Wednesday, 13th March, 2013
Burton candidates
The statement of candidates standing in the Burton by-election has been published by the returning officer. (See below.)
Earlier this week that other website and I revealed the identities of the Conservative and Labour party candidates, and the identity of a potential IPPG candidate has been open to a lot of speculation ever since it became known that the outgoing IPPG councillor David Wildman endorsed candidate Robert Summons in his ward newsletter.
A comment submitted last night on my post announcing the Labour candidate’s name suggested that a ‘genuine’ independent was also going to enter the race.
This looks to have been a sound tip-off, because alongside the three we already knew about, appears just one other – Jon Harvey, standing as ‘independent.’
This is the same Jon Harvey who stood as the Conservative Party’s candidate in the 2012 county-wide elections in Lamphey.
If an IPPG rebellion is on the cards, it’ll be interesting to see if this naturally Tory-leaning ward with a history of electing ‘independent’ councillors will see Mr. Harvey as the perfect answer to their problems.
Aside from the opposition, one other big stumbling block might be the fact that he lives in Pembroke.
Having already endorsed Robert Summons as the Independent Political Group’s boy inside the ward newsletter, outgoing IPPG councillor David Wildman has given the ultimate endorsement, by signing his nomination papers.
17 Comments...
Have your say...
Check out and 'like' my Facebook page ↴
Recent posts…
What’s the chance of someone actually getting elected, that will shun the closet Tory ruling group?
50/50?
Just to confirm that if I am fortunate enough to get elected I will not be joining the IPPG or any other political group. I will be remaining truly independent!
Let’s hope Jon Harvey is a man of his word and not someone that can be bought by dangling a cabinet position in front of his nose! (Unlike some of the other councillors that I will not mention).
I certainly am Paul. I never have and never will be “bought”. I find it very saddening that certain Members who campaigned on being truly independent within hours of being elected signed up to the IPPG and in so doing “conned” the electorate. I applaude the investigative work of Jacob and OG in bringing this to the attention of the public along with all the other “shady” wheeling and dealings.
I believe in open, transparent and accountable government and if the stranglehold of the IPPG can be broken in this by-election I think we can achieve this.
I do not have any “party” foot soldiers to assist me in my campaign but will work hard to drive this message home.
Seeing that Mr Harvey has come out as a dictionary-independent, can we now expect Mr Summons to put in an appearance on this website to explain to the Burton electorate where he stands on this truly independent/IPPG issue?
Quite right too Mr Summons. Explain yourself, now, this instant. The Raiders of the Lost Independents demand answers…
Your Holiness, I am having some difficulty understanding your cryptic comment.
One interpretation is that you are suggesting that voters do not have the right to be told precisely where candidates stand. But no sensible person would hold that view. So your comment must mean something else.
Are you able to offer clarification because, I am sure you will agree, it is difficult to have a rational debate with someone who talks in riddles.
A thousand apologies, Cllr Stoddart.
I merely interpreted your comment as a rather pompous observation that Mr Summons should explain whether he is ‘dictionary-independent’ or not through the medium of this site. And responded in my own ironic way. A bit like ‘hear, hear’ and waving of papers in the House of Commons and bashing of desks and so on in agreement.
Anyway, why should he do that on this site? Isn’t the question of his true political leanings a matter for the electorate of Burton rather than the dolly mixture of participants (myself and you included) here?
And as for rational debate, what exactly do you think will happen if the promised land of a council fully populated by members who are ‘independent’ (by your measures) ‘true’ or ‘dictionary’ (I like that one) is ever reached?
Do you honestly believe that there will be no other tribal or geographically biased compromising of this mythical state of independence?
Your Holiness, I think you may have misunderstood my position.
I have never argued for “the promised land of a council fully populated by members who are ‘independent’…”.
That, however, appears to be the wish of the majority of Pembrokeshire voters, who, in May 2012, returned 42 non-party councillors.
This is consistent with the commonly held view that: “There’s no place for party politics in local government”.
But party politics is what the people get, because, as soon as the votes are safely in the bag, a majority of these so-called independents get together and form themselves into what is, to all intents and purposes, a political party.
As I’ve said on numerous occasions, there would be no objection to IPPG rule if it openly campaigned as a party and won a majority of the seats. The reason they don’t is because they know they would be rejected at the polls.
The more people come to realise what is going on, the weaker the IPPG becomes.
In May 2012 its majority was slashed from 39-21 down to 31-29 and I fully expect this trend to continue until we reach a “promised land” where electors are told the truth about candidates’ political affiliations.
True to form, the WT website will not take comments on this election. Whilst not decrying blogsites like this one, I think more people would comment on the WT site if given the chance.
Cllr Stoddart, and you have misunderstood mine I believe. Or at least the other two parts of my enquiry which have been conveniently overlooked.
1) Why should the other independent candidate explain himself on this site as opposed to the Burton electorate?
2) In the event that the IPPG falls and the overall majority of the Council is in fact independent (as in dictionary), what do you think will happen regarding the conduct of Council business and decision making then? Is it your anticipated outcome that the ‘independents’ will remain completely unaffiliated and refuse to band or bond on other ‘tribal’ or perhaps geographical bases?
I am genuinely seeking your view here by the way.
That is absolutely true Dave. The WT recently closed their article on the Brooklands application for a waste disposal site after only three comments.
To respond to a couple of comments… we always allow comments on http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk wherever possible and welcome reader comment and feedback. There are notable exceptions, however, when we do not open stories up for comments. These include ongoing criminal cases and court reports, for obvious legal reasons. Likewise, we have to be extra careful once an election has been called. We have decided not to open comments on the Burton by-election story to be fair to all candidates.
With regard to the Brooklands case, the story has not been closed and remains under the news section and free to comment on at:
http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/10274496.Plans_submitted_for_controversial_amenity_site/
The story has automatically dropped from the most read and most commented panels as all stories tend to do after a period of time.
Can I ask the Western Telegraph why don’t you ever come out against PCC? A very very very small article on the pay cut/review. No mass hangings or campaign to prevent pay cuts.
And why the hell is the paper £1! There’s nothing in it except advertising!
Perhaps we could ask Jacob to pick up the cudgels on the Brooklands issue too.
With reference to the WT comment, I would have thought an issue of this importance should be easily accessible for more than 8 days.
Surely the outcome of this very local election is of county importance and interest. As such it is worthy of comment and or reports of campaigns by the County newspaper.