Friday, 12th April, 2013
Summons retains IPG stronghold and stranglehold
Rob Summons IPG 291 Robin Wilson Conservative 166 Robin Howells Labour 162 Jon Harvey Independent 46 Total cast: 665/1,489 Turnout: 45%
With a particularly good turnout, yesterday’s by-election in Burton created a number of firsts. Not only did it see the first openly declared IPG candidate in Pembrokeshire’s history, but it is also the first poll that the Burton ward voters have faced in almost a decade. Not since the county-wide elections in 2004 has a vote been cast by the electorate to determine their County Hall representative.
In 2004 David Wildman held it very convincingly as an ‘independent’ in a thumping landslide – racking up 620-117 against a Lib Dem challenger. With consecutive unopposed re-elections in 2008 and 2012, the need for the IPG to retain this seat after Wildman’s swift and unexpected retirement in January was paramount.
But it was as a Tory that Wildman first won this council ward, back in 1999. And still, for such a blue-tinted patch, the distance Robin Wilson came behind the IPG’s candidate Rob Summons must be irritating for the Tories, who gave every impression that they were contesting the ward seriously, and not just placing ‘paper candidates’ as they commonly do in Pembrokeshire polls. With all four national political seats and the police and crime commissioner in the bag, having just two councillors in Pembrokeshire, and running up a distant second in arguably one of their most strongest bases, must be a cause for concern.
The other day I started realising some traffic coming to my website from an internet forum which is dedicated to elections held within the British political system, from regular council elections to parliamentary by-elections and everything in-between.
One of the forum members posted a link to my recent look at the Burton candidates’ leaflets, to which a Labour-affiliated forum member by the name of ‘David Boothroyd’ – unknown if he is linked to The Rt. Hon. Baroness Betty – commented: “The almost total absence of anything that can actually be called political in any of the election addresses is striking.”
This is an assessment fit for Labour as it is the Conservatives, and goes without saying for the IPG, members of which wouldn’t know what a political manifesto looked like if it was printed in small print on the back of an SRA pay packet.
It’s the gap of just four votes between the Labour and Conservative candidate which is perhaps the biggest point of discussion following this retention. I’m naturally pleased to have won a bet I had placed on the outcome, but it has to be said that Labour punched well above its weight, and gave the Conservatives a good run for their money.
The mysterious displacement of Tory votes might not be such a mystery after all. A possible indicator of where they could have ended up, might be found on Rob Summons’ nomination papers. The topic of conversation in the County Hall members’ room this morning was that a high proportion of his nomination counter-signatories are locally-known to be Tory supporters.
The weight of the endorsement given to Summons by outgoing Cllr. David Wildman – whose membership of the Preseli Pembrokeshire Conservative Association was added to his council declaration of interests in 2010 – is probably immeasurable, but the amount of effort the IPG put in to retaining this seat was quite visible. The pooling of knowledge from the IPG’s experienced campaign strategists, and the influx of super-loyal foot soldiers smattering the ward by the van-load are testament to the importance they placed on keeping this seat.
The historic attraction of the IPG to already-elected councillors was that it could ensure SRAs for the boys, and, as a reward for having pulled off such a crucial victory, a handsome prize is surely in the offing for the new councillor, and it’ll be interesting to see how deep the leader will delve into his goodie bag, which currently contains a cabinet seat and not much else.
Following Burton, surely a whole new advantage of IPG accreditation has been uncovered – that is, increased prospects of retaining seats. A slip-up was made by IPG leader, Cllr. Jamie Adams, when he said last night to the Western Telegraph:
“Clearly with numbers in county council we have an interest in maintaining the majority. However, as things stand the group is very stable.
I think that in Rob Summons we have a very strong, credible candidate and our hope is obviously that the electorate have the same opinion.”
(My emphasis in bold.) These words are quite distinct to Rob Summons stating in his leaflet that he would join the IPG if elected. So now that the IPG feels able to admit to being a party by openly contesting elections and fielding hand-picked candidates, I can’t wait to see the manifesto they’ll cobble together for future elections. After this comfortable retention of one of their strongholds, they have nothing to lose, right?
36 Comments...
Have your say...
Check out and 'like' my Facebook page ↴
Recent posts…
As a great man from Cilgerran once said, “The ballot box has spoken”.
Credit to Summons for at least being the first to be upfront about his intention to join the IPPG. However, one swallow does not make a summer. And neither do 31 swallows.
Wally’s comments on a previous thread seem to indicate that he thinks that because Summons won, everything that JW & OG have advocated about the corruption and denial surrounding the IPG/IPPG is nullified because 291 odd people in a little village have chosen to vote for one of their own residents. I would wager that a large majority of them are retirees and don’t have a clue about the IPPG’s actions.
The fact that they ARE a political group and had the numbers of foot soldiers to bus in to support their ‘candidate’ was obviously a big influence on the result. That, along with another important factor which is consistent in a lot of the wards held by the IPG gang (if they’re not politicians who are part of a political group then surely they’re at least members of the same gang of ideologically similarly thinking individuals).
That point being that many of the most senior councillors have long been in a position where they have been returned uncontested, been part of the IPG, in receipt of SRAs as part of the bigger boys within the group, and able to provide disproportionate benefits to their constituents using resources which are meant for all of us.
A classic example of this can be read on OG’s website:
See “Well Fed”
http://oldgrumpy.co.uk/archived/November%2011%202008.html
The comparison between Hundleton and Milford Haven typifies the longstanding, unfair dealings of the IPG on a very basic level. It shows the disproportionately high influence over the people in our county in relation to the percentage of the population that they actually represent and were elected by.
David Edwards’ point that the group must be political because otherwise Adams would not be able to collect his leader’s allowance further proves that members of the group cannot be independent, it’s a very simple matter of definition that shows deceit.
The recent passing of Margaret Thatcher has bought about many comments, from people who disliked her, that at least she was a strong leader, which I believe to be true although I hated her with a passion.
The same cannot be said about the current and past leader of the IPG who use SRAs to keep their sheep within the fold for their own benefit.
I can’t even admit to not liking John Davies but respecting his talent and leadership. He represents everything that is wrong with this country, the same as Thatcher did – look after the ones important to yourself and not the rest of you peasants.
Jamie Adams is the same although he’s dumber because while Davies jumped ship as it began to take on water, Adams stayed believing he could keep it afloat, eyeing up the lucrative benefits should he be able to do so.
And so far he has, even though the ship is limping through choppy seas. This victory for their boy in Burton is nowhere near as significant as it may seem for them just now though. It’s a temporary relief.
The revelations by JW & OG of the goings-on in County Hall will continue and it’s definitely only a matter of time before Adams loses his grip on the majority and the whole thing will come tumbling down!!!
And when it does, all of the IPG will jostle for power and position in whichever self serving group evolves after that.
What a bitter, small minded, petty contribution PR. Well done on denigrating the residents of Burton, both through ageist remarks and a condescending comment about a ‘small village.’
As ever, you miss my point, which is that Jacob and the other bloke have long waged their campaign (well the other bloke really) and I remain sceptical as to its effectiveness. I too find the ruling group’s behaviour in calling itself ‘independent’ deceitful but have yet to be convinced that the electorate, to its own discredit perhaps, is over concerned. And so it would seem.
I didn’t comment after the result and right away as I felt it largely spoke for itself, but now you’ve encouraged me. By the way, live in Cilgerran do you?
Wally – “The Self-Correcting Barometer of Pembrokeshire Politics” – has spoken!
The voters have voted and elected Rob Summons, let him get on with the job in hand. What is more pressing is County Hall and all the bad publicity Pembrokeshire has been getting recently.
BPJ’s conduct at the count on Thursday was appalling when questioned by a person overseeing the count who raised a query about a ballot paper. He was put in his place and told to take up a legal challenge and take him to court.
Hello Molly, you must be a long lost relative from the name. Nice to hear from you. What is a self correcting barometer?
The result is what is is. It doesn’t validate the actions of the IPG and I simply meant that the relative size of the electorate in Burton and the fact that they’ve elected an up-front IPG candidate doesn’t count for much, neither does it invalidate the long term work of Stoddart and the recent excellent efforts of Williams because strong opposition and challenges relating to accountability is an integral element of democracy and the Internet facilitates this extremely well in the modern age.
It’s extremely important that scurrilous individuals are held to account, especially when they show their deviousness by masquerading as independent councillors and then join a group and almost without exception vote along party lines.
Bitter? You betcha! These and many others like them are parasites living off the hard work of the normal decent people of this county. A man of Stoddart’s ability would have been offered a role in this council long ago if the leader was truly interested in delivering value for money and service to the people of this county.
The whole system and the behaviour of the people controlling it stinks like Cwmbetws cowsh!t.
As for holding “scurrilous individuals” to account, in the democratic process that would be down to the electorate, wouldn’t it? And if I was a member of the electorate concerned, one of the ‘small village retirees who don’t have a clue’, I would probably find your remarks even more offensive.
I think the word you were actually looking for was ‘sorry’.
What is a self-correcting barometer, you ask?
That would be you, Wally! You like to think you’re the barometer of Pembrokeshire politics…and you are self-correcting (the most recent time I saw was, in your immediate excitement over the Burton result, on the other article you commented that the Labour candidate had come second before you realised he came third and corrected yourself).
I have noticed your pearls…sorry…cockles of wisdom on ‘ere for a while and I have to admire your persistence. I mightn’t always understand which direction you are heading in, and neither it would seem, do many! I don’t think you’re a naughty boy really, just a bit misguided perhaps?
I haven’t commented before but I think there is room enough for a feisty lass on here. Margaret Thatcher has exited stage left, enter Certifiable Molly stage right!
Wally, as you say above: “As ever, you miss my point, which is that Jacob and the other bloke have long waged their campaign (well the other bloke really) and I remain sceptical as to its effectiveness.”
Could “the other bloke” point out that the number of unaffiliated i.e. truly independent members on the council has risen from two in 2004 to four in 2008 (later six after the Lib Dems disbanded) and now stands at 14.
In the meantime, the IPPG (as it is now known) has seen its majority reduced from 39-21 to 31-29 and it wouldn’t have a majority at all were it not for the post-election defection of long-time Labour councillor Simon Hancock who was promptly elevated to Cabinet rank.
You admit yourself that the ruling group’s practice of labeling itself independent is “deceitful” so it is difficult to see what point you are trying to make.
Very good Molly. Mostly. I did get a bit overcome with excitement, you are right. After all the furore on here about the IPG the result was hilarious.
Misguided? I don’t think so but then I wouldn’t. Just because I have different views doesn’t make it so and it’s a shame you don’t follow my thread. Anyway, Misguided Margaret, welcome to the asylum.
PS – the ‘Holiness’ bit was associated with the Pope so perhaps you ought to seek an alternative handle?
Cllr Stoddart, I am surprised a man of your ability needed clarification of my point. It is this, the understandable criticism on here and your site, amongst other things, is that the electorate often doesn’t know whether they’re voting for an ‘ugly’ or an IPG, because the IPG status is not made clear.
In the Burton election, it was clear. Remind me again what happened?
That’s a very weak argument you’ve put forward there, Wally, that the IPG’s existence is somehow entirely vindicated by one by-election result in arguably one of its safest strongholds – because that’s the corollary of what you are saying.
Is Mike Stoddart’s point, which takes into account the IPG’s historic status and diminishing electoral accomplishments, lost on you? I’m not altogether surprised that a fanatic of your pedigree would intentionally disregard evidence of a long term trend, but the county certainly doesnt appear to be so blinkered.
They might know ‘who,’ but do the Burton voters know ‘what’ they were voting for in RS? Perhaps you managed to obtain a copy of the political manifesto that the several IPG councillor foot soldiers were distributing on behalf of their political leader, who they elected at their secret meeting, Cllr. Jamie Adams.
If so, maybe you would be so kind as share it with us – and the Burton voters.
Wally, the fact that 3.225% of the IPPG’s members have been elected after standing openly on the party’s ticket hardly makes for democratic legitimacy.
As I’ve said many times, if IPPG candidates declare their allegiance to the party in their election material and they still end up with a majority on the council, there would be no complaints from me.
Now that Rob Summons has blazed the trail, perhaps others will follow.
Let’s stop this and concentrate on the bigger picture, Rob Summons made it quite clear he was representing the IPPG now let’s move on, he has been elected. Let’s look at the problems in County Hall. If you are unhappy with the IPPG then please ensure you vote at the next elections and remove their representatives.
Of course it’s a weak argument Jacob if I actually made the one you ascribe to me but I did not! I made my reference quite clear in respect of Burton not anything wider, so I would prefer that you didn’t misrepresent what I said, just because things have not gone according to the ‘ugly’ plan. Even if you choose to call it a corollary in justifying journalistic licence. In any event, it is no weaker than the premise you and the other bloke have pronounced on at length.
We now have a load of excuses as to why Burton doesn’t really matter. What hogwash! What you have, whether you like it or not, is specific ‘evidence’ not a ‘trend’ which may or may not represent what you would like it to. What Cllr Stoddart has for the rest of his assumption regarding the other 96.775% is assumption or hearsay.
Now, which is weaker? (Rhetorical, Molly) I’m not saying that the IPG’s existence is ‘vindicated’ in any way shape or form either. What I’m saying is that you have claimed as the other bloke has, that things would be different if the the electorate was better informed as to candidates’ true intentions etc. In the context of many of your previous comments, I am saying that, in Burton, that has not proved to be the case has it?
I will be otherwise engaged this afternoon but look forward to joining you all again this evening. 🙂
You are making quite a few assumptions yourself, Wally: firstly, that I have misrepresented, or have tried to misrepresent what you have been saying in your post-Burton arguments.
I’m sure you understand the definition of a corollary. As to what your “Ugly plan” is, perhaps you could develop a back-story on that one, but I suspect you’re just trying to disprove something you’ve cooked up yourself for the sake of trying to disprove it.
You suggest that “the other bloke” and I have claimed that things would be different if the electorate was better informed of candidates’ intentions. If what you mean by ‘different’ is that I have claimed that votes for the IPG will diminish if candidates’ intentions were made clear, then show me where I’ve said this.
And your denials that there is a downward trend of voter popularity with Independent Group candidates/councillors are incomprehensible. For good measure, would you say it was an upward trend, then?
As Jacob is on the council could you raise a question at the next meeting to seek clarification if the IPPG is a political party. Not being familiar with the protocol it’s a question I think should be raised.
Hi Wally, I get the feeling you’re hooked on me already!
As Thatcher said of Gorbachev…I look at Wally and think to myself “now here is a man I can do business with”!
Let’s face it, the IPG rang political rings around the rest.
To Jacob,
I’m perfectly aware of the definition of a corollary and because you have misunderstood (polite) the clear point I was making (which was limited to the Burton result), the corollary you state as following cannot in fact do so. It is an erroneous corollary.
The ‘Ugly’ plan is to ‘out’ the IPPG. I’m sure that others would view it as such, even again, if you now chose to argue otherwise. If I have misunderstood, and you are not looking for things to be different and by that, the corollary must be the erosion of the IPPG power base, then why on earth are you bothering with any of this palaver? You are in grave danger of attracting the dreaded Wally ‘so what’ accusation yet again.
So, as I see it, we’ll make sure that everyone says who they really are but we don’t really care if they go on doing the same thing. Now, in effect, that is what Cllr Stoddart has said above. Just mind boggling given the rather unanimous agreement of us all that the County is mismanaged in quite a serious way.
To quote, “As I’ve said many times, if IPPG candidates declare their allegiance to the party in their election material and they still end up with a majority on the council, there would be no complaints from me.” What a damning statement. No doubt I’ll be accused of selective quotation.
So which is it boys??? What would you prefer to use as your arguments this week?
To Molly (aka Margaret), sorry I missed you earlier. Catch up later Принцесса. 🙂
Mr. Gorbachev, you’ve quoted Mike, not me.
No doubt he’ll be back to further occupy your mind tomorrow.
Try asking yourself, why have the IPG always been and continue to deny so strongly being a party? Do you think they believe it will be a hit with the public, and pull in extra votes? Of course not.
As for your question: “…why on earth are you bothering with any of this palaver?”
Because plenty of people like you keep coming back for more. Well, not all come back twenty times a day like you do but…
I know I did!
Your answer to the palaver question is too glib Jacob. I even checked in from the beach. Nevertheless, if none of this makes a difference to the mismanaged authority of which you are a part, why then bother? (I’ll try for an answer a second time!)
I think you’ll find I’m here constantly now on the look out for our Molly. Ever thought of having a chat room…
Hmmm, I am trying my hardest to get my head around your latest comment, but I think I’m beginning to lose sight of your argument now if I’m honest. I do try. Perhaps Molly could reiterate it for me in easier chunks with Thatcher-esque aplomb?
I asked you to quote what I had said to that effect, and you quoted something that Mike had said to that effect. I then pointed this out to you and you carried on by asking me questions relating to what Mike had said as if I had said it.
I’m not sure what you are saying ‘doesn’t make a difference to the mismanaged authority’ but if you say it doesn’t matter then it probably does to some people.
I seem to remember a few months back you found nothing wrong in the council chairman’s use of discretion when he referred the motion of no confidence in Cllr. Huw George to the council’s cabinet for discussion and to make a recommendation to the full council.
When your view was criticised, you replied that some people on here take a “utopian view of how (any sort of) politics works.”
Some defence!
A final observation, we can leave others to enjoy the quotation disentanglement but…Cllr Stoddart said “As I’ve said many times, if IPPG candidates declare their allegiance to the party in their election material and they still end up with a majority on the council, there would be no complaints from me” did he not?
I previously referred to the fact that the council is mismanaged and we all agree with that, do we not? The result in Burton maintained the status quo even though the winning candidate stated his membership of the IPG, did it not?
Good, let’s stop there for a moment.
Now, I simply questioned why Cllr Stoddart’s objections would simply be satisfied if the IPG was in a majority provided its candidates clearly stated their membership. The Council is mismanaged (check!), the Cabinet is an IPG creature (check!) so Cllr Stoddart would be happy (he clearly states) if the IPG retains control provided they made their IPGness clear.
However, I would not as this would perpetuate the clear and current mismanagement. Simples…
Even if, as happened in Burton, the Independent councillor stated his intention to join the IPPG, this doesn’t allow for the fact that a majority of the electorate (source: my own estimate) aren’t really informed about what the IPPG is actually constructed from, or the oxymoron of an ‘independent’ who is part of a group, political or otherwise, that almost without exception, vote in the best interest of maintaining an SRA or obtaining one in the future if they’re good little boys.
Summons got in because of Wildman’s backing and the inherent lack of the main political parties challenging for the seat over many years which allows the disease of hypocrisy to fester in our local authority. In any case, whether Summons won or lost, the IPPG remains a doomed ship and Adams is way out of his depth but rest assured, he will hang on to power and the financial benefits for him and his cronies for as long as they have even the slightest of majorities.
It won’t last forever. With extreme hypocrites like Hancock in the fold and the continuing work of JW and OG, the eventual outcome is inevitable. The sooner the better in my opinion and I’ll be buying Stoddart & Williams a drink the day it happens because it won’t have happened without their consistent search for the truth and exposing of the IPPG’s disgusting practices.
Wally, you obviously see yourself as some sort of maverick but really you don’t offer much to a debate. JW & OG have offered consistent proof of wrongdoing and lies from individuals in the IPG & IPPG, but every time I read one of your posts I struggle to understand just what point you are trying to make.
Wally, I think we are talking at cross purposes here.
When I say that I would have no complaints if the IPPG won a majority after openly campaigning under the party ticket, I am speaking from a democratic viewpoint.
Similarly, if the electorate returned the BNP after a free and fair election, I would have no complaints about that either, though I would be most unhappy with the outcome.
I fail to get my head round how voters can vote for an ‘independent’ candidate, yet rather than meeting the actual candidate on their doorstep selling themselves and their virtues, they’re faced with an independent party colleague of the candidate who might live halfway across the county canvassing on their behalf.
It can also be looked at from the other way around…
…say your councillor was Rob Lewis or Daphne Bush and you found out that in the run up to this by election they were knocking doors in Burton campaigning for their party colleague, wouldn’t it make you think “less than 12 months ago I voted for them because I disagree with party politics on a local level, so where did their so called independence go to?”
Especially Bush’s voters who if I recall correctly got in by less than 10 votes last year.
If I recall Quill, Bush got in by 8 votes with Melanie Phillips a close second. I also recall that when she was campaigning she was specifically asked on the doorstep if she was a “true” independent. She stated yes! Within hours she had signed up to the IPPG. Says it all really.
And a very good afternoon it is in Pembrokeshire.
PR – So far I haven’t seen much that is ‘disgusting’ but plenty that seems inept or incompetent. Hypocrisy abounds as you say within the Council but a greater malaise could be argued to be the electorate apathy.
I wonder, as I have with Cllr Stoddart and Jacob, what exactly you ‘wish for’ in the great independent nirvana which beckons Pembs. It is difficult to imagine anything worse I grant you but I offer the view that a Council full of cats (members) that have no herding mechanism (ie a grouping, because that’s what the ‘true independents’ are) will be left as even tastier fodder for the over powerful officers to do precisely what they please. We shall see perhaps, in time.
I don’t disagree that on this forum I am indeed a ‘maverick’. And very glad of that I am too. I am similarly pleased that you find my train of thought difficult to follow. The idea that someone, who can post as awful a set of views as your earlier comments about the electorate in Burton, could be on my wave length would have rather upset me. What are these ‘wrongdoings’ you have identified by the way and have you referred these to HM Constabulary?
Cllr Stoddart, good afternoon to you.
Ahhhh, the famous ‘cross purpose’. A very political response if I might say so. Glad to see that at least you would accept the will of the people even if PR perhaps would find many and varied reasons as why “they know not what they do”. We’ll see.
Brian Hall threatening a reporter with broken bones.
Brian Hall claiming expenses that were proven by documents presented by Mike Stoddart to be invalid.
Both reported to HM Constabulary, he wasn’t prosecuted.
First instance, he claimed expenses to be at the function where he threatened a reporter, therefore he was there in his capacity as a councillor, but his highly paid legal representative convinced the powers that be that he was ALSO there as an individual and it was in this capacity that he made his comments – bizarre.
Second instance, Mark Lewis, Finance Director, issued a statement to the Police that no wrongdoing had been done reference Hall’s expenses claims, despite evidence to the contrary. The Police took no further action.
So no, I haven’t reported anything to HM Constabulary, but Mike Stoddart has and it falls on deaf ears.
Two instances of wrongdoing there for you Wally, and those are just two that have been uncovered in recent years that spring to mind.
PR, no one is immune from investigations and if proven could result in prosecution. We as tax payers have a right to justice these people are spending our money. A recent example is the suspension of the CEO of Caerphilly council.
Is that it PR? These are both well documented examples where nothing much happened in the end. I thought there was something else awry. If that’s the best you’ve got, and they both involve Councillor Hall, not particularly attention grabbing. Old hat!
I’m told in earlier jousting that I cannot draw a conclusion regarding the wider electorate from the result in Burton, (you and Cllr Stoddart both by the way) yet you want me to draw a general conclusion about the efficacy of the Council at large from the activities of Councillor Hall??? Sorry, time for a guffaw. By the same analogy, Cllrs Stoddart and Williams (et al) are in danger of being tarred with the Hall brush. Priceless.
But…are you hinting at a conspiracy with the law enforcers?
Now, the example of the CEO at Caerphilly is a fascinating one. Can we assume that our guardians, Williams and Stoddart have assured themselves that there has been no similar inappropriate action locally (ie being involved in the discussions on one’s own pay and even preparing the report on which the decision was based)? Now that COULD be interesting and in the light of the recent loud noise over the Caerphilly issue, any independent Councillor worth his salt and with one eye on blog popularity will have seen the potential here and covered it. Jacob? Particularly as there have been recent adverse comments on here about the Council’s own pay and grading exercise…
Indeed Welshman. Nobody’s immune from investigation, it just seems that some are immune from prosecution despite the evidence.
Spot on again, PR.
The message to voters seems clear – if you want any chance of anything being spent on your patch vote for the IPPG candidate.