s lair – out of her depth, but not aware of it.
Save on the pint there at the moment, but if she finds her socialist principles are not being maintained, like Saul, she should always be welcomed back into the fold, that sort of thinking is how real change can be achieved.
As things are quiet can’t we have a post on Porsches? For various reasons I feel I already have an interest in one.
Timetraveller, I think you’ve been spending too much time listening to Jamie Adams.
“Outcomes not processes” is the line he regularly reels off with a real air of profundity, “outcomes not processes.”
If you want to reward Owen James, feel free to do so, I can’t see how he’s done anything at all to redress the ‘democratic deficit’ you speak of. In fact there was a point in time (see my previous comment) when his senior party colleagues said he was guilty of the exact opposite.
Goldingsboy, I am being a realist, name one thing where the other councillors have won their argument. All the controversial items have been defeated.
(Suspending BPJ over the unlawful pension payments, Farmer Adams and the historic expenses claims etc.)
Jacob, if “independents” were banned tomorrow and all IPG members had to join an established party, the authority would almost certainly be Conservative. However the IPG has rainbow colours, with a number of socialists in its ranks.
You have to ask Cllr James why he left the Conservative Group, but as you note he is still very much a Conservative, just like Labour’s defectors are still in that party. Let’s just say that the IPG has complex relationships with all the main parties.
The democratic deficit is born out of voter apathy. Your website does much to stir that up. However the political landscape is also complex nowadays – we have a socialist running the Conservative administration and had a Conservative running an earlier Labour one – and no-one actually voted for a coalition, it’s what we end up with.
If you want to achieve anything in politics, define your goals. If you want accountability, and don’t we all, focus on the IPG. The electorate will soon get bored with infighting and see little value in the opposition as a consequence.
Cllr James is not in the IPG, and that is very telling and the voters of Scleddau have still got a Conservative, though not aligned with the group on the council, Cllr Perkins on the other hand is a member and you rightly question her principles. Challenge her on these, but respect her if she holds up to them.
It is not a question of time being the healer, rather if you want to achieve change, defectors from the IPG are essential, it’s about alignments. Mike Stoddart is a star, he really should get an honour. An authority with 29 Mikes on it would have the most stable “IPG” group possible, even if some of its members were BNP and others Communist. Why? because Mike No 30 would lead to total anarchy!
Meanwhile a clever CX runs the show because most of his political “masters” over the years don’t even begin to understand the “process” and are left to sheepishly consider the results.
Are you considering a post on Porsches? I thought that the CX could chauffeur the chairman to meetings, after all he’s on the payroll and now he has a decent car. He could also claim 45p a mile, which I am sure he would be interested in, yet the authority could save £s.
Welshman,
There is a difference between winning the argument and winning the vote.
The reason the opposition routinely fails to win the vote is that 33 is a larger number than 27. And that would remain the case even if all 27 opposition members were united in a single group.
The arithmetic was even more bleak before the 2012 election when the IPG had a 39-21 majority.
Hopefully, if the opposition can win the argument between now and the 2017 election, the IPPG majority will be wiped out either by defections, or the ballot box.
It is a fact that most decisions are delegated to and made by officers, elected councillors play little or no role in making them.
There is something called the Asset Management Plan. This apparently informs the Council’s property maintenance and new build programmes and directly feeds into the allocation of financial resources and the budget.
Some years ago Cabinet decided to accept officers’ recommendations to delegate this significant aspect of business to a panel of officers, way beyond the reach of mere councillors. Only recently some, not all, officer decisions have been made available on the web for us all to see.
Even the annual budget, where we might expect some public discussion and open debate on alternative options, involves closed member only seminars, followed by an officer recommendation to Cabinet which is then rubber stamped, and progressed through Scrutiny Committees. The resultant budget report, unchanged from the original officer preferred and recommended budget, is then passed to Cabinet and to Council for final approval.
Sheer persistence and a willingness to challenge officer assurances, which were accepted and strongly supported by Cabinet, has forced the grant issue into the open. Old Grumpy has to be congratulated for exposing a possible misuse of public finds currently under police investigation.
However, why was a councillor’s detailed investigation necessary, and why was it resisted by both senior officers and the Cabinet?
Timetraveller,
I’m not sure what to make of your description that “we have a socialist running the Conservative administration and had a Conservative running an earlier Labour one,” because, as you’ve said, the IPG/IPPG is a rainbow of political colours, with a strong cohort of Labour stock in its ranks as well as Tory stock. There are even card-carrying members of each among its ranks. This has been the case for a long time, and on the occasions when IPG councillors have been defeated in their re-election bids, it’s been very common for the new councillor to be recruited into the IPG to fill the shoes of his/her predecessor.
I don’t see any ‘infighting’ among opposition members, as you put it, so I disagree that the electorate has anything to be ‘bored’ with the opposition about. If it wasn’t for the opposition, or even unaffiliated councillors for that matter, a number of the scandals you know about would never have been exposed.
Describing the democratic deficit as being borne out of voter apathy is hardly fair on voters because the majority of councillors sign up to a political-non-party (IPG/IPPG) post-election, regardless of what banner (if any at all) they were voted in under.
Voters are in the bizarre situation in that whichever party or non-party candidate wins the election – independent, Labour, Conservative or Plaid Cymru, they could end up with an IPG councillor in the end, propping up the regime, with nothing their voters can do about it.
You claim a bias against the Tories, but I don’t discriminate when it comes to covering such issues. Can you recall Cllr. Joseph’s defection? And here. It seems you’d rather the Conservatives were given an easier ride. Cllr. James isn’t a member of the IPG, that is true, but the Conservatives are more supportive of the IPG line than any unaffiliated councillor I know of, with which you seem to show some disillusionment.
You asked why Cllr. James left the Conservatives: because he didn’t get on with the party’s then leader, Cllr. Stan Hudson. He was quite vocal about his dissatisfaction with Cllr. Hudson’s leadership prior (and subsequent) to the election, but still stood for the party.
A party with morals would have criticised Cllr. James for his actions and called for his resignation so that the people of his ward could give a mandate. Shock, horror! – that’s exactly what they did!
Yet the Conservatives have taken him back into the fold and, a few weeks ago at the 2014 AGM, of all people, it was Cllr. Hudson who nominated Cllr. James for the unaffiliated National Park seat!
In an earlier comment you said “Current woes for the council stem from the complete inability of the opposition to form a coherent front.” Really?
As Mike Stoddart says, the IPG is in command, they have the majority of votes and the keys to the gravy train. It’s a game of numbers.
I can’t imagine the sort of coherence you have in mind that could have steered the council away from the ‘current woes.’ Do you care to give us an example of how a ‘coherent front’ from the opposition members could have prevented some of the ‘current woes?’
Bearing in mind that it’s a numbers game, please show your workings-out.
If you can perform a miracle with numbers that Huw George would be proud of, I’ll think about the Porsche.
Timetraveller might like to reflect that Cllr Owen James was the only opposition member who voted with the IPPG to block my proposal that all members be allowed access to documents relating to the Commercial Property Grants in Pembroke and Pembroke Dock (Council meeting 12/12/2013).
And that he was supported by the IPPG block vote when he allowed his name to go forward for the National Park seat that fell to be allocated to one of the unaffiliated members.
That, despite the fact that the unaffiliated members had a gentleman’s (and gentlewoman’s) agreement that we would agree amongst ourselves who should fill this post and that none of us would stand against the agreed candidate, Cllr Phil Baker.
It might also be of interest to Timetraveller that this plot to undermine our gentleman/gentlewoman’s agreement was hatched at the IPPG’s secret group meeting prior to the 2013 AGM.
‘Outcomes not processes’ – what rubbish – flawed processes equals flawed outcomes.
For the ordinary Councillor this poses a real problem – the processes are complicated and difficult to understand and are judged by Officers who have spent their lives working on their specialist subject!
An example – the Pembroke Dock Grants Scheme – as far as I am aware the entire block of grants had to be applied for and approved or the whole of the last award failed.
So, what we are being in effect told is that, for the grant to be given and thus ‘improving’ things like Dimond Street, Coronation School and the Pater Hall, it is far better to keep quiet and accept that the majority of people will see the improvements, but not alleged improprieties in the process – this is, after all, a victimless crime, if any, it’s only the EU’s money – the EU whose auditors have refused to sign off the accounts for the last eighteen years.
The average Councillor does not have the ability, the energy and the sheer persistence to continue to argue how many angels can balance on the head of a pin – let alone accept the personal approbation that comes with this sort of campaign.
There must also be concern that Dyfed-Powys Police can apparently quite happily investigate this matter, (and goodness knows how long it’s going to take them) yet they didn’t feel they could investigate the CEO’s pension arrangements, saying it was “not appropriate” due to their “close working relationships and partnership arrangements” with the council.
I am concerned about the resignation of Mr. John Evans, the lay Chairman of the Audit Committee – Mike, have you any further news?
Mike and Jacob, I can’t vouch for Cllr James’s every vote, but politics is about compromises, whether we like them or not. I’ll be surprised if the National Park SRA was a “deal”, it probably had more to do with how other politics plays out.
The point is that two of the sharpest forensic minds – you, Mike – and Jacob – languish in the political wilderness when they should be on some of these committees, god knows you are needed there. If you chase every hare you see Jacob, the public will get bored, Mike chases just the odd one, but to the death! Admittedly Mike’s current hare (PD) is rather tasty and seems to be growing legs.
John Hudson notes how the “system” works, councillors have very little control over events because of delegated powers. The IPG can go into an election tomorrow with some confidence – low rates and supposedly ultra efficient administration, scandals can, and will and will be forgotten or forgiven by the electorate.
Cllr Miller is putting in a peerless performance as a politician. He is there (and on camera!) on the big issues and probably encourages you on the others. He managed the sound bites, not saying too much. I am given to understand he has ambitions in Westminster.
There is a contradiction in genuine independents forming a party, but given the mix on the council, it is the only way power can be exercised. You two could make the PA up to 5 and start to really change the landscape, but you will have pick your hares Jacob, “Captain Bob” would want even his loose cannons to point at the target!
Talking of targets, what about Porsches and chauffeurs? Also on “targets”. I don’t know Cllr Perkins, but my natural scepticism says that if they are happy with a committee member, that member is either gullible or can buy into the system. You can’t get better than have it approved by a socialist!
Possibly education is not were the “savings” are being made, older people is more fertile ground. The admins I referred to are in Westminster, Blair could easily have been a Tory and Cameron wouldn’t be out of place politically in Labour. Which just illustrates that each party is a broad ship within which compromises are made, let’s just say that Cllr James and the Conservative Party have been adjusting their compromises.
When I was living in west Wiltshire, back in the ’80s, we had a considerable problem of collusion between senior officers and the ruling political party, which led to an asset loss to the district’s ratepayers that ran into millions of pounds.
I have particular knowledge of it because I became involved following a tip-off from a member of staff employed in its finance department.
We managed to interest one of the regional newspapers based in Bristol to publish the story, following the lack of interest from the editor of the local rag, and from there we progressed to Private Eye.
One member of this “concerned” group of three even arranged for an Early Day Motion to be raised in the House of Commons, (for which see http://www.parliament.uk/edm/1989-90/267).
At some point the chief executive instructed a well-known London lawyer who specialised in libel law – causing my sphincter muscle to twitch quite violently.
We had quite a number of “realists”, Welshman, who regularly told us that we were wasting our time. Eventually, the ex-CEO (he had retired by this time) and other members of the conspiracy ended up in the dock of a criminal court.
We, in Pembrokeshire, have a small group of courageous councillors, battling against very powerful interests and it makes my blood boil when I read a defeatist comment like yours, Welshman, and especially from someone clearly incapable of recognising whether an argument has been won or lost.
Kate, as far as my understanding goes, the 21st Century schools programme bid was submitted by officers and the resultant successful interim programme was included in an annual draft budget. This, at a time of severe financial constraint involved an initial significant reallocation of financial reserves. This programme is a priority of the Council and any “savings” at the end of the year are to be added to the 21st Century fund.
A bid for Haverfordwest THI phase 2 was also made by officers. The release of the funds is apparently dependent upon the approval, after consultation, of a heritage plan. This is currently wending its way to Cabinet. No details of the projects included in the bid are available, but will apparently depend on applications for funding.
It is remarkable how far councillors lag behind officer’s plans, and that then a rubber stamp is only required to legitimise and authorise them on the flimsiest of detail and evidence.
Timetraveller says:
“I’m sure somewhere I’ve got a photo of the Queen “lurking” behind Jimmy Savile. God knows what can have been going on at the palace over the years, those poor corgis!”.
I believe Timetraveller is referring to the photograph of Cllr Owen James lurking amongst the Tories at the European election count.
The photo of the Queen and Jimmy Savile, if such exists, was taken before his activities became common knowledge, while that of Cllr James and the Tories was taken after they had accused him of “a democratic betrayal” and called for his resignation and a by-election.
This distinction is important for we ordinary mortals, though it is, perhaps, lost on someone living in a time warp.
Kate,
I have no idea why Mr Evans resigned, though, as I said on my website a few days ago, I have heard a rumour that it was because he felt he couldn’t achieve what he had hoped and expected when he took the post.
Whatever that means!
What I can say is that his resignation is a big loss to the council because he had both the forensic skills required to unearth any administrative failings in the conduct of these grant schemes and a clear intention to go wherever the evidence led.
It will be interesting to see who the appointments panel choose as his replacement.
Kate,
I note your statement that the police say they could not investigate the issue of Mr Bryn Parry-Jones’ pension, which is partly funded by ratepayer and taxpayers, because it was “not appropriate” due to their “close working relationships and partnership arrangements” with the council.
Surely the time has come for the people of Pembrokeshire to be fully informed of the total influence this Chief Executive has in Pembrokeshire and be fully informed how far his tentacles reach into their daily lives?
Perhaps someone could compile a list as it would be interesting to find out if he has any connection in his official capacity to the justice system i.e magistrates’ courts etc.
Timetraveller and Welshman 23 both seem to be afflicted with a peculiar delusion that opposition councillors – of which there are 27 – can magically overcome the voting power of the ruling group’s 33, simply by ‘pulling together,’ ‘pooling resources,’ ‘working as a team,’ ‘focussing on the target’ or [insert throwaway remark here.]
A similar logic is shared by the Pembrokeshire Alliance, which feels more can be achieved by its three members as a group. They have every right to form themselves whichever way they wish, but I’m not aware of any rewards the trio have reaped inside the council since the Alliance’s formation. And, of course, even if the Alliance was 27 strong, it would still be unable to trump 33.
As an aside, I find it ironic that Timetraveller complains about this website ‘chasing every hare,’ yet obsesses about a Porsche Panamera and keeps asking me to write about it. Welshman 23 has also asked me about it in the past.
It begs the question: if these two keyboard warriors ‘pull together,’ ‘pool resources,’ ‘work as a team,’ and ‘focus on the target,’ have they got more chance of achieving success?!
Thank you Jacob, I am seriously considering standing in the next election as an independent, not IPG I would never sell my independence to these bunch. I do agree with your comments.
On another point, why have they reduced the width of the road going up to the new retail park in Withybush and introduced a bus stop on both sides? Can someone explain why this development took place and how much did it cost? The decision makers have even opened up the hedge from the retail park to the bus stop.
The thing that has disfigured Pembrokeshire’s council politics is the way in which candidates have used labels more as Panamanian or Liberian-style “flags of convenience”, be they “Conservative”, “Independent”, “Labour”, or “Plaid Cymru”.
If a Councillor changes their affiliation, there should be a recall election so they can explain their treachery – or loyalty to a higher cause – to the electors they lied to at the ballot box.
There can be little doubt that Farmer Adams and his regime have done more than anyone to speed up the return of Dyfed, or something very similar. Poor old Splinters Stock who, remember, was one of the main bulwarks of this corrupt group from its inception 1996, and stood for them in the last election, must be close to an apoplexy!
Knowing a number of Ceredigion Councillors, they view any liaisons with their failed neighbour with massive trepidation. Can you blame them?
Twm Sion Batty, you mean open and transparent, the truth!
Dangerous and frightening talk for politicians?
Having visited the car park by Wilkinson in Haverfordwest I find that the ticket machines have been replaced, I wonder how much these cost and what was wrong with the old ones.
When you travel up to the new retail park we now have lost a lane and a bus stop has been introduced on both sides of the roads. This retail park has been open for years why do we suddenly need these bus stops now?
The people who sanctioned this need to be taken to task as this is a ridiculous waste of time and money. Jacob can you find out how much these items have cost.
Jacob, the IPG is not a solid homogenous group. It is a rainbow alliance itself, which if it lost four members would be in dire trouble. A party of “independents” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, which would apply to both IPG and the Alliance if it continued to evolve as a specific party.
The sheer numbers of “independents” in Pembs is the problem, as a common guiding philosophy is needed to form an administration. The IPG, or something like it, would have to be created either to form an administration or to form a coalition with a mainstream party that didn’t otherwise amount to a takeover.
Sixty independents would not work because no matter how principled everyone is, deals would have to be done. Against such a background, the paid staff have free rein, and in fact currently almost total control!
The opposition is fragmented, even if they come together over a lot of current issues, there seems no prospect of an administration in the offing, IPG members stick grimly to their alliance and weather the storm and they can still win elections.
You and Grumpy are brilliant, every council ought to have at least one! However at the moment you need to swallow at least some independent pride and look at “alignments”. Your forensic skills are badly needed in a responsible administration, too many IPG members simply can’t grasp how the “Sir Nigels” are running rings round them. (Judging by some of Jamie Adams’ arguments they must find this embarrassingly easy.)
The PD grants is big as it is growing legs and gets to the heart of how the council does business. Election expenses are small beer and the Ombudsman has stated he will not be used for political infighting and brownie points, so he won’t revisit it. Goodwick street lighting is also a minor issue, but revealing of the intellects at work.
Attacking Cllr James is not working for an effective opposition, he is not an IPG member and that is significant.
The electorate will relate to overpaid officials with bloated pension pots and chairmen who need chauffeurs, and they will remember that at election time (though you will need more to get their vote.) So instead of attacking a non IPG member, information on the Porsche is more productive, brown stuff does stick if you swirl it around enough.
Timetraveller, it seems like you accuse the people of Pembrokeshire, with their desire for ‘independent’ candidates and track history of electing them, of causing a “problem.”
I think it should go without saying that constituents deserve to vote for who they want, and to receive what they voted for, and I agree with others that a councillor should resign and be re-elected before changing affiliation.
As for your ‘common guiding philosophy,’ do you think ‘controlling the gravy train’ counts? Thought not! The IPG is pretty ‘homogenous’ on that front!
There is no ‘prospect of administration in the offing’ for opposition members precisely because they are the minority. You keep raking that up, but it’s simple maths. You also seem to forget that there are opposing parties among the opposition, so they’re not necessarily going to agree on everything.
You don’t believe all independents together would work, but you base that on no evidence, just your belief that there needs to be a ‘common guiding philosophy.’ The old district councils were almost entirely non-party-political, and if you look across the pond, many senior elected positions in America (some city councils and mayors for instance) are non-partisan.
Without wishing to get too sidetracked, it might be worth considering that Pembrokeshire has a population of around 120,000 with sixty elected members of all parties and none, controlling a sub-£350 million budget.
As an example, under the California constitution, party-politics is forbidden for all elective offices in the state at city and county level. For instance, Los Angeles city is more populous than 23 American states, with an electorate of 3.9 million. Los Angeles City Council controls a budget of over $8 billion and has only fifteen elected (non-partisan) members, plus an elected (also non-partisan) mayor which serves as the city’s chief executive.
If those sixteen don’t have a ‘common guiding philosophy’ then it shows it’s not as important as you think, but I suspect they do have one, and it’s ‘public service,’ and there’s no reason why it couldn’t work with all current Pembrokeshire councillors who were elected as ‘independent’ or no-name candidates, which is 42 out of 60.
Getting back to Pembrokeshire, as for ‘deals would have to be done’ – I’m not sure if you’re implying dubious connotations with that turn of phrase, I suspect you are, but who said there’s anything wrong with compromises? It would be a vast improvement over the current regime.
One councillor, one vote – simple. The leader and cabinet members would be more accountable if all appointments were approved by full council (on merit) every AGM – this is a must, and should have been introduced long ago.
As for Owen James and the Conservatives, I can’t help but feel you’re prepared to judge different councillors and parties by different standards. I said I don’t discriminate and I haven’t! Also, Owen James and the Conservatives don’t seem nearly as opposed to the IPG as you do.
Welshman 23 – I happened to drive through those roadworks today. The tailbacks were bad (and frequent) enough beforehand when there were three lanes, so cutting down to two lanes can’t help that situation. Email the council if you want to know how it’s been funded. I don’t know anything about it, but it’s possible that the works are being undertaken as part of a section 106 agreement with the recent expansion of the retail park, but that’s only speculation.
Thanks Jacob, the retail park has not expanded, the same number of units have been there for some time.
I agree with a previous blogger you and Old Grumpy should get together and form a group I am not sure of the name but let’s get some ideas, must be clean.
I may be cynical but it is difficult to believe that there is any group of Councillors who can form an alliance which will give them the power to select a Fuhrer and a Cabinet which will prove any better than the one in control at present.
The system must be altered to make any ruling clique thus formed answerable to, and controllable by, the whole County Council. To achieve this requires a fundamental review of the system and a rethink on the relative roles of the Council and Officers, putting the Members in firm control.
Jacob…Timetraveller is far nearer to ‘right’ than you are in my opinion…I think you draw unfortunate parallels in trying to counter his/her views also on at least two points…and did he or her really ‘accuse’ you of anything?
I can assure you that the previous district councils were not quite the improvements you might to have imagined if they were compared to the current County. In fact, the culture and approach to service provision and finance (amongst other things!) can be directly traced back to Preseli District, if not SPDC so much.
In the same way as you pick Timetraveller up for not having evidence on a particular point in his post, I’m not sure what you use as evidence for your suggestion that the districts preceding PCC might be an analogy for effective independent working. Apart from which their scope of operations was rather more limited so therefore ‘apples and pears’. ‘Old Grumpy’ was always very interested in the financial records of Preseli District I seem to recall many years ago.
Finally, California…and North America…uhmm the last time I heard, California and Los Angeles were on the verge of becoming bankrupt
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/la-bankruptcy-california-pension-reform-president_n_3642054.html …
what a top example that is – (public service at any cost!)…the irony is that bankruptcy is about the only failure that would never appear in PCC’s list of misdemeanours.
Been a while since I was ‘told off’ so here we go.
Neville,
Who’s saying Timetraveller has accused me of anything? I haven’t said so.
I’m not necessarily suggesting district councils were an improvement, like you assume I did. I didn’t really need to mention performance, when the point I was making is that partisan politics is not, as Timetraveller seems to think, an absolute fundament.
PCC is doing poorly in many ways, and I understand there were some dodgy goings-on in Preseli which I know you invested a lot of time trying to tackle (I bet your cuts are still sore) but, for what it’s worth, South Pembrokeshire was, by most accounts, an authority that worked without partisan politics.
However, as I said, you could probably find well and poorly-performing examples of both partisan and non-partisan elected bodies everywhere, so the comparisons aren’t easy, and because they aren’t easy, I would have thought that supported my view that partisan politics is not absolutely fundamental, or it would be clear cut.
If I had to predict anybody telling me why California was a poor thing to introduce, it would have been you! I wasn’t trying to imply any more by bringing it to the table than the simple suggestion (not necessary a financial one, either) that even relatively large government in modern democracies around the world today can be based around non-partisan politics.
An American city heading for bankruptcy, never saw that one coming, thank you for providing the link, what a revelation! I’m sure if you sat at your computer long enough you could come up with a list of well and poorly-performing partisan elected bodies in America, as well as non-partisan ones alike.
So, you’ve given your contribution, but haven’t actually said whether you agree that partisan politics is the only game in town.
Do you prescribe to the view that many readers of this blog hold, that independent ‘party’ / ‘groups’ are an oxymoron? If so, what’s your preference for the administration in Pembrokeshire?
Come on, don’t sit on the fence!
Interesting discussion, about the politics and if it wasn’t so serious it would be funny to remind ourselves that non partisan politics is EXACTLY what the IPG and its acolytes say they offer the people of Pembrokeshire, even now!
Whereas I used to think they were not even fooling themselves, I sense many of them genuinely believe they are properly independent.
I think there’s some room for me in the middle ground, so for what it’s worth I think that party politics can work and so can non party politics, it’s about the candidates, what they value, and do they respect their electorate’s wishes?
Never forget the way the IPG voted on the pay and grading vote put forward by Cllr Paul Miller and the Labour party. If the IPG members were properly independent I can’t see why so many members would have voted the way they did, they were whipped as so often they are.
Nice reply Jacob but utter claptrap…it’s so easy to say you didn’t mean any of this or that when people say to you ‘yes but what about’ and ‘of course I knew about financial mess but that’s not important only whether its partisan or not’…if local political systems are not about service delivery these days then what are they about???
By the way, could you enlighten me as to the relevance of the districts, as you have turned a blind eye. As it stands, the political systems we have, given that they are all inextricably linked, will never function if operated in a fully independent way, as I think you advocate. So no, in the absence of some sort of corralling or brigading of those together who may have a common purpose, it will never ‘work’ in my opinion.
I await the next cracking example of non partisan success with baited breath…you did seem to suggest that performance was irrelevant to the point you were making…if so, I would find that rather odd…oh…try Toronto then…coke snorting, drunk, sexually deviant mayor…but he’s non partisan donchano… 🙂
Finally I did misread the comment about ‘accusing’ …you said that Timetraveller accused the people of Pembrokeshire of which you are one…I say he did not…two can play at political spin…
Ding Ding.
PS – my preferred option for the administration in Pembrokeshire is abolition…
Nev, you introduce Toronto as an example (tongue-in-cheek, I know) though it doesn’t follow (and you haven’t shown) that there’s any link to performance. Like looking at Chicago, a city with about as corrupt a track record as you could imagine – and where all of the fifty aldermen (and mayor) are Democrats. By your logic, that has to be some strong common purpose indeed – which has also led the city to the brink of bankruptcy!
Things are going off track but if you must pursue that, as the onus is on you and Timetraveller to prove the necessity of ‘political groupings’ (as we seem to have now settled on calling it) then going by what you’ve previously said, I would have thought the best evidence you could hope to rely on is that which demonstrates partisan governance is ‘more successful’ than non-partisan.
Good luck with that.
Thank you Sallie for injecting some common sense into this increasingly acrimonious debate.
Disagreements about the relative merits of partisan and non-partisan politics is beside the point, so far as Pembrokeshire is concerned.
At the 2012 election the electorate, which largely takes the view that there is no room for party politics in local government, returned 42 candidates who ran on an independent or no-party ticket.
Following the election 32 of them signed up for the Independent Political Group which is to all and intents and purposes a political party.
Cllr Jamie Adams’ speech at the recruitment meeting held on the Monday after the count can be read at http://oldgrumpy.co.uk/archived/Jamie%20adams.html
Two of them (Cllrs Peter Stock and David Bryan) subsequently resigned, but they were replaced by Cllrs Simon Hancock and Sue Perkins (both Labour) and Stephen Joseph (Plaid Cymru) leaving it with its present 33-27 majority.
In my view, this party suffers from three serious democratic deficiencies:
1. So far as I can ascertain, none of its present or prospective members ever bothered to tell the electorate of their membership, or intended membership, of this political group, apart from Rob Summons at the 2013 Burton by-election.
2. It didn’t publish a manifesto informing the electorate what it intended to do if it attained power. Though it did have an election coordinator Cllr Rob Lewis who, throughout both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, was illegally using the authority’s computer facilities to ensure the IPG retained control of the council.
3. It lacks the shared ideology that has traditionally provided the glue that holds political parties together.
For evidence of that consider that Cllrs Sue Perkins and Brian Hall are members of the same political party.
Had anyone predicted such an outcome at one of those regular gatherings at Cllr Perkins’ house in the early part of 2012, where opposition members met to plot the downfall of the IPG, their colleagues would have been sending for the men in white coats.
Indeed, all that keeps team-IPPG on the rails is the more than £200,000 that its leader has to dole out in Special Responsibility Allowances and other forms of bunce.
What it all amounts to is that power in Pembrokeshire has been seized by what can only be described as a bloodless, post-election coup d’etat.
It would be interesting to hear the Pembrokeshire Alliance members’ views – if they offered them – on the topic of councillors switching affiliation, adhering to their electors’ mandate, and whether councillors should resign and force a by-election before changing affiliation.
Like any political group on the council, its only prospects of increasing its share of councillors between now and the next election (or potential intervening by-elections) hinge on existing councillors switching their affiliation.
So far in this council term three registered political parties have suffered losses of councillors: Labour (2 to the IPG; ) Plaid Cymru (1 to the IPG;) and the Conservatives (1 became non-affiliated;) which, on each occasion, prompted quite vocal criticisms from the parties of councillors failing to establish a new mandate.
Nobody has yet changed affiliation to Labour or Plaid Cymru, however when Cllr. David Bryan came knocking on the Conservatives’ door, they somehow completely forgot about the principles they aired but eighteen months previously!
For balance, I would point out that Cllr. Sue Perkins is even more guilty on that front. As Labour leader, she chastised Pearl Llewellyn something rotten for joining the IPG, and Ken Rowlands, and Umelda Havard, and Lyndon Frayling. In time, she came to realise how strong the IPG allure was – and found it too good to resist herself!
Jacob, they have 3 members all of which have conned their constituents by now forming this party. I’ve stated for a long time that the Alliance is the poor man’s IPPG.
The only way we will see any direction in Pembrokeshire is through a mainstream political party and whichever then controls the Council at least there would be some substance, right or wrong behind their administration. I can’t see the Officers having a free rein in such circumstances.
I’m very open to listening to the views of true independents and would be interested to see what a Cabinet would look like if you or Old Grumpy were to lead the Council in place of Farmer Adams. Do spill the beans on who you would choose to fill the cabinet posts from any party and why.
Jon Boy Jovi, I don’t answer hypothetical questions.
In any case, I have enemies enough in the IPPG without revealing which 32 of them I wouldn’t put in charge of anything more challenging than a small to medium-sized whelk stall.
Jon Boy Jovi,
Let’s just say if you were to describe the current cabal of leading portfolio holders as the “MFI cabinet,” – dull, low quality laminated MDF, chipboard and ready to collapse under its own weight – then my cabinet would be the Chippendale cabinet – solid Mahogany, intricately carved, polished within an inch of its life, and sturdy.
Mike,
You must be teasing us in more ways than one because there are 33 members of the IPPG to choose from for your cabinet, but you’ve only ruled out 32 of them.
Could you give us a hint as to which one of the 33 might make the grade?
Jacob, that would be telling!
This is a variation on the game theory problem involving the missionary and the natives. As things stand, all 33 are all free to think it is them.
Reminds me of a book I read a long time ago. It was titled: “How to make friends while insulting people”, or something like that.
Mike, was that the book ghost written by Putrid Pugh?
My hypothetical question was more of a rhetorical one, cast to invoke some debate amongst fellow bloggers. It is highlighting the dearth of quality amongst the IPPG and the astute challenge orchestrated by KNS for 2017.
I would like to think the leading lights of party politics in Pembrokeshire begin to get involved and recruit genuine candidates to challenge the IPPG/KNS but I’d assume that this wouldn’t be invoked until after next year’s general election?
I would also throw out to those political giants to consider using the desire and drive Old Grumpy (if he stands again) and Jacob offer in a cabinet position of their administration. Unfortunately, Magic Mike Evans wouldn’t get an invite after his love for Putrid Pugh to ensure Tenby secured funding. Remember, the electorate have long memories!
The numbers game is the ruling factor and always will be. Come the next election the chances are that IPPG or its next reincarnation will have a reasonable chance of becoming the ruling group/party yet again.
Whilst not at this stage believing the Alliance can make that much of a difference other than splitting some of the independent voters, one or two of their proposed ideas seem interesting.
One I do like is proposing that cabinet members would be appointed on the basis of who wants it and who is most suitable.
Of course on paper the IPPG would shoot down any motion with the block vote if put to a council meeting, or would they.
If it was put to the vote before the next election that cabinet appointments should be decided by full council voting in the next term, regardless of how big the IPPG vote is now there is, we gather from postings on this and OG’s blog, a few who may not be sure of their utmost loyalty to the IPPG cause given events over the past year or two.
These same few may also feel they have been sidelined by Jamie as he only has so many posts to share out (or use for bargaining/control) and they may think if re-elected next time round a change in how cabinet posts are allocated might give them a better chance of getting a post (and some dosh).
If the appointments could be wrestled from the leader’s control it would make things seem to the layman a little more democratic and may make (supposedly independent) councillors a bit more independent thinking in their mindset. Also maybe the right person will end up holding the job.
The IPPG will still be there and no doubt still running the show and the group vote will still exist but if someone did want to go against the whip it could be done freely without the threat of losing a post, or reducing their chances of being appointed in the future.
Would True Blue Sue for example campaign as an independent next time round if there was no guarantee of holding her post. I doubt it but where would she go – would Labour have her back? Fools, them, if they did.
She may be the best candidate for her current post but then if elected she would have to convince the full council of that fact rather than just agreeing to support the IPPG leader at any cost for another few years on the gravy train.